On DLC

[finalark]

Link to original post: [drupal=3186]On DLC[/drupal]



So yeah, here's another blog about me addressing (or complaining about) another thing I find to be an issue in the gaming world these days. And today's subject is DLC, or Downloadable Content.

Now don't get me wrong, DLC itself is not a bad thing, in my book DLC is pretty much the new expansion pack. But what I want to address is when developers use DLC the wrong way. The first way that DLC is used wrong these days is launch-day DLC. Before all of you get at my throat, here me out. Imagine this, you're hungry so you take a stop at burger place and you see a cheese burger combo on the menu for only five bucks. Alright, that's not a bad price, so you order the cheese burger combo, only to find that you were charged eight bucks instead of five because you had to pay two extra dollars for the cheese on your cheese burger. This is what launch day DLC is like, and you could use the excuse that developers need time to get the DLC prepared so why not do it while they're making the game, right? Well to that I said that if you have the time to make all of the DLC and put it out on the same day that the game launches then you should just put it on the disk. And if you really wanted to defend it you could respond with, "well what if they had a lot of content that they just couldn't fit onto the disk?" And my response to that is, "there's a reason why the PlayStation 1 Final Fantasies came on multiple disks, kids." Yes, that dying art of "punting content onto multiple disks" has unfortunately reached its current status because developers would rather just nickle-and-dime us rather than just stick the content onto second disk.

Now the second problem is something that I think we can all agree on as being messed up, when a developer does put the content onto the disk, but then charges you extra so that you can access it. That's like being charged extra for your fries twice because the guy forgot to put them into your meal in the first place. Come on, if I payed sixty bucks for a game then I want to be able to use all sixty dollars worth of content that you charged me for you stupid game in the first place. Gah! Being nickled and dimed to death seriously bugs the hell out of me, this is probably why I almost never buy DLC.

And the final problem for tonight's rant is when you spent sixty of your hard-earned dollars on a brand-new game only to find that the game feels like it's half-finished, then a few months later the company puts out the rest of the game as DLC, and charges you for it.

I could go on, but I think I got my points across

 

[Grunt]

if I payed sixty bucks for a game then I want to be able to use all sixty dollars worth of content that you charged me for you stupid game in the first place.

you're implying that the game without the "already on the disc" DLC is not worth the $60.

so because developers saved time and money by not having everyone on the planet download the expansion at the same time, you think we're entitled to the DLC because it was already on the disc? A better analogy would be buying a fast food combo, getting the combo, but having a locked box inside your bag. the server will take your money to open it, but you weren't charged for it in the first place since you already payed an amount you thought was fair for the combo listed (which did not include the locked box).

I don't see how it negatively impacts anyone, developers save time and money, and you get the DLC faster because you don't have to DL the whole thing, just an key to unlock the content.

 

[Lurker guy]

[has a feeling that this blog was inspired by the $15 DLC for 5 MW2 Maps][/]

 

[Jimnymebob]

I've only bought one piece of DLC, which is above, but seriously, look at it. It is adorable.
That being said, for 400 MS Points (not sure how much that is in money), you can unlock all tracks and characters on Sonic and SEGA All Stars Racing.

But yeah, having to pay for DLC is annoying in the majority of cases, unless it is adding major features to the game, which will give you more reason to play.

 

[highfive]

I've only bought one piece of DLC, which is above, but seriously, look at it. It is adorable.
That being said, for 400 MS Points (not sure how much that is in money), you can unlock all tracks and characters on Sonic and SEGA All Stars Racing.

But yeah, having to pay for DLC is annoying in the majority of cases, unless it is adding major features to the game, which will give you more reason to play.

Not gonna lie. Very cute.

And yes, DLC is quite ********. For instance, Mega Man 9 has an entire level you can download. And the ******** thing is that it's more fun and challenging then the actual levels.

And anyone else remember when you had to beat the game in order to unlock characters?

 

[Lurker guy]

This thread reminds me why I love Valve.

 

[finalark]

[has a feeling that this blog was inspired by the $15 DLC for 5 MW2 Maps][/]

I don't like Call of Duty, it was actually inspired by the "on the disk" "DLC" in Bioshock 2. Seriously, if it's already on the disk then why the hell should I have to pay more money to acess it?

 

[Grunt]

because you already figured the original content was worth the price.

 

[finalark]

because you already figured the original content was worth the price.

Here, let me spell it out....

you're implying that the game without the "already on the disc" DLC is not worth the $60.

No, I'm saying that if I'm paying money for a game then I'd like to acess everything on the sixty-dollar disk I just bought.

so because developers saved time and money by not having everyone on the planet download the expansion at the same time,

Expantion packs are released well after the original came out, and expands on them. Putting content on the disk and not letting us acess it is not expanding the game, it's just letting you acess something you already bought.

you think we're entitled to the DLC because it was already on the disc?

It's not downloadable content if I don't have to download it. And yes, I do.

A better analogy would be buying a fast food combo, getting the combo, but having a locked box inside your bag. the server will take your money to open it, but you weren't charged for it in the first place since you already payed an amount you thought was fair for the combo listed (which did not include the locked box).

I see what you're getting at, but I still disagree.

I don't see how it negatively impacts anyone, developers save time and money, and you get the DLC faster because you don't have to DL the whole thing, just an key to unlock the content.

It negatively impacts the consumer because we have to pay for something that we technecally already purchased. It just lets the developers nickle-and-dime us to death forcing us to pay for content on the disk that we already purchased. Sure, I don't have to donwload anything but I'd much rather be allowed to use everything on the disk rather than having to pay for something already in my possesstion.

 

[Insetick]

I miss the days before DLC. Devs used to spend a lot of resources trying to make their games perfect for launch. This is partly why I've stuck to Nintendo- PC, Xbox, and PS3 game devs can slack off and just say, "we'll fix everything up later with a patch. Or DLC and make it cost money!"

I blame this on graphics. I think devs spend too much money on graphics for (as an example) 360 games. More of their resources should be spent on game quality and content rather than graphics.

Graphically, Wii games don't compare at ALL to the 360. However, this means that devs can spend their resources on playtesting and such rather than making intense graphics, physics, and optimizing. Unfortunately, Wii has a lot of shovelware, which sort of parallels the other consoles' issues with DLC.