The DLC "Slippery Slope"

[rocket_thumped]

The DLC "Slippery Slope"

When the whole process feels like paying for the milk when you’ve already invested in the cow, however, gamers sour to the prospect of spending their money.

This is pretty bothersome to me. In my opinion, if the shit was made within the original production window of the base game it should be included with them game. But the most startling is that 2K put the shit on the disk. ON THE FUCKING disk. If I'm paying fucking 60 dollars for a disk I want to be able to play everything on it. Discuss.

[SlappyMcGee]

The DLC "Slippery Slope"

When the whole process feels like paying for the milk when you’ve already invested in the cow, however, gamers sour to the prospect of spending their money.

This is pretty bothersome to me. In my opinion, if the shit was made within the original production window of the base game it should be included with them game. But the most startling is that 2K put the shit on the disk. ON THE FUCKING disk. If I'm paying fucking 60 dollars for a disk I want to be able to play everything on it. Discuss.

I think people who are complaining about this kind of thing do not have a good understanding of the economics surrounding this sort of exchange.

When you purchase a video game, you are not purchasing the rights to all parts of a physical disc. You are purchasing a long string of code in the medium that is a DVD or a blu-ray or a CD-ROM. It's the responsibility of the publisher to make sure that you get the code that you paid for. When you enter into this agreement, you are not necessarily purchasing every bit of code on the disc. Take, for example, a country where multiplayer for a certain hypothetical game is not allowed. They can sell you the same product, even though, so long as you are in that country, you will not be allowed to participate in multiplayer.

The fact of the matter is, DLC is only extra content on top of what a game already is. When you evaluate a game, you do not evaluate all of the code on the disc. (Man, have you played Arkham Asylum? Fucking great code, dude.) You're evaluating a play experience. That play experience can be an average length, can deliver an average amount of fun, and can be measured in many different ways. This is what determines the game you are buying.

Let me try and elaborate a little more on that: When you buy a game, you are not paying for the amount of time spent on game development. Nor are you paying for the amount of code in the game. You are buying the experience that can be as short as six hours and as long as 300 hours (or longer, if you look at David's TF2 stats.) That experience is determined by the developers. Just like you do not pay for movies based on development time or the amount of people who worked on a film. Do you determine whether or not to go see a film if it is particularly long or short? Maybe, but the cost stays the same.

All of this is to say that, ultimately, these fictional rights that you've invented in your mind are a) not legal rights and b) not necessarily moral rights, either. If you had done some research, you would know the game you are buying when you buy it. The fact that other parts of the game were developed at the same time and will be released at another cost does not affect the experience you've purchased.

If I have any qualm with the developers here, it's that DLC-on-the-disc should not be named DLC, and that is, at current, done for publishing reasons, and how there are certain fees associated with the various systems used to distribute games associated with non-DLC content.

[smartalco]

I entirely agree with Slaps here. People constantly attempt to treat the video game industry as a product industry when it really shouldn't. It is much closer to a service industry. This is also why I get pissed when other people are pissed they can't resell games on Steam. Duh. You, as the consumer, are paying for the experience, not the circular piece of plastic it comes on. If history was rewritten to where, somehow, interactive entertainment hadn't been invented until the internet was in full swing, you wouldn't have ever had a physical part to hang on to in the first place.

[rocket_thumped]

I think people who are complaining about this kind of thing do not have a good understanding of the economics surrounding this sort of exchange.

When you purchase a video game, you are not purchasing the rights to all parts of a physical disc. You are purchasing a long string of code in the medium that is a DVD or a blu-ray or a CD-ROM. It's the responsibility of the publisher to make sure that you get the code that you paid for. When you enter into this agreement, you are not necessarily purchasing every bit of code on the disc. Take, for example, a country where multiplayer for a certain hypothetical game is not allowed. They can sell you the same product, even though, so long as you are in that country, you will not be allowed to participate in multiplayer.

The fact of the matter is, DLC is only extra content on top of what a game already is. When you evaluate a game, you do not evaluate all of the code on the disc. (Man, have you played Arkham Asylum? Fucking great code, dude.) You're evaluating a play experience. That play experience can be an average length, can deliver an average amount of fun, and can be measured in many different ways. This is what determines the game you are buying.

Let me try and elaborate a little more on that: When you buy a game, you are not paying for the amount of time spent on game development. Nor are you paying for the amount of code in the game. You are buying the experience that can be as short as six hours and as long as 300 hours (or longer, if you look at David's TF2 stats.) That experience is determined by the developers. Just like you do not pay for movies based on development time or the amount of people who worked on a film. Do you determine whether or not to go see a film if it is particularly long or short? Maybe, but the cost stays the same.

All of this is to say that, ultimately, these fictional rights that you've invented in your mind are a) not legal rights and b) not necessarily moral rights, either. If you had done some research, you would know the game you are buying when you buy it. The fact that other parts of the game were developed at the same time and will be released at another cost does not affect the experience you've purchased.

If I have any qualm with the developers here, it's that DLC-on-the-disc should not be named DLC, and that is, at current, done for publishing reasons, and how there are certain fees associated with the various systems used to distribute games associated with non-DLC content.

Well yeah, obviously. But whether it is right or wrong, it feels low to put content on a disk and then make people spend 10 more bucks to play it on top of the 60 dollars they've already invested.

[SlappyMcGee]

Well yeah, obviously. But whether it is right or wrong, it feels low to put content on a disk and then make people spend 10 more bucks to play it on top of the 60 dollars they've already invested.

I'm not sure what "feels low" or "invested" mean here. I think it seems perfectly reasonable, especially for, once again, people in countries where they have bad internet connections. This means an expanded game experience without even having to download anything, which they would not have been capable of doing. Or people with bandwith caps. There are a million situations where including extra to-pay-for content on the disc is beneficial for the consumer of the product, and zero where it is not. (The only one I can think of is operating under the notion that if this content had not been there, extra free content would have been in it's place. Which is just sadly untrue. Developers design DLC at the same time as their games to maximize profits, and purposefully allocate extra resources because DLC can yield a good bit of extra money to an industry that is struggling, to be frank.)

[rocket_thumped]

I think it seems perfectly reasonable, especially for, once again, people in countries where they have bad internet connections. This means an expanded game experience without even having to download anything, which they would not have been capable of doing.

Naw, mane. I have no idea what you mean here.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think it seems perfectly reasonable, especially for, once again, people in countries where they have bad internet connections. This means an expanded game experience without even having to download anything, which they would not have been capable of doing.

Naw, mane. I have no idea what you mean here.

All right, well, it is in plain English.

[rocket_thumped]

I think it seems perfectly reasonable, especially for, once again, people in countries where they have bad internet connections. This means an expanded game experience without even having to download anything, which they would not have been capable of doing.

Naw, mane. I have no idea what you mean here.

All right, well, it is in plain English.

How do countries with bad internet connections get an expanded game play experience? They still have to download the key with the rest of us.

[a happy song]

He means that DLC on disc is more easily accessible to areas with awful internet connections. Also it's obviously better for areas with ZERO internet connection.

DLC is a good thing when done right. However, I do think that gamers will be taken advantage of at times and asked to pay for content that could easily have been included in the original release. I'm pretty sure there are a few execs rubbing there hands a little at the prospects.

However, I doubt it's going to become any kind of pandemic. What concerns me more is the inevitable (or are we there already?) dominance of digital distribution allowing developers to release games in a beta state promising to patch as they go, snatching the money, and making little further effort.

That and the ridiculous measures developers are going to to secure their games against piracy at the cost of user comfort.

[SlappyMcGee]

He means that DLC on disc is more easily accessible to areas with awful internet connections. Also it's obviously better for areas with ZERO internet connection.

DLC is a good thing when done right. However, I do think that gamers will be taken advantage of at times and asked to pay for content that could easily have been included in the original release. I'm pretty sure there are a few execs rubbing there hands a little at the prospects.

However, I doubt it's going to become any kind of pandemic. What concerns me more is the inevitable (or are we there already?) dominance of digital distribution allowing developers to release games in a beta state promising to patch as they go, snatching the money, and making little further effort.

That and the ridiculous measures developers are going to to secure their games against piracy at the cost of user comfort.

Yeah, for every horse armor there is a Sniper/Spy update.

I should say what really concerns me about PC gaming. The increase of Beta's in lew of demos.

[rocket_thumped]

He means that DLC on disc is more easily accessible to areas with awful internet connections. Also it's obviously better for areas with ZERO internet connection.

But you can't get this shit unless you have an internet connection and buy a key. Am I not understanding what you guys are saying or what?

[smartalco]

But you can't get this shit unless you have an internet connection and buy a key. Am I not understanding what you guys are saying or what?

Forget happy's 'zero' comment, that doesn't apply. What slaps was saying is if you have say, dial-up (or equivalent speeds), you don't have to wait hours for your extra content to DL. You wait a few seconds for the key and you are set.

[a happy song]

But you can't get this shit unless you have an internet connection and buy a key. Am I not understanding what you guys are saying or what?

Forget happy's 'zero' comment, that doesn't apply. What slaps was saying is if you have say, dial-up (or equivalent speeds), you don't have to wait hours for your extra content to DL. You wait a few seconds for the key and you are set.

Oh wait, so the content needs to be activated over an internet connection?

Then yes, disregard my zero comment.

And yeh, Rocket, we meant the actual content itself on dial up and other crappy net speeds can take hours/days.

[Nexx]

DLC is a good thing when done right. However, I do think that gamers will be taken advantage of at times and asked to pay for content that could easily have been included in the original release.

That about sums up my own thoughts on the topic.

[rocket_thumped]

But you can't get this shit unless you have an internet connection and buy a key. Am I not understanding what you guys are saying or what?

Forget happy's 'zero' comment, that doesn't apply. What slaps was saying is if you have say, dial-up (or equivalent speeds), you don't have to wait hours for your extra content to DL. You wait a few seconds for the key and you are set.

Oh wait, so the content needs to be activated over an internet connection?

Then yes, disregard my zero comment.

And yeh, Rocket, we meant the actual content itself on dial up and other crappy net speeds can take hours/days.

A Happy Song, all of the shit is multiplayer, so I'd expect someone who has a connection that can handle multiplayer can handle downloading the content. I don't know, I guess that part doesn't really change the x's and y's of this issue.

[a happy song]

I think some of us are speaking in a more general sense, as in DLC on a disc as a standard and stuff.

[rocket_thumped]

I think some of us are speaking in a more general sense, as in DLC on a disc as a standard and stuff.

Yes I know. But this is the first time I've heard of such a thing happening, and the Developer stated that it was in fact because it was multiplayer that they decided to put it on the disk. Again, like previously stated, this doesn't change the main points.

[Luminaflare]

Stop acting like this is the first time this has been done, I really don't get why people are all going insane over this, it's been done before and often yet for some reason no one seems to care. What about more pressing matters like Activision charging 1200 points for 4 (5?) maps, that's $15 or £10.

[SlappyMcGee]

Stop acting like this is the first time this has been done, I really don't get why people are all going insane over this, it's been done before and often yet for some reason no one seems to care. What about more pressing matters like Activision charging 1200 points for 4 (5?) maps, that's $15 or £10.

Agreed. So long as the content is worth your money, I believe where it is is hardly relevant.

But with Activision's map exploitation? They essentially ruin the multiplayer experience for people who do not want to pony up twenty dollars.

[kai]

I entirely agree with Slaps here. People constantly attempt to treat the video game industry as a product industry when it really shouldn't. It is much closer to a service industry. This is also why I get pissed when other people are pissed they can't resell games on Steam. Duh. You, as the consumer, are paying for the experience, not the circular piece of plastic it comes on. If history was rewritten to where, somehow, interactive entertainment hadn't been invented until the internet was in full swing, you wouldn't have ever had a physical part to hang on to in the first place.

its still a product tho. yes, a non-refundable product when purchased electronically (which is stated on steam, and is a common known fact to all who have ever purchased games electronically ... at least commonly known to people who actually bother reading the EULA before purchasing) but still a product as it comes in physical form as well as virtual. i have to agree with r_t on this one, at least as far as selling half a game for 50 bucks, then throwing in extra tid bits that eventually lead up to a full game (if DLC becomes an option at all).

exhibit A: AvP

absolutely the worst letdown this year. LITERALLY half a fucking game leaving you with that "wait, thats it?" feeling.

and since its been brought up, WTF is up with internet connection being absolute necessity to play SINGLE PLAYER GAMES? games that DO NOT need internet to play?? and its only gonna get worse folks...

Stop acting like this is the first time this has been done, I really don't get why people are all going insane over this, it's been done before and often yet for some reason no one seems to care. What about more pressing matters like Activision charging 1200 points for 4 (5?) maps, that's $15 or £10.

well, excuse me for remembering the good old days of a duke nukem atomic edition and shadow warrior 2 in 1 pack for 30 bucks, or command and conquer: red alert with add ons included... or even the super fucking nintendo with TWO controllers AND copies of mario cart and mario world all in one big box for 150-200 bucks. it wasnt always like this, and maybe its because im older and i remember these things, but so should some other i see in here going "want some cheese with that whine?"

what im sick of is people going "im sick of people complaining about this" when YOU SHOULD complain because its NOT RIGHT. im not talking about no refunds on steam or any other noobish complaints like that, but more so the video game industries thinking we all went retarded in the last few years and we dont notice this shit... or that they just dont care. when games went out of date the community keep it going with mods and dlc of thier own making, private servers, and un-official patches fixing bugs that the original creators missed. so what happens when you take that power away from the community? i can answer that in two words and one number: modern warfare 2. but noooo, lets lock out the developers console and ban anyone who tries to unlock it to host custom servers. lets put a strangle hold on modders and make sure the only extra shit able to go on our games comes from us and only us, for a price. lets recycle great classics into half assed compost pile rejects and add the other half later and call it DLC.

maybe i just feel to strongly about this sort of thing or maybe everyone is just as sick of it as i am, thus the latent attitude towards the credibility of the issue. or maybe its the lack of sleep thats got me so damn irritated... who knows?

... and its 800 points per map for nazi zombies.

EDIT: an article i read prior to reading this thread: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/26/no-fu ... er-type-o/

[Luminaflare]

You missed my point, People were only complaining about bioshock 2 and "2k stealing there money" for content that "they bought" (Read the EULA, you buy a license not everything on the disc, as far as I know it's always been like this but up until this generation with DLC (yay watered down expansion packs :/) no one has ever bothered to take advantage of it before). My issue with it is people just complaining now about 2k for some random reason, capcom did the same with RE5, you had to pay for multiplayer (competitive that is) but it was only an unlock code, I've also noticed some DLC on EA games just being a 102KB unlock code, hell there's even project ten dollar (You buy the game new you get an unlock code to a DLC network (usually 1200MS points) which nets you content that was co-developed with the game but not put on the disc and then later on bits and bobs of new DLC, it was done to try and get some money back from second hand game sales). Like I said what's annoying isn't people complaining about it, it's complaining about it now when it's not pied piper company X selling you the game. Also the DLC comment was on modern warfare 2, where they had the balls to charge £10 extra for it (not sure on american price) and then charge $15 for 5 fucking maps (This DLC also removed a game mode, instead of taking away the clone team DM play list which stops you being in a party). Point is, Activision and EA do much worse yet a vast minority actually complain (And the majority of those buy the crap any ways).

Also don't get me started on Ubisoft, that's not a DLC issue that's a corporate suicide issue and/or a plan to boycott PC gaming (Either they start losing money due to people refusing to buy their games or they say "SEE OUR GAMES ARE BEING PIRATED STUPID AMOUNTS LETS ONLY DO CONSOLES" because everyone refuses to deal with bullshit DRM (example: Spore))
Incidentally my torrent of Settlers 7 finished, let's play it without stupid DRM.

[Kablizzy]

Every industry is going to be a service industry soon, if they're not already. There's no other way to make profit with the current economy.

[kai]

like i said, its only gonna get worse :/

oh well....