DrJ079:Great, so when Bioshock 3 rolls out you'll be willing to add all of these in for them for free, correct?
Yeah, especially if its just a checksum that unlocks it. I would do it for free. ABSOLUTELY
vmcintos: DrJ079:Great, so when Bioshock 3 rolls out you'll be willing to add all of these in for them for free, correct? Yeah, especially if its just a checksum that unlocks it. I would do it for free. ABSOLUTELY
No, I mean the extra content being unlocked. Like new characters, extra challenges, and things of this nature. You're going to create these for free, correct?
vmcintos:Great, so when Bioshock 3 rolls out you'll be willing to add all of these in for them for free, correct?
Maybe I wasnt clear...now to beat a dead horse...
Most of the stuff that is considered DLC are already available to you in single player mode. The developers already coded it and considered it to be worth $60. The "DLC" is a small snippet of code that tells the software to remove the flag that prevents you from using those features in MP. They actually had to do MORE work to make it unavailable than if they had just included the content with the release. This is not the case of paying the developers for their hard work. Its the developers working harder to make sure we pay extra.
Alright, you guys have convinced me. I'm not going to trade 1000 points for this game anymore.
The little bit that was actually extra content was minimal, and would not be worth $5 if sold alone.
DrJ079: Alright, you guys have convinced me. I'm not going to trade 1000 points for this game anymore.
Its worth 1000 points all day, 2k doesnt see a dime of that so trade away . I say that with noting to gain. I shipped off my copy to a buyer this afternoon.
vmcintos: DrJ079: Alright, you guys have convinced me. I'm not going to trade 1000 points for this game anymore. Its worth 1000 points all day, 2k doesnt see a dime of that so trade away . I say that with noting to gain. I shipped off my copy to a buyer this afternoon.
Which makes this discussion all the more amusing. A bunch of people that don't even pay these guys the $60 for most of our video games complaining about them having the nerve to charge for something. :)
DrJ079:Which makes this discussion all the more amusing. A bunch of people that don't even pay these guys the $60 for most of our video games complaining about them having the nerve to charge for something. :)
Well...not me. I pre-ordered my game from the Devil...err I mean Gamestop.
I would be ok if they did like EA and gave it away to gamers that purchased new copies. Then its not them being greedy, its them trying to cash in on the used market. They are actually rewarding loyal customers.
Maybe it's just me but I don't see why DLC that puts lackluster stuff in a lackluster online mode is worth raging over. Call me when they hold back important single player stuff.
TenTonHammer23: Maybe it's just me but I don't see why DLC that puts lackluster stuff in a lackluster online mode is worth raging over. Call me when they hold back important single player stuff.
Well I guess this wouldn't affect you one way or another... but your lack of an opinion is duly noted.
I don't follow. The DLC hate is based on when they finished it? So, like, it's worth $5 if they finish it late, but not worth $5 if they finish it on schedule?
Of course they plan out the DLC well before they finish the game. I'm willing to bet most games' DLC is fully designed and spec'ed out in the first year of development. It's not an afterthought, like "oh hey, this game is selling great, get all the developers together so we can slap together some DLC real quick!" They want the DLC out a month or two after launch, which means it's all in production well before the game ships. No significant game content worth paying for is ever developed in a month (unless it's something like "enables XYZ in multiplayer" when XYZ already exists in single player, but that's not really content so much as an unlock).
So we arbitrarily punish the companies that do us a favor and save us a gigabyte of HD space by putting the assets on the disc? How is that a good idea? I am really enjoying Assassin's Creed 2, but it's taking 2GB of space above and beyond its 1GB install size just for the two DLC items. How is that a good thing?
Did not read this thread, this sort of thing is as old as DLC itself. BIoshock 2 was a cheap cash in on the success of the first (which was a pretty cheap cash in in every department except art and storyline) so I don't see how anyone would be slightly surprised by such blatant extortion.
On a mostly unrelated note, I like Bioware's DLC for Mass Effect 2. Free for new purchases, $15 for people who got it new. Reward people who support you instead of treating them like criminals. Even if I dislike the concept of stripping a game's features down, I admire their slightly more progressive corporate philosophy. I'll be damned if I ever say that about an EA subsidiary again.
StilesCrisis:unless it's something like "enables XYZ in multiplayer" when XYZ already exists in single player, but that's not really content so much as an unlock
This is exactly the situation that we are talking about here. So which side are you arguing?
I dont have a problem with DLC. I dont even have a problem with putting it on the disk in certain situations. If you develope a game with 50+ hours of gameplay in single player mode then want to charge me $5 to unlock the MP that was included on the disk...jerk move but its worth it. I got my 50 hours for the original purchase price. I would have passed on the MP for bioshock 2 anyway. I would rather them have given me all the single player content and made the MP optional. Instead they give us part of everything and make us pay to get the full experience that was all written as one cohesive unit. DLC should be something OUTSIDE of that cohesive unit. you shouldnt feel like you are missing anything from the original content.
vmcintos: StilesCrisis:unless it's something like "enables XYZ in multiplayer" when XYZ already exists in single player, but that's not really content so much as an unlock This is exactly the situation that we are talking about here. So which side are you arguing?
No, it's not. Implementing the new stuff in this DLC was more than just adding a few "if" statements to the code. They needed designers, artists, modelers, programmers, etc. to do it. When I said "unlock" above, I was talking about trivial things like in Madden where you can buy a $2 DLC to keep your quarterback alive for an extra season or something. No programming/design effort, just an obvious money grab.
In terms of bits and bytes, yes, they are selling you a magic code that "unlocks" the data on the disc. But in terms of actual content, it's not that they are "unlocking" some feature that they already had sitting around anyway. They are selling you real content that cost real money to make, real artists and level designers had to code, and took real time in the schedule to develop. The only difference is whether it sits on a DVD or on your HD. And frankly customers are better off if it's on the DVD.
Assassin's Creed 2 was a similar scenario--they withheld two memories from the game and sold them to customers later at $4 a pop. It's known that they originally intended to ship them with the game and then decided to do DLC instead. I bought both; they eat 2GB on my HD. Would I rather have just paid $8 to unlock that same data on the disc? You bet. I'd have 2GB more space on my HD, and there's really no downside :)