No, take a look at the content. There are some MINOR tweeks to the challenges. other than that its all content that is available on single player mode. The new characters are recycled skins from the story mode, the weapon upgrades are just the third upgrade from single player. The 20 new character ranks take no extra coding either. what exactly did they slave over that we owe them more money for?
Oh, that's totally retarded. Never mind then. I thought they actually put something new in it. :(
Yet another reason no one should buy this POS game. I believe this is only the second time that someone other than EA has pulled this shit (The first, if I remember correctly, being Katamari Forever). There is no excuse for this. Anything developed before a disc is pressed is part of the game and shouldn't be charged extra for later. This is the VERY slippery slope of DLC where the original concept of GT5 (it was going to ship with 1 track and 5 cars, everything else was going to have to be bought as DLC) is just around the corner. On the other hand, no one should be buying Bioshock 2 anyway, so it shouldn't really matter. This is already becoming the year to destroy franchises: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy, etc. At this rate I'm REALLY scared of what RB/GH is going to do... I can see it now: Natal air guitar.
You make a valid point, but I must disagree—Pepsi sucks.
killmak: DrJ079: So it would make you feel differently if they held back the content and then forced you to put it on your hard drive instead? How about if they charged you $80 instead and had all of the content unlocked for you, even if you didn't really care about the $20 in extras? What exactly do you want here - them to give you $80 worth of content for $60 because that's what you feel like paying for it? Do you feel they're obligated to give you 20 oz of pepsi for a 12 oz price because they make video games rather than soft drinks? It is the fact that they already put the content on the disc and then charged you to unlock it that is the problem. If the DLC is done before the game is released and is done in time to put on the disc then why wasnt it part of the game to begin with? DLC is something that should not be in the disc and its title of Downloadable Content is a lie when the content is already there and doesnt need to be downloaded. Since the content was already on the disc I would say they gave you $60 worth of content but only let you use the last bit of the content if you paid them money to unlock that part of the disc.
DrJ079: So it would make you feel differently if they held back the content and then forced you to put it on your hard drive instead? How about if they charged you $80 instead and had all of the content unlocked for you, even if you didn't really care about the $20 in extras? What exactly do you want here - them to give you $80 worth of content for $60 because that's what you feel like paying for it? Do you feel they're obligated to give you 20 oz of pepsi for a 12 oz price because they make video games rather than soft drinks?
So it would make you feel differently if they held back the content and then forced you to put it on your hard drive instead?
How about if they charged you $80 instead and had all of the content unlocked for you, even if you didn't really care about the $20 in extras?
What exactly do you want here - them to give you $80 worth of content for $60 because that's what you feel like paying for it? Do you feel they're obligated to give you 20 oz of pepsi for a 12 oz price because they make video games rather than soft drinks?
It is the fact that they already put the content on the disc and then charged you to unlock it that is the problem. If the DLC is done before the game is released and is done in time to put on the disc then why wasnt it part of the game to begin with? DLC is something that should not be in the disc and its title of Downloadable Content is a lie when the content is already there and doesnt need to be downloaded. Since the content was already on the disc I would say they gave you $60 worth of content but only let you use the last bit of the content if you paid them money to unlock that part of the disc.
It is my understanding that premium components for windows vista/7 are included on each version's disc. You are ultimately purchasing a key to unlock the features relative to the key. This is no different IMO. I'm not aware of any complaints towards microsoft regarding this specifically.
DLC should be viewed as extra or "premium" content and NOT as an after thought. Software developers have every right to set the price for what they feel their content is worth, whether on a physical media or not. We as consumers have every right to decide whether the content is worth that price. I personally would rather not pay the premium costs up front and decide whether it's worth it later.
Furthermore, anything that is already on the disc shouldn't technically be referred to as DLC (unless you are strictly referring to the unlock code) :P
I can not believe I agree with DrJ!
Simple thing - if you do not like their DLC or the manner in which they are selling/making it... do not purchase it. Speaking with your wallet will get far more done than speaking with your keyboard.
I have no problems with companies for profit doing this to... WAIT FOR IT.... make profit, especially since the used market hits their bottom line.
Goozex Forum Moderator
mafafu: I can not believe I agree with DrJ! Simple thing - if you do not like their DLC or the manner in which they are selling/making it... do not purchase it. Speaking with your wallet will get far more done than speaking with your keyboard. I have no problems with companies for profit doing this to... WAIT FOR IT.... make profit, especially since the used market hits their bottom line.
Funny this is that I kind of agree that it DLC sucks. I don't buy any because I don't see the value in almost any of it - I think I've spent maybe $20 in the last 3 1/2 years on it. But I'm not going to complain because they didn't give it to me for free either.
This isn't anything new for them either. They milked the PS3 release of Bioshock as well, charging a full $60 at release for a poorly done port of year old content. They certainly didn't put "$60 of effort" into that port. And they made extra stuff that was available at the time of the port DLC as well. If that made them good money by doing this, more power to them. I enjoyed the game and am glad they released it on PS3 no matter how they marketed and charged for it.
bort3000:It is my understanding that premium components for windows vista/7 are included on each version's disc. You are ultimately purchasing a key to unlock the features relative to the key. This is no different IMO. I'm not aware of any complaints towards microsoft regarding this specifically.
Oh that WAS a huge debate. There was also the whole thing about the "upgrade" version of windows containing the full version of the software too. Microsoft ultimately had to concede that people could install whatever they wanted using what was available on the disk as long as they didn't alter the code to do so. If you buy the basic version of windows 7upgrade edition you can do a command line install on a clean system and get the business premium install. Microsoft wont try to prosecute they just wont provide any support for it.
bort3000:DLC should be viewed as extra or "premium" content and NOT as an after thought. Software developers have every right to set the price for what they feel their content is worth, whether on a physical media or not. We as consumers have every right to decide whether the content is worth that price. I personally would rather not pay the premium costs up front and decide whether it's worth it later.
The only problem with this is that now the developers are, instead of making great products, are making them just good enough to justify the price. Game development was heading into the realm of art. Developers tested the limits of the media format and the hardware to WOW us. Now they just push out crap one piece at a time. $100 later you have your WOW factor.
Hurray for weak arguments!
ProTip: Check out www.crushfragdestroy.com for game-related news, reviews and more.
mafafu: Simple thing - if you do not like their DLC or the manner in which they are selling/making it... do not purchase it. Speaking with your wallet will get far more done than speaking with your keyboard. I have no problems with companies for profit doing this to... WAIT FOR IT.... make profit, especially since the used market hits their bottom line.
I did one better, I didnt buy the DLC it then I canceled out the revenue they made from my original purchase by trading it here.
You shouldnt take advantage of your customers willingness to pay..its just bad form and in other retail areas it is actually illegal. You cant tripple the price of gas, generators, food or fresh water after a disaster. Even if people are willing to pay $20/gal for gas the govt will step in and make you sell it at a fair price. Its probably a bad example because those are far more important goods than a video game, but the point still stands that using the excuse "because we can" is a horrible business practice.
Robstein: Hurray for weak arguments!
from the guy without one. Ur entitled to an opinion but HAVE ONE before you down someone else's.
vmcintos: mafafu: Simple thing - if you do not like their DLC or the manner in which they are selling/making it... do not purchase it. Speaking with your wallet will get far more done than speaking with your keyboard. I have no problems with companies for profit doing this to... WAIT FOR IT.... make profit, especially since the used market hits their bottom line. I did one better, I didnt buy the DLC it then I canceled out the revenue they made from my original purchase by trading it here. You shouldnt take advantage of your customers willingness to pay..its just bad form and in other retail areas it is actually illegal. You cant tripple the price of gas, generators, food or fresh water after a disaster. Even if people are willing to pay $20/gal for gas the govt will step in and make you sell it at a fair price. Its probably a bad example because those are far more important goods than a video game, but the point still stands that using the excuse "because we can" is a horrible business practice.
Well, since you want to compare video games to gasoline, food, and everything else let me ask you this.
In 1990, how much did the following items cost?
1) A gallon of milk
2) A gallon of gasoline
3) A Honda Civic
4) A Super Nintendo
5) A Super Nintendo new release
And in 2010, how much do the following items cost?
4) A Playstation 3
5) A Playstation 3 new release.
In 1990, they had to WOW you to justify taking your $50. There was a far smaller market, that was large amount of money, and they had to make the game WOW to justify getting that from you. As their markets expand and they can deliver this content to you more cheaply, they are. To remain competitive they have to. That's what capitalism is all about. And here you guys are still crying about the $5 they are charging for some content.
vmcintos: Robstein: Hurray for weak arguments! from the guy without one. Ur entitled to an opinion but HAVE ONE before you down someone else's.
Okay, how about this? They made the game, therefore they can do whatever they want with its distribution and post-release support.
You, on the other hand, did not make the game. Therefore all you can do is either buy it and/or the "extra" content, or not. Oh, and you also have the choice to cry about it on the internet like the thousands/millions of other self-entitled video game enthusiasts.
Funny thing, calling an argument weak is an opinion. So I guess I already had one in the first place, huh?
EDIT: I remember paying around $80 for Super Mario RPG brand new from Toys R' Us. I've never agreed with the "Mah gaem cost $60 dollurz!!!!!" complaints.
DrJ079: Well, since you want to compare video games to gasoline, food, and everything else let me ask you this. In 1990, how much did the following items cost? 1) A gallon of milk 2) A gallon of gasoline 3) A Honda Civic 4) A Super Nintendo 5) A Super Nintendo new release And in 2010, how much do the following items cost? 1) A gallon of milk 2) A gallon of gasoline 3) A Honda Civic 4) A Playstation 3 5) A Playstation 3 new release. In 1990, they had to WOW you to justify taking your $50. There was a far smaller market, that was large amount of money, and they had to make the game WOW to justify getting that from you. As their markets expand and they can deliver this content to you more cheaply, they are. To remain competitive they have to. That's what capitalism is all about. And here you guys are still crying about the $5 they are charging for some content.
Oh come on...that argument is nullified by the fact that video game prices have gone up as well. Sure, back when granpa was buying milk for 25 cents he could go play pinball for a nickel. I pay almost $3 form my milk and games cost $60 for a stripped down version. Too many variables there for you to make that point. Is it the development cost, inflation, competition...
Robstein:Funny thing, calling an argument weak is an opinion. So I guess I already had one in the first place, huh?
Well joining a thread to make a comment that has nothing to do with the subject is just flaming. You commented on a comment in a manner that had nothing to do with Bioshock 2 or DLC in general. Just pointing out that an argument is weak without even justifying the statement is weak.