Bioshock 2 DLC was already included on the disk...

Also, technology has gone by a "more for less" price progression. The costs generally go down relative to other goods and services while the quality and features increase. The first mobile phone I ever owned cost me $4000 and was the size of a shoe box. No texting, no color screen, no data plan.

My first computer was $2400 and didnt even have a hard drive. Video games used to follow this same trend. NeoGeo games were nearly $200 each. Its only now because of DLC and these shady business practices that video games are becoming the lone example in electronics/tech. 

vmcintos:

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...

No, the argument is not nullified. Proportionally, video game prices haven't gone up anywhere near as much as food, gas, etc... Not to mention the games are not "stripped down." The fact that your game doesn't come with the +1 Green Rifle doesn't mean you've been gypped. It just means you don't have the stupid rifle.

Although I like how buying a version of a game that's missing several elements was just fine back in 1996, but now it's taboo.

              

 

 

 

EDIT: Calling peoples' arguments "weak" has everything to do with the subject at hand. Stop grasping at straws.

I am anti DLC and I have never paid for a DLC unless it is free.

In my opinion they should have included the DLC code for BioShock 2 for people who buy a new copy. The would have sold more new copies that way and would have had a bigger market for upcoming DLCs.

Sucks

ZitterZap:

I am anti DLC and I have never paid for a DLC unless it is free.

In my opinion they should have included the DLC code for BioShock 2 for people who buy a new copy. The would have sold more new copies that way and would have had a bigger market for upcoming DLCs.

Sucks

I wholeheartedly endorse that sort of DLC practice. I think Bioware has the right idea with the free DLC included with new copies, leaving it up to those who purchase used games to decide if they want to pay for the extra content separately.

vmcintos:

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...

You've got to be kidding me - you're comparing the purchase of a game for your home to a single play at an arcade?    How ridiculous can you be?   The earliest real basis for comparison you have here is the Atari 2600, and that console cost $199 at release and stayed over $100 for quite some time.   The games were probably about $30.   And now you're going back to about 1980.   It cost .25 to play a game in the arcade at this point.  We had to lend games back and forth to neighbors to be able to play stuff because $30 was a friggin heck of a lot of money back then.   You couldn't tell your parents you wanted Donkey Kong and Frogger, you were gonna get laughed at.   Fact is that these prices have remained relatively flat while inflation has pushed the price of everything else through the roof.   And here you guys still cry about a couple of dollars.

Notice I said relative. Game prices havnt changed much while everything else has...you pretty much made my point for me. While game prices have been flat the features have increased. Milk goes up in price although it is subsidized by the govt and hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. The pinball example was just to make the point that there are too many variables to try to attribute gaming prices to a single factor. You could argue that a game cost 5 cents way back when because the norm was to go to an arcade to play. The whole environment changes not just devel costs. But like I said before, we typically get more for less...so YES we are self entitled brats but we are a product of the actions of the very people that are accusing us of it. U'll have to excuse the grammar and typos. I'm doing this on a blackberry. That also means I'll be afk for a while.

I know this is a very good way for developers and publishers to make more money, but I wish they could be like Valve and give the updates way for free(although i know that doesn't happen on Xbox live).  It just seems to hurt the gamers IMO.  I have RE 5 and i never bought the VS mode just because it was on the disk.  I bought both the new add ons, but those were new things.

 

It just seems like they would rather have us suffer more than enjoy their content.

metulmike:

It just seems like they would rather have us suffer more than enjoy their content.

Or they would prefer to feed their children.

I like how if a game doesn't get any DLC, people complain about it not receiving any "support." But if DLC is released it's usually either "too soon" and therefore a shameless cash-in, or it's something that "should have been included in the first place."

Honestly, I'm surprised most developers don't just say "**** it!" and stop creating games entirely at this point.

 

 

EDIT: All the self-entitled whiners should just come out and admit what they really want: Everything should be of AAA quality, it should all be free free, and there should be more of it.

vmcintos:

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.  

Totally agree! The best approach to counter this has already been stated by 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."

However, that is a different argument than whether the content is on the disc or not. I think it is in their best interest to not include the extra content on the disc to prevent any frustration. In that case, they will just provide the same content as DLC later...6, half dozen...but it will make some people happier for sure!

 

To me this insults consumers, its something kept on a disc and hold it locked on it. And so basically u can't have it unless u pay for something that could've been nice enough to have been rewarded for doing a certain thing on the game, but no, make me pay for it?! A big F U to 2K for this. Glad I didn't pay for it, thank you Goozex :)

Robstein:

All the self-entitled whiners should just come out and admit what they really want: Everything should be of AAA quality, it should all be free free, and there should be more of it

You finally get it.  Yes, if you charge $60 for a game it should be AAA quality. If you are going to design games for a $600 game system then the games should push the limits of the system...at least fill up the disk. And no they dont have to be free but you should recoup your costs by selling tons of new copies, not selling us the pieces that you intentially left out.

 Once again, its not about getting everything for free. Its about putting all the cards on the table. Dont charge us just because you can. Design something that adds another 15 hours of gameplay, write a new story arch, implement MAJOR  features that the fans have suggested. (IE the storage locker in Borderlands) This even applies to MP updates, consider the COD WAW map packs.

 This crap doesnt fly as readily with PC games as much because the PC community can develop their own FREE DLC in many cases. So software companies tend to be SLIGHTLY more humble when it comes to customer relations and a lot more ambitious with what they try to pass off as DLC.  A good example is how the L4D DLC was free for PC gamers but  cost MSP on XBOX. Another example is the list of free addons available for the PC version of Oblivion. This is why I'm so surprised that they did this for the PC version of Bioshock 2 as well.

Entitlement is a bitch, isn't it?

vmcintos:

You finally get it.  Yes, if you charge $60 for a game it should be AAA quality. If you are going to design games for a $600 game system then the games should push the limits of the system...at least fill up the disk. And no they dont have to be free but you should recoup your costs by selling tons of new copies, not selling us the pieces that you intentially left out.

No. Just... no.

$60 for a game is $10 more than they used to cost. $10. Proportionally speaking that cost should be much, much higher. By the same token, the amount of work that goes into games (on average) is much, much greater than before. So it comes back to a bunch of whiny little pansies wanting a whole lot more for less than anyone in their right mind would charge.

Points of note: 1) If a game "fills up the disk," that doesn't automatically mean it's going to be good, much less great. Also, the amount of storage space used does not equate to the overall value of your purchase. Unless you're the kind of tool who spends $300 on a half-ton of bananas at Costco simply because it technically means you've saved money. Even though you would have saved more money if you just bought the single bunch for $1.
2) Pushing the limits of the system also doesn't mean a damn thing with regards to the overall quality of the experience and the total value of the game. More than likely you'll just find yourself with a very expensive and pointless tech demo.

 

vmcintos:

 Once again, its not about getting everything for free. Its about putting all the cards on the table. Dont charge us just because you can. Design something that adds another 15 hours of gameplay, write a new story arch, implement MAJOR  features that the fans have suggested. (IE the storage locker in Borderlands) This even applies to MP updates, consider the COD WAW map packs.

Yes it is. All these spoiled snots want is something for less, or preferably nothing. It's as simple as that. If a developer were to create this extra content that adds 15 hours to the game, new features, etc... you'd all bitch about it costing a whopping $10. Then start running your mouths (or fingers) about how it should either be free, or have been in the game in the first place. And don't even try to say that's not how it would go, because everyone here knows that's exactly what would happen.