I was typing a reply basically in favor of on-disc dlc and I accidentally closed the tab and lost the whole post. Screw it, I'll take that as a sign.
But seriously, a game isn't a pound of bread. There's no unit of measure that constitutes a "complete" game. People act like the extra content would be included free if there was no concept of DLC, but it's just as likely that the extra content wouldn't exist. Companies are basing their budgets with X dollars toward the main game and X dollars toward the DLC, and the delivery method of the final content is irrelevant if the man-hours to make it came from a budget based on people paying extra to use it.
Of course, I prefer when DLC is actually developed later, because that allows it to be more dynamic and reactive to player feedback, or in the case of something like Rock Band, it allows the game to keep living forever. Which is cool.
Great post. It's amazing that some gamers, a group of people who are supposed to be forward-thinking as far as technology goes, think of software as loaves of bread. "IT'S LIKE BUYING A LOAF OF BREAD AND THEN GETTING HOME AND REALIZING YOU HAVE TO PAY $5 MORE FOR THE CRUST!" No, it's absolutely nothing like that you idiots.
As for on-disc DLC, who cares? You don't have a "right" to every bit of content on a disc that you buy. For example, we aren't able to access the source code of PS3 games - there are only limited areas of the software that we are able to interact with in very specific ways. Should we get up in arms about not being able to look at the source code?
And what about single-player content that might have the "true" ending, or "vital" missions that took place during the events of the full game? Isn't it unethical to charge extra money for that? No. If I buy the Complete Series Blu-Ray Collection of The Sopranos (unfortunately it doesn't exist yet) and then HBO decides to make a new Sopranos season that takes place in-between seasons 2 and 3, should I get all pissy about it and sue HBO like you morons want to do to game developers? Clearly that's ridiculous. The game you bought is still generally a complete work, and any DLC that extends the story or fills in gaps is optional gravy.
Better example - for $3, in 2012, Nintendo releases 4 new levels of Super Mario Bros. - world 4.5, that takes place between the original game's worlds 4 and 5. Do we all sue Nintendo or do we behave like adults and either pay for it or not as we see fit?
If I buy the Complete Series Blu-Ray Collection of The Sopranos (unfortunately it doesn't exist yet) and then HBO decides to make a new Sopranos season that takes place in-between seasons 2 and 3, should I get all pissy about it and sue HBO like you morons want to do to game developers?
Did anyone mention filing lawsuits against game developers?
Yeah, the analogy of a boxset doesn't really work. Basically any post-cancellation seasons wouldn't count as DLC. It's kind of saying you feel cheated because you bought the Matrix complete boxset, when there are three more in the planning (yes, they are planned), or a Pirates Complete set, or heck, the original Star Wars trilogy that would have been labeled a Star Wars Complete pack, even though years later the prequel films came out. Either most weren't planned or were planned but people count it more as sequels anyway.
No, let me put it this way.
It's like buying an instrument, let's say a guitar. Now most DLC is something like, learning material or a pick or whatever, a carrying bag to put your guitar in, totally optional. But then you have the DLC in the form of the strings. Sure you can have replacement strings, or nylon strings for your steel strings guitar (I wouldn't recommend using steel strings on your nylon guitar, it will seriously fuck up the neck), but sometimes, the one selling the guitar will not give you the strings as a standard.
That's how some DLC feels like. It's the DLC that makes the experience commplete that bothers most people. I mean, sure, multiplayer isn't something everybody uses, but by God don't make it a DLC. That's just stupid. Same goes to DLC endings. It's okay if you add side stories, but no freaking DLC endings. It's like, here's your book, but we've ripped out the last few pages. Without them the book is already good, but you'll need the extra pages to get the true ending.
As for on-disc DLC, who cares? You don't have a "right" to every bit of content on a disc that you buy.
The purpose of DLC ought to at least be to gain access to aspects of a game that were not complete by the end of the development deadline or else access to unncessary bonus material (ie. items). For a game to have completed on-disc DLC suggests that the developer is only trying to fleece the consumer for money by making them pay more than is necessary for already included content.
And don't use one single $3 DLC as an example of why people should stop complaining when, for example, Mass Effect 2's DLC includes the Kasumi character and her mission for $7; the Arrival and Overlord missions for $7 each; and Lair of the Shadow Broker for $10. This is $31 just for story-related DLC, and the Arrival mission is key to a non-DLC event in Mass Effect 3. If one were to have paid $50 for the game, they would end up paying $81 for it to get all the story.
On-disc DLC is bullshit anyway, as it is not, in fact, downloadable content.
And for those who are oblivious to the previous statement, DLC is short for downloadable content. Just need to be sure, you'll never know how many actually don't know this.
On-disc DLC is bullshit anyway, as it is not, in fact, downloadable content.
And for those who are oblivious to the previous statement, DLC is short for downloadable content. Just need to be sure, you'll never know how many actually don't know this.
Really? I thought it meant Disc Locked Content! XD
And don't use one single $3 DLC as an example of why people should stop complaining when, for example, Mass Effect 2's DLC includes the Kasumi character and her mission for $7; the Arrival and Overlord missions for $7 each; and Lair of the Shadow Broker for $10. This is $31 just for story-related DLC, and the Arrival mission is key to a non-DLC event in Mass Effect 3. If one were to have paid $50 for the game, they would end up paying $81 for it to get all the story.
Actually, it's $40 for the DLC, because it can only be bought with Bioware points, and points have to be bought in $10 chunks. You'll have points left over to use in the future, but you're still out $40 right now.
Also, consider that even now when Mass Effect 2 is $20, and goes on sale for as little as $5, that the DLC is still the exact same price as it was when it came out. This is why I will not buy ME2 until a complete edition comes out, so I don't have to deal with DLC that never goes on sale and can only be purchased with special points I can only use on DLC for a very limited library of games.
Actually, it's $40 for the DLC, because it can only be bought with Bioware points, and points have to be bought in $10 chunks. You'll have points left over to use in the future, but you're still out $40 right now.
Really? How come I can buy it on its own on the XBox then?
Also, I've said it before and I'll (no doubt) say it again - I MISS TRADITIONAL EXPANSION PACKS. Where's this generation's Opposing Force or, um... Tales of the Sword Coast? (phew, thanks figmentPez) Nowhere to be seen, that's where. The closest we got was Dragon Age Origins: Awakening. That's it. It's all DLC stuff now. That makes me a sad panda.
Really? How come I can buy it on its own on the XBox then?
Also, I've said it before and I'll (no doubt) say it again - I MISS TRADITIONAL EXPANSION PACKS. Where's this generation's Opposing Force or, um... Tales of the Sword Coast? (phew, thanks figmentPez) Nowhere to be seen, that's where. The closest we got was Dragon Age Origins: Awakening. That's it. It's all DLC stuff now. That makes me a sad panda.
I think the closest would be Bethesda's Shivering Isles for Oblivion. Also, I have a friend who is a big fan of the Total War series who is getting the new stand alone expansion for Total War: Shogun 2 so there's one that is very recent at least.
DLC are basically small chunks of content that fit into certain parts of a game, and they don't normally change gameplay mechanics.
Expansion packs were superior since they tended to ADD ONTO the experience that was currently there.
Game mechanics are expanded, altered, or added to.
Completely NEW storylines that run to the side, or after the main campaign.
DLC these days are basically overglorified mission packs, and EVEN THEN, they have less content...
Actually, it's $40 for the DLC, because it can only be bought with Bioware points, and points have to be bought in $10 chunks.
actually no. They have options for:
400 Points (5$, some Dragon Age DLC is in this range)
560 Points (Kasumi, Arrival etc cost that much)
800 Points (Shadow Broker price)
1600 Points. (This is the only "buy in a real store"-option)
actually no. They have options for:
400 Points (5$, some Dragon Age DLC is in this range)
560 Points (Kasumi, Arrival etc cost that much)
800 Points (Shadow Broker price)
1600 Points. (This is the only "buy in a real store"-option)
I can't find those purchase options anywhere. I searched for a while in their store and elsewhere, and all I could find where $10 chunks of points for PC purchases.
log in to your bioware account (on bioware.com), and then do this:
Ah, well, that explains it. I have no Bioware account. I was trying to decide if I wanted to get into Bioware games by doing some research. Shame on them for making it impossible to be an informed consumer.
Well it's the same as your origin account if you have one. And if you want to get into Bioware go to GoG and get their good stuff. Ever since they teamed up with EA the games have gotten worse.
I can't find those purchase options anywhere. I searched for a while in their store and elsewhere, and all I could find where $10 chunks of points for PC purchases.
Well, that just confirms that DLC, especially DLC from Bioware, is designed to hide the total cost of a game from consumers and make them less aware of how much they're spending. This is not a good business pracitce and I dislike it immensely.
Well, that just confirms that DLC, especially DLC from Bioware, is designed to hide the total cost of a game from consumers and make them less aware of how much they're spending. This is not a good business pracitce and I dislike it immensely.
Yes. That's why they force you to pay in their toy money. Just like Microsoft that has the same model & conversion rate for XBox live.
But you get cool toys as well as extra stuff in a game! How could that be evil?
The game is basically like Pokemon if you had to buy the cards to catch the pokemon...
Actually, if it was a pokemon TCG video game, that would be nice, but for actual pokemon it wouldn't be. Yes I know of Pokemon TCG online, but it takes about an hour to load and then it doesn't load the "start" button.
Well, that just confirms that DLC, especially DLC from Bioware, is designed to hide the total cost of a game from consumers and make them less aware of how much they're spending. This is not a good business practice and I dislike it immensely.
I feel the need to agree.
...but why then am I not at all annoyed at Nintendo for using WiiWare points?
And don't use one single $3 DLC as an example of why people should stop complaining when, for example, Mass Effect 2's DLC includes the Kasumi character and her mission for $7; the Arrival and Overlord missions for $7 each; and Lair of the Shadow Broker for $10. This is $31 just for story-related DLC, and the Arrival mission is key to a non-DLC event in Mass Effect 3. If one were to have paid $50 for the game, they would end up paying $81 for it to get all the story.
The only problem I'd have with this is if Bioware was deceptive about the existence of future story-based DLC. I have no problem with developers using DLC creatively to make the final cost of games higher. People won't pay $80 for retail games, yet games are MUCH more expensive to make than they were 20 years ago, so that difference has to be made up somewhere.
It's debatable what counts as the "complete" story. I saw some angry comments on articles back when Ubisoft announced that Assassin's Creed II would have DLC story missions that take place before the end of the retail game. The thinking was that they purposely ripped those missions out of the game in order to charge $10 each for them later. Anybody who has played them could tell you that clearly isn't the case (or if it is, it doesn't matter). While the missions do take place within the time frame of the game proper, they are basically irrelevant and in fact I'd recommend not playing them at all. Who is to say what content is "vital story content"?
That was 13 years ago. Even if there was that big a difference in today's dollars, you don't measure a game's worth by "hours of gameplay provided".
Hours of gameplay is but one metric of how to measure a game's worth, and generally a poor one when comparing cross-genre, but when comparing how much content is contained in an expansion compared to the price of the game it expands, those hours are a pretty good metric.
TotSC cost about half as much as the full game, and provided about 50% of the game's content. It provided about the same amount of value per dollar as the main game (depending on how pleased you were with the game, but I found it to be pretty much more of Baldur's Gate, and that was good.)
ME2's expansion content costs roughly half of what the full console price was, more than half the original PC price, and more than 150% of the current (non-sale) price of the game. As best I can tell, it provides less than a quarter of the content of the full game. That, to me, is unacceptable. DLC should not cost more for a given amount of content than the full game. It costs less to produce, distribute and market than a full game, so it should be cheaper.
Hours of gameplay is but one metric of how to measure a game's worth, and generally a poor one when comparing cross-genre, but when comparing how much content is contained in an expansion compared to the price of the game it expands, those hours are a pretty good metric.
TotSC cost about half as much as the full game, and provided about 50% of the game's content. It provided about the same amount of value per dollar as the main game (depending on how pleased you were with the game, but I found it to be pretty much more of Baldur's Gate, and that was good.)
ME2's expansion content costs roughly half of what the full console price was, more than half the original PC price, and more than 150% of the current (non-sale) price of the game. As best I can tell, it provides less than a quarter of the content of the full game. That, to me, is unacceptable. DLC should not cost more for a given amount of content than the full game. It costs less to produce, distribute and market than a full game, so it should be cheaper.
It doesn't matter how much content you get for the price, it matters how much people are willing to pay for it. They wouldn't charge $10 for a 1 hour mission pack if people weren't willing to pay for it. It's demand-based pricing, not content-based pricing. Any business is going to price a product at the highest price point they can get away with and still collect a good number of sales. The only way this changes is if people stop shelling out for it, but since everyone is a completionist consumerist whore at this point, that won't happen.
Comments
it's Human Revolution for Deus Ex 1. And it's a great map to play.
Wait a minute what? Link please?
Great post. It's amazing that some gamers, a group of people who are supposed to be forward-thinking as far as technology goes, think of software as loaves of bread. "IT'S LIKE BUYING A LOAF OF BREAD AND THEN GETTING HOME AND REALIZING YOU HAVE TO PAY $5 MORE FOR THE CRUST!" No, it's absolutely nothing like that you idiots.
As for on-disc DLC, who cares? You don't have a "right" to every bit of content on a disc that you buy. For example, we aren't able to access the source code of PS3 games - there are only limited areas of the software that we are able to interact with in very specific ways. Should we get up in arms about not being able to look at the source code?
And what about single-player content that might have the "true" ending, or "vital" missions that took place during the events of the full game? Isn't it unethical to charge extra money for that? No. If I buy the Complete Series Blu-Ray Collection of The Sopranos (unfortunately it doesn't exist yet) and then HBO decides to make a new Sopranos season that takes place in-between seasons 2 and 3, should I get all pissy about it and sue HBO like you morons want to do to game developers? Clearly that's ridiculous. The game you bought is still generally a complete work, and any DLC that extends the story or fills in gaps is optional gravy.
Better example - for $3, in 2012, Nintendo releases 4 new levels of Super Mario Bros. - world 4.5, that takes place between the original game's worlds 4 and 5. Do we all sue Nintendo or do we behave like adults and either pay for it or not as we see fit?
Did anyone mention filing lawsuits against game developers?
No, let me put it this way.
It's like buying an instrument, let's say a guitar. Now most DLC is something like, learning material or a pick or whatever, a carrying bag to put your guitar in, totally optional. But then you have the DLC in the form of the strings. Sure you can have replacement strings, or nylon strings for your steel strings guitar (I wouldn't recommend using steel strings on your nylon guitar, it will seriously fuck up the neck), but sometimes, the one selling the guitar will not give you the strings as a standard.
That's how some DLC feels like. It's the DLC that makes the experience commplete that bothers most people. I mean, sure, multiplayer isn't something everybody uses, but by God don't make it a DLC. That's just stupid. Same goes to DLC endings. It's okay if you add side stories, but no freaking DLC endings. It's like, here's your book, but we've ripped out the last few pages. Without them the book is already good, but you'll need the extra pages to get the true ending.
Just my 2 cents.
Almost every DLC ever released was at least at the "thought of" stage during normal development, but was cut due to budget/time restraints.
Well then my 2 cents don't stand.
I buy DLC to games I like, if they offer something good.
The purpose of DLC ought to at least be to gain access to aspects of a game that were not complete by the end of the development deadline or else access to unncessary bonus material (ie. items). For a game to have completed on-disc DLC suggests that the developer is only trying to fleece the consumer for money by making them pay more than is necessary for already included content.
And don't use one single $3 DLC as an example of why people should stop complaining when, for example, Mass Effect 2's DLC includes the Kasumi character and her mission for $7; the Arrival and Overlord missions for $7 each; and Lair of the Shadow Broker for $10. This is $31 just for story-related DLC, and the Arrival mission is key to a non-DLC event in Mass Effect 3. If one were to have paid $50 for the game, they would end up paying $81 for it to get all the story.
And for those who are oblivious to the previous statement, DLC is short for downloadable content. Just need to be sure, you'll never know how many actually don't know this.
Really? I thought it meant Disc Locked Content! XD
Actually, it's $40 for the DLC, because it can only be bought with Bioware points, and points have to be bought in $10 chunks. You'll have points left over to use in the future, but you're still out $40 right now.
Also, consider that even now when Mass Effect 2 is $20, and goes on sale for as little as $5, that the DLC is still the exact same price as it was when it came out. This is why I will not buy ME2 until a complete edition comes out, so I don't have to deal with DLC that never goes on sale and can only be purchased with special points I can only use on DLC for a very limited library of games.
Consider the difference between one of Bioware's earlier expansions, Tales of the Sword coast for Baldur's Gate, with it's current option:
All story and character DLC for ME2: $40 buys less than 11 hours of gameplay
Tales of the Sword coast: $20 buys 20 - 30 hours of gameplay.
No, $90 - 100 for ME2 & DLC is not the same as the $60 - 80 I would have paid for Baldur's Gate & TotSC, not at all.
Also, I've said it before and I'll (no doubt) say it again - I MISS TRADITIONAL EXPANSION PACKS. Where's this generation's Opposing Force or, um... Tales of the Sword Coast? (phew, thanks figmentPez) Nowhere to be seen, that's where. The closest we got was Dragon Age Origins: Awakening. That's it. It's all DLC stuff now. That makes me a sad panda.
I was speaking about the PC version. I all but forgot consoles existed for a moment, I tend to do that. Sorry.
I think the closest would be Bethesda's Shivering Isles for Oblivion. Also, I have a friend who is a big fan of the Total War series who is getting the new stand alone expansion for Total War: Shogun 2 so there's one that is very recent at least.
*ahem*
DLC are basically small chunks of content that fit into certain parts of a game, and they don't normally change gameplay mechanics.
Expansion packs were superior since they tended to ADD ONTO the experience that was currently there.
Game mechanics are expanded, altered, or added to.
Completely NEW storylines that run to the side, or after the main campaign.
DLC these days are basically overglorified mission packs, and EVEN THEN, they have less content...
I really didn't get more than 10 hours out of Sword Coast. But if I compare it to Throne Of Baal ME2 will lose of course.
actually no. They have options for:
400 Points (5$, some Dragon Age DLC is in this range)
560 Points (Kasumi, Arrival etc cost that much)
800 Points (Shadow Broker price)
1600 Points. (This is the only "buy in a real store"-option)
I can't find those purchase options anywhere. I searched for a while in their store and elsewhere, and all I could find where $10 chunks of points for PC purchases.
?
That link just takes me to: http://social.bioware.com/home.php?
Trying to go to points.bioware.com just times out.
Go to the Origin store, search for Bioware points. The only options are 800 points for $10 or 1600 points for $20
Ah, well, that explains it. I have no Bioware account. I was trying to decide if I wanted to get into Bioware games by doing some research. Shame on them for making it impossible to be an informed consumer.
From here:
You get to here:
Well, that just confirms that DLC, especially DLC from Bioware, is designed to hide the total cost of a game from consumers and make them less aware of how much they're spending. This is not a good business pracitce and I dislike it immensely.
Yes. That's why they force you to pay in their toy money. Just like Microsoft that has the same model & conversion rate for XBox live.
Skylanders.
The game is basically like Pokemon if you had to buy the cards to catch the pokemon...
Actually, if it was a pokemon TCG video game, that would be nice, but for actual pokemon it wouldn't be. Yes I know of Pokemon TCG online, but it takes about an hour to load and then it doesn't load the "start" button.
I feel the need to agree.
...but why then am I not at all annoyed at Nintendo for using WiiWare points?
That and 1 point is 1 penny, so it isn't like they are trying to trick us or anything.
The only problem I'd have with this is if Bioware was deceptive about the existence of future story-based DLC. I have no problem with developers using DLC creatively to make the final cost of games higher. People won't pay $80 for retail games, yet games are MUCH more expensive to make than they were 20 years ago, so that difference has to be made up somewhere.
It's debatable what counts as the "complete" story. I saw some angry comments on articles back when Ubisoft announced that Assassin's Creed II would have DLC story missions that take place before the end of the retail game. The thinking was that they purposely ripped those missions out of the game in order to charge $10 each for them later. Anybody who has played them could tell you that clearly isn't the case (or if it is, it doesn't matter). While the missions do take place within the time frame of the game proper, they are basically irrelevant and in fact I'd recommend not playing them at all. Who is to say what content is "vital story content"?
That was 13 years ago. Even if there was that big a difference in today's dollars, you don't measure a game's worth by "hours of gameplay provided".
Yeah... My Son is into that game... I guess I can not fault him for it.. I totally plan on buying a case of Kid Icarus cards when available.
Hours of gameplay is but one metric of how to measure a game's worth, and generally a poor one when comparing cross-genre, but when comparing how much content is contained in an expansion compared to the price of the game it expands, those hours are a pretty good metric.
TotSC cost about half as much as the full game, and provided about 50% of the game's content. It provided about the same amount of value per dollar as the main game (depending on how pleased you were with the game, but I found it to be pretty much more of Baldur's Gate, and that was good.)
ME2's expansion content costs roughly half of what the full console price was, more than half the original PC price, and more than 150% of the current (non-sale) price of the game. As best I can tell, it provides less than a quarter of the content of the full game. That, to me, is unacceptable. DLC should not cost more for a given amount of content than the full game. It costs less to produce, distribute and market than a full game, so it should be cheaper.
It doesn't matter how much content you get for the price, it matters how much people are willing to pay for it. They wouldn't charge $10 for a 1 hour mission pack if people weren't willing to pay for it. It's demand-based pricing, not content-based pricing. Any business is going to price a product at the highest price point they can get away with and still collect a good number of sales. The only way this changes is if people stop shelling out for it, but since everyone is a completionist consumerist whore at this point, that won't happen.