GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

On-Disc DLC Outrage Is Off the Mark

Anger over post-release content locked away on the retail disc should be directed at nickel-and-diming business models, not focused on the logistics of content delivery.

632 Comments

In the last couple of weeks, gamers have expressed no shortage of outrage at finding downloadable content locked away on the retail release discs for Mass Effect 3 and Street Fighter X Tekken. They argue that by buying the disc, they own all the content on it and shouldn't be made to pay extra to access it at a later date.

No Caption Provided
On-disc DLC in Street Fighter X Tekken has many players spoiling for a fight.

The heart of the argument makes sense, but specifically attacking the practice of on-disc DLC is a tactical misstep. Publishers bank on DLC in their business plans, and putting it on the disc that ships is simply a matter of convenience for them. If the unthinkable happened and gamers rose as one unified front tomorrow and refused to buy any game with on-disc DLC forever more, publishers would simply leave it off the disc and force players to download it later (when it will use up a gamer's time and hard-drive space, in addition to money). At that point, it's a matter of semantics and logistics for the publishers, of carefully managing how the deal is presented to players to minimize outrage. And rest assured it will happen, as semantics and logistics are about the only two things at which publishers truly excel.

As a result, determining how to best combat the practice of on-disc DLC requires first identifying what's at the heart of the discontent. (Hint: As is so often the case, it's all about money.) When gamers spend $60 on a hotly anticipated new title like Mass Effect 3 or Street Fighter X Tekken, they rightfully want it to feel like a big deal. After investing that much money and anticipation in a brand new game, they expect the total package, the whole enchilada, the Full Monty, if you will. (But we hope you won't.)

The heart of the argument makes sense, but specifically attacking the practice of on-disc DLC is a tactical misstep.

Unfortunately, it's difficult--or simply more expensive--to achieve that these days, as a $60 purchase is rarely comprehensive. There's often an assortment of retailer-exclusive preorder bonuses, downloadable content, and perhaps a collector's edition at a $20 to $90 markup. And that naturally alienates gamers who feel that $60 is worthy of a first-rate, fully featured experience. And let's not even dwell on the avalanche of post-release DLC, the nickel-and-diming (or $5 and $10-ing) of map packs, modes, and costumes that can double the total cost of a complete AAA game over its life span. And with season passes, gamers have started preordering content that they don't know anything about, even though history has shown the quality of such add-ons varies wildly, even for the best games.

This trend shouldn't come as a big surprise to those who follow the industry, as publishers have been pushing gamers down this road for years. When the Xbox 360 launched, Microsoft kept its first-party titles at the previous generation's $50 price point because it was so scared of hurting sales. But by the time Gears of War rolled around the following year, consumers had embraced the $60 standard with nary a peep, and the race was on to find a gamer's pain point when it came to pricing. All the while, the soaring costs of high-definition game development prodded previously prudent publishers to risk running afoul of their fan bases.

No Caption Provided
Even if gamers stop buying titles with on-disc DLC, publishers will just keep it off the disc in the future, and the fundamental problem will remain the same.

The solution to the problem is to let publishers know that they've already blown past the pain point and to tell them we've had our fill. But it can't just be about on-disc DLC, or day-one DLC, or collector's editions, or season passes. It needs to be communicated to the publishers in sweeping fashion that gamers want a complete experience for a fair price or we simply won't pay. We need to tell them to present us with information on all extraneous content ahead of time--including pricing and release dates--so that we can make a more informed decision on whether to hand over our money. We need to tell them not to cut up expansions into a dozen $5 add-on packs, not to claim the retail game is a complete stand-alone package one week and the story-based DLC meaningfully fills in gaps the next.

The only alternative is to keep paying full price for less-than-full games.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 632 comments about this story
632 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for berzerk0912
berzerk0912

961

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By berzerk0912

That's why I can wait until the price drop to 19.99, because 19.99 + 44.00 (worth of DLC) = FULL GAME (63.99). Any questions?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fluffmajster
fluffmajster

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By fluffmajster

if ppl rage who are you to say that there rage is not just? i sympathize whit the ppl that rage but dlc are optional not mandatory...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lance_7
lance_7

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By lance_7

@Joedgabe No, no copy/paste. I agree with you, those that don’t agree with it just shouldn’t support it. There is a ton of DLC out there I don’t buy. One guy talked about buy Rock Band DLC and he feels okay with that. To me that is nickel and diming, and I’ve never purchased any of it. There are still a ton of people who buy it and we all win, they get what they want and are willing to pay for, the publisher gets money for a added bonus they provided to those willing to pay, and I didn’t spend extra money on something I didn’t see as worth it. No losers in the equation. But I’m also not going to run around crying about how they should’ve just added more songs on the game in the first place. But to try and separate the publisher from the developer and say what supports who is a waste of time. Without the publishers the games wouldn’t be financed, hence no game or at least as we know it, so for the purposes of this discussion they are basically one in the same.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for RyanSaotome
RyanSaotome

3135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Edited By RyanSaotome

I'm sorry, I'll continue complaining about paying for on disc DLC, since you know... ITS ON THE DISC ALREADY! Theres no reason I should pay for it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for OrNiGhTZ
OrNiGhTZ

325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By OrNiGhTZ

Bull-bleep- Hahaha Sugar-coating it huh ,

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Joedgabe
Joedgabe

5134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Joedgabe

@lance_7 did you copy and paste that from another site or something? the paragraph is kinda typed funny.... But you're right nobody is forcing us to buy it that's why people should just stop supporting DLC. It doesn't really support the developer it supports the publisher and puts a bad habit into taking ideas that could have made the game better and dishing it out for an extra price. It's best if they just don't have it period.. i've played the Souls series for a while now and things like this has never been an issue or a concern.. I feel i got the full game. So I understand the rage some people have with games like Mass Effect 3 even if i haven't played it at all.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for samad5
samad5

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Edited By samad5

If people feel outraged over DLC and witheld content then for the love of God DON'T BUY the game & send a letter of complaint to the publisher. That too goes for yearly 'updates' of the same rehash - and I'm thinking of COD specifically. Personally if the DLC is crucial to the main game then I'll not touch the game until the RRP has dropped. If on the other hand it's none essential than I'd consider a purchase. You can understand why publishers might be adopting this practice given the size and popularity of the second-hand games market but even if that were to be wiped out or significanlty reduced I'm sure they wouldn't curb their business practice until we the consumers vote with our wallets. Some here have suggested that we simply get along and pay for it or else we'll not get the games we want?!! You lot having a laugh or what? They develop, set a price and we pay. Simple transaction process which shouldn't result in us being held to ransom for corporate greed.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Col_Swamp
Col_Swamp

937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By Col_Swamp

Yet another level-headed article on Gamespot! Couldn't agree more about the DLC conundrum. This is why I have come back to this site year-after-year. Keep up the good work!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Callista08
Callista08

4116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Callista08

The problem with on disc locked content. Is that the stuff they do give you, is crap. It's like SFxT, so many glaring issues yet they spent the time working on stuff we DON'T get for the inital 60$ as opposed to what we DO get. Which takes away from our value. Besides that, I would rather just pay the extra money up front and let me have it from the start than years away after i'm tired of waiting. Besides that, the whole pricing scheme. For SFxT to have all the content will end up paying three times the initial cost of the game for all the extras. They truly are ridiculous. At least ME3 gives us an ingame way around having to buy stuff like in multiplayer.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lance_7
lance_7

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By lance_7

Look people who are complaining about “nickel and diming”. Madden cost $60, it is developed in a year with much of the content being recycled year to year including commentary and animations. Mass Effect cost $60, it took multiple years to develop, they had a huge cast of voice actors, it is 20+ hours of game play even if you try and rush through it. All games are not created equally, but the price point is set at $60. If you want developers to cut production cost and give you exactly what they can give for $60 multiplied by the expected number of purchases of NEW copies of the game (because how many will be purchased used that they don’t get a cut of?), then you can get the crappy mass produced Activision crap that used to come out year to year with all those garbage movie tie-in games that used to make. OR they can spend the money to try and make AAA games and find other revenew streams to make sure that the effort is worth the cost. If you don’t want it then don’t buy it. It is that simple, but don’t blast legit companies for trying to make a profit to make doing it again worth it. If you enjoyed the experience then support those who create it and buy the content. There really isn’t much in-between. Don’t buy it and complain the whole time like someone is stealing your money. No one is standing at your door with a mask and gun making you buy it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ioriaddison
ioriaddison

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ioriaddison

Personally, I dislike or even hate DLC. DLC is DLC no matter what forms that it takes.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Henninger
Henninger

1675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Henninger

If it's on the disc on day 1, then i should b able to play it on day or @ least play the game & unlock it that way on day1. Not pay more money on day 1 or @ a later date. Thats double dipping.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58efa6701f504
deactivated-58efa6701f504

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

All we are buying is the license to play; we don't actually own any of the media. As soon as the publisher starts "to present us with information on all extraneous content ahead of time--including pricing and release dates" then you encounter the probability of a lawsuit(s). Then games start costing $70.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for keichimorisato9
keichimorisato9

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By keichimorisato9

and this is why i prefer UbiSoft they may include things like day one DLC and what not but at least it feels like a complete game takes assassin's creed it has very little DLC for the most part it does very well the game on its own has a lot of things to do and experience with just the game. i personally would buy the DLC just so to support the developers so that they can make more games like Rayman Origins or Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands both are great games made recently with no DLC. i think so far as a company they've spent their money wisely and I'm happy with it. i have yet been able to buy the DLC because OnLive doesn't have any for AC other than the multiplayer character thingy (and its not worth my time its not like it would bring anything new to the experience with just characters. though so far I've spent close to a hundred hours on AC2 and ACB (together) if not more, and most of that time was spent doing side quests. i hated the fact that DE:HR had DLC that was taken directly from the story... i refuse to buy it because i feel ripped off i play games for the single player campaign for the story and when it is taken from me to be sold as DLC i feel ripped off as a consumer for buying an incomplete game. i don't mind DLC for things like extra side quests and skills to use in game that is fine by me IF there is ALOT of side quests and the skills are worth my time and money in purchasing... though part of that has to do with my satisfaction of the game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for drcsyntax
drcsyntax

267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Edited By drcsyntax

This article is way off the mark...every other website and blog has addressed this when both games came out; the day of. Keep up....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ASnogarD
ASnogarD

63

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Edited By ASnogarD

DLC and the 'nickel and diming' practise is the fault of the gamers themselves, the ones who threaten to boycott only to be the first to buy the bloody game. The gamers who brand anyone complaining about DLC as entitled whiners, the gamers who will advise players who get outraged at having to fork out more for 'extras' they dont NEED to buy the extras, or tell them its how the business works. Gamers these days have lost the right to complain and be outraged, they allowed the practise to evolve until it is normal. In other words , eat it , you wanted it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CerpinCygnus
CerpinCygnus

758

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By CerpinCygnus

"On-disc DLC" is possibly the greatest oxymoron I've seen in this industry. SFxT has absolutely no DOWNLOADABLE content to speak of. Everything from the 100 costumes and 12 characters to the dozens of colors are available on the physical disc that you've purchased, and gaining access to them is as simple as tacking "unlocked" onto their folder.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lance_7
lance_7

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By lance_7

@ Unfallen_Satan I’ve played the whole game from start to finish. From Ashes is not pertinent to the story of Mass Effect 3. In fact, it is irrelevant and in the same vein of Zaeed from ME2, it simply adds a character and a weapon. In that sense it made perfect sense to give that out as a Collector’s Edition item like they did. You get the one extra mission, just like you did with Kasumi, and other than seeing back story of the character the game play that was part of the DLC wasn’t a big deal. All the fuss is for nothing. It is in line with all the DLC they had last time but for some reason there is this big fuss simply because it was released on day one instead of day 15 or whatever. The main story doesn’t change based on this content.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hagen
hagen

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hagen

Give me money, Give me money, For your wallets I am coming. As long as you buy away... To our pockets and you to hell!!!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cmterminator
cmterminator

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By cmterminator

@Allan_X so you do not consider the fact that the higher the product's quality, the better it sales. As far as i think, raising sale to gain profit is a better way to raising the price or cutting the game into smaller pieces to sell for more money. And ok, i agree with you that games nowadays cost more to develop, but so is the amount of customer. Do you think that the number of gamer in 2012 is the same at 2000. What people are angry about is the fact that, the meaning of DLC is being twisted. We are being lied to.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for derekhickok
derekhickok

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By derekhickok

The only DLC I buy, is for rhythm games. That sort of DLC is understandable, and continues to be developed after the game is launched. I have absolutely no problem buying all of the Rock Band DLC every week, long after the launch of the games. Game companies that withhold content to be sold as DLC later on make me sick though. I will not support this practice. I don't buy that sort of DLC, and I pick up those games used.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for BlueFlameBat
BlueFlameBat

1041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BlueFlameBat

What bugs me about on-disc DLC and day-one DLC is the idea that the publishers and developers discuss which parts of the game to take out for the purpose of selling them as add-ons

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58bd60b980002
deactivated-58bd60b980002

2016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 1

If this is the way it is now ... I will find another hobby. I remember a time when you completed hard challege you unlocked cool stuff in the game !!! Now you have to pay for it ... really this is bulls***, I never bought a DLC and never will nor will a buy a game that need DLC to be complete or feel like it is complete. Who would have though that one day online gaming would created that monster ... I'm sad ...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sublime4927
sublime4927

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sublime4927

The argument about day-one DLC and on-disc locked content is all relative. If there's this much protest about it, the devs could just as easily leave the character/storyline/whatever completely out of the game in the first place. I purchased the DLC for Mass Effect 3 and, while interesting, cannot be said to be absolutely essential to the game itself. It's more of a travesty that all games are sold for the same starting price to begin with, because some games that have obviously had a lot of time and resources poured into them (Mass Effect 3) will have cost devs a lot more to create. There's so much junk that's released for $60 that people should be more angered about. Like it or not, the devs and publishers need to make money to stay in business or else we won't be getting solid games from them. And with the strength of secondary markets (such as eBay, Gamestop pre-owned, etc.), it doesn't surprise or offend me that devs have gone more towards DLC to ensure they're actually making money on good games. Gamers have just become a little spoiled with the value they're getting -- if you play Mass Effect 3 quickly, it'll take you about 30 hours. At $60, that's about $2/hour for the entertainment. That's a good value to me, anyway.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for BFKZ
BFKZ

1728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Edited By BFKZ

And they get pissed when people pirate their games...one day gamers are gonna realize that all the money they're paying just isn't worth it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Dr_Jackal
Dr_Jackal

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dr_Jackal

Start funneling these complaints to the developers via e-mail, snail mail, and the like as well as don't buy games you feel are guilty of this DLC nonsense, and hopefully there will be change. We have to direct our ire in a productive way. Brendan's emphasis on a unified front of gamers that presents its case as a collective body is one of the major things to take away from this article. Send emails and what have you to developers respectfully explaining your displeasure and don't buy their products.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Unfallen_Satan
Unfallen_Satan

195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Unfallen_Satan

Brendan spoke my mind. I don't get why some people feel it's wrong to include a separate DLC, if they accept it as a separate DLC, on the disk of the main game. Many like me agree that certain DLC should just be a part of the main game because they are an essential part of the core game experience. I happen to think the ME 3 DLC is such a case. However, some feel if the content is finished before the release date, it should be included in the main game regardless of content. I think that's just faulty reasoning. Overlord was a justifiable DLC for ME 2 regardless of when it was finished. If From Ashes was indeed finished after ME 3, the release date for ME 3 should have been postponed to include it in the game. Dwelling on when a DLC is finished or how it is distributed just tells publishers, "We don't know what we want, so tell us what we should think by your release dates and distribution medium." Focus on what you want in your game. Don't get bogged down by trivial details like on-disk or Day 1 that, although disruptive to some people's sense of order, are completely arbitrary and solely within publisher's control. I used to ask when I first heard about the outcry over Day 1 DLC. "Even if From Ashes were finished well before ME 3, what if EA/BW just lied to you and released it a couple of weeks later through purely digital distribution? Would that make you feel better?"

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lance_7
lance_7

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By lance_7

Whatever, this article is a waste. It is all case by case. You have a 20+ hour game and people complain about DLC. Then you have a FPS that has a 6 hour campaign that is crap, they release 100 map packs and people buy them all without much complaint. There is a bit of a double standard there don’t you think? Bottom-line is what one person deems worth the money another won’t. All DLC isn’t for all people but it is a good way to extend gaming experiences for those that want it. That is part of the purpose of sites like yours, inform us of which DLC is worth purchasing and which is a waste of money and stop wasting your time trying to tell us what to do and how to spend our money. Many would say paying money on a membership to a game site is a waste when much of that info can be found somewhere else on the web for free, but if someone likes your content I won’t tell them how to spend their money either. I rarely buy Collector’s Editions because most are a waste of money in my opinion, but one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. The main thing is allowing consumers to make an informed decision, because for every person complaining about a COD map pack there is another that would stand in line to buy it and sees value in it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DeadPhoenix86
DeadPhoenix86

2001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By DeadPhoenix86

i own neither of these games. because I'm waiting for the complete edition. and buy it all together for a reasonable price :) they can fool others, but they can't fool me...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dahui58
dahui58

21566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By dahui58

Can't see it happening soon. There are simply too many 'casual' gamers who only buy games like CoD, who don't mind paying through the nose to keep their game up to date. Then there's games like Mass Effect etc. which are simply too good to miss, and people will pay any price for them. The kind of gaming boycott we need would require too much self control and mass organisation :(

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kweeni
kweeni

11413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Edited By kweeni

You know dlc on disk isn't even "dlc" anymore. There is a reason why it's called "downloadable content" and not "on-disk content that you have to pay twice for". It's like buying a car but having to pay extra just so you can use the radio. This whole dlc crap has gone out of control and I wish it would just disappear. Sooner or later we'll be paying just to see the ending of a game... I liked the old days better when developers would finish the game and let us buy the whole thing instead of breaking the game up and selling us a part of it then charging extra for the rest.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lowkey254
lowkey254

6031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Edited By lowkey254

I don't like the feeling of being ripped off, so I don't pay for any game known to have locked away content.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fede_pyro
fede_pyro

139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By fede_pyro

ok, i will just be downloading the "digital pc version" of mass effect 3

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Allan_X
Allan_X

2315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Allan_X

Back in the day, we got substantial expansion packs for $30 instead of being charged a sixth that price for a hundredth the content. To be honest, I've always abhorred DLC in all its forms.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Polybren
Polybren

1678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Polybren

@warhawk_geeby I think there's been some misunderstanding here. @drummerdickens Right. I'm saying don't complain about on-disc DLC because we'll only get screwed over more. Instead, complain about all DLC that if offered in a consumer unfriendly manner, and stop supporting it entirely. @mario113 @aiberg I'm not defending it at all. I'm just saying there are more effective ways to fight this unacceptable behavior than by targeting complaints specifically at on-disc DLC. @setho10 Totally understand where you're coming from, but as you might be able to see from the comments, there are plenty of people who feel my stand against this stuff isn't nearly hardline enough.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Allan_X
Allan_X

2315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Allan_X

@cmterminator What cost $80 in 2010 cost $62 in 2000. Most on-disc DLC just barely adds up to $18 in additional cost to cover the difference. The reason for Day-1 or on-disc DLC is simple. Once the game is released, there's no profit in continuing to pay the dev team for post-release support. In order to fund patches and post-release DLC (and fatten the wallets of a few executives), publishers started employing this underhanded business strategy. Once again, this works because people will still pay for the same polished turds year in and year out. Grudgingly, yes, but they still do, even when they're aware that they're being deceived. Once they stop paying for this top-notch, triple-A shovelware, the trend will reverse. Remember, the money we pay them goes into funding the next BLOCKBUSTER MEGA-HIT SUPER ACTION EXTRAVAGANZA, with yet more Day-1 DLC and overpriced extras. Once we stop paying what they're asking, they'll simply quit making those types of games, and then the industry will belong to the social and app game makers who sell their cheesy flash game rip-offs for a few bucks a pop. It's just that simple. The economy affects more incomes than your own. In a depression, entertainment and luxury items are usually the first thing to go. When it all comes down to it, you don't need games to eat, drink or breathe, and some people on this planet can barely manage that much. Tch. Kids these days and their first-world problems.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for LEGEND_725
LEGEND_725

1556

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By LEGEND_725

Wow this article writer misses the entire point

Upvote • 
Avatar image for iluvOP
iluvOP

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By iluvOP

Well i find it bit annoying if the DLC is ready on the disk. But I mainly blame the publishers for that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DevilDave20
DevilDave20

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DevilDave20

If the content is completely ready and functional before the game is released it should not be locked and made DLC. Spend more time and energy on making the initial game on release date polished instead of making stuff that is locked and made purchasable later. If it isn't going to be usable day one, it shouldn't be taking away from the resources used to make the release day version.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for listan83
listan83

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By listan83

on disc dlc is crappy. its not really dlc if its on disc. im not a fan of day 1 dlc either. but the worst is pre release dlc. capcom seems to be the best at nickel and diming people. theres already dlc out for Resident evil: racoon city. how the hell can you put out dlc for a game thats not out yet. greedy bastards!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for thetravman
thetravman

3592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By thetravman

"Even if gamers stop buying titles with on-disc DLC, publishers will just keep it off the disc in the future, and the fundamental problem will remain the same." That's so true but the problem remains. Why should we pay for it? If the content is finished before launch it should be included in the package. I seen youtube videos of the locked characters in SFxT and they are fully functional, so why should they not be included? I still haven't heard a good reason. DLC should wait a specific time period to be available (maybe a couple months after release) so we don't feel cheated.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Mellowcow
Mellowcow

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Mellowcow

@SuperChin This article is a complete arrow in the knee. His explanation of why DLC is immoral sounds extremely vague at best. You can't measure what a full game is and what isn't. On the other hand, DLC on disk is a practice everyone can understand and take issue with.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for chapan17
chapan17

158

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By chapan17

I believe that there should be DLC, but only when applied as an expansion that enriches the game based on feedback from the client or when its a sort of sequel that does not need a new feature and uses the same engine (best example GTA 4 expansions). If the content was ready before releasing the game, then it should be part of initial offer, otherwise it causes anger in customers, feeling ripped off.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for TomJimJack
TomJimJack

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By TomJimJack

Seriously dudes they are forcing us to piracy! So let those who can grow money on trees go ahead and buy these so called products, I prefer to get what I payed for not what others decided for me to buy. When game publishers have no respect for us gamers, why should we bleed dry for them?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xtraflossy
xtraflossy

1463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By xtraflossy

I'm more "offended" that there IS dlc at the time of the games release (and early enough to put it on the actual disk), not the delivery of dlc. Sure, it's better for everyone if it's on the disk, but then why just not make that part of the game? It will always fell like they held something back and my expirence is lacking so they could dime me one more time

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kashkropsntokes
kashkropsntokes

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By kashkropsntokes

CoD Map Packs=Biggest rip-off since horse armor. The cost asked is definitely not worth the effort put into it. But of course Activision-Blizzard has become the king of Nickle and Diming, out EA'ing EA

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kashkropsntokes
kashkropsntokes

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By kashkropsntokes

A by-product of the industry entire. Game developers make games with high budgets and short play-through times; consumers trade in short games; Gamestop hoards a plethora of used games; other consumers buy used games, giving no percent of profit to the game developer; developer pushes DLC as a way of making revenue. Honestly, I'd be fine with removing the middle man in that process. Gamestop is a borderline monopoly in the industry.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fester420
fester420

550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By fester420

@slyguy65 Actually if you add up all the dlc for ultimate mvc3, it more than doubles the cost of buying the game new.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for SuperChin
SuperChin

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SuperChin

@Mellowcow This article doesn't defend DLC at large, or more specifically DLC as included-on-disc content requiring purchase to unlock. He argues that directing frustration towards only one distasteful part of the DLC market scheme is "off the mark" and that it would be more effective to protest the unfavorable business practices at large.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hunter8man
hunter8man

1799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

Edited By hunter8man

If we pay to own the game, then we should get the entire game. It's a cheap tactic by developers to sucker more money out of you to continue playing the game you already own anyway. Tactics like these is why I never want to hear developers whining about used game sales.

Upvote •