DLC? Really Atlus?

[Nephlabobo]

http://www.destructoid.com/3d-dot-game-heroes-gets-dlc-157121.phtml

I don't support games that have DLC, no matter what platform, no matter what developer.

A game that has DLC released for it is, in my mind, an unfinished product.

I sincerely hope there will be no DLC for the NA version, or you will have 100% lost a sale.

[Onion of Mystery]

Let's take a look at this here article:

The first DLC pack is scheduled to arrive Christmas Day, and will include ten stages for the game's Block Defense mode, as well as ten custom character models for players to edit. It will cost 250 Yen ($2.75). On January 8, ten more custom characters will be released for 100 Yen ($1.10). So it's some extra levels for a minigame and some skins. Are these things that would make you skim the disc out the window in a rage if they didn't come on the disc? I'm not saying that they will or won't be included in the NA version, because I don't know, but this isn't exactly chicanery on a Dragon Age: Origins level.

[Nephlabobo]

I don't care what it is.

It is the principle of the thing.

I do not support incomplete games that have DLC.

No matter which platform or publisher.

Period.

[Servantez]

Enjoy missing out on plenty of great games then. How is expanding on a game that already has a lot of content a bad thing?

[Tivor]

Meh, I'm not so dead set against DLCs.

But if Atlus USA sees to fit those DLC stuff into the retail US copies of 3DDGH, I'll love them all the more for it. :)

[Nephlabobo]

Enjoy missing out on plenty of great games then. How is expanding on a game that already has a lot of content a bad thing?

When it's an incomplete product, it gouges the consumer.

[jeffx]

Will the free update be included in the NA version or will it be a downloadable patch as well?

[grrouchie]

Enjoy missing out on plenty of great games then. How is expanding on a game that already has a lot of content a bad thing?

When it's an incomplete product, it gouges the consumer.


your def. of incomplete is pretty naive I would say

also, almost every next gen game is going to end up having DLC, so I am sorry that you will end up quitting the video game hobby.

DLC is the way of the future.... I do wish that games would come out cheaper, so that the DLC does not hurt as much, but what ya going to do?

Just give up playing games i guess heh.

[Dominions]

Enjoy missing out on plenty of great games then. How is expanding on a game that already has a lot of content a bad thing?

When it's an incomplete product, it gouges the consumer.

Software developers do need to eat, you know. Games get more expensive to develop on every new generation of hardware because there's more and more detailed art and program code to do.

Would you rather be charged another $10 to $50 up front, or just keep playing PS2-spec games until the end of time?

[Gen Eric Gui]

I'm against stuff like forcing people to pay for DLC that's on the disc or seeing things that were obviously finished before the release date made into DLC (Hello, Street Fighter 4 bonus costumes!). But saying that you won't buy ANYTHING with DLC NO MATTER WHAT is pretty ludicrous considering that means that you basically can't play console games anymore.

If it's completely useless bonus stuff like this, do you REALLY care that much? That's like saying "I won't play the new PS3 SMT game because there's alternate menu borders for $1 DLC".

[Enzeru]

By this logic Rockband will never be finished! Over 1000 songs by the end of the year?! Should've been included on the disc!

Sometimes (most of the time), developers make DLC *after* the game has proven successful to increase the longevity. My brother hasn't bought a game in 2 years. He's content with his terrible DLC on Rockband.

[Kyuketsukimiyu]

Isn't it better to spend a couple dollars on DLC then to have to re-buy a premium version of the game at full price? If the DLC had not been available the people who had already bought LittleBig Planet would probably be upset about the game of the year edition. Besides this DLC is obviously not mandatory, so just don't buy it if you don't like it. You wont be supporting the DLC market but you can still enjoy a good game.

[Lorinosan]

You know, it's odd. I originally looked at DLC as a way to expand the game into something more then what is already there similar to patches or maybe expansions on PC games. But somehow this DLC thing has conditioned people's minds into thinking the polar opposite.

Really, I suppose PC gamers should complain because they have to pay for expansion packs which clearly did not take time to develop and should have been on the original game disc. :roll:

Still wrapping my head around this...the only thing I do NOT agree with is the stupid 128kb "key codes" that you have to pay for just to unlock what's already on the disc. THAT is wrong...so VERY wrong to the fact that it IS price gouging and I do not support this in the slightest.

By this logic Rockband will never be finished! Over 1000 songs by the end of the year?! Should've been included on the disc!

Heh, I don't know how many times I have used the Rock Band/Guitar Hero analogy. Kudos for that.

[iloveatlus]

I don't care what it is.

It is the principle of the thing.

I do not support incomplete games that have DLC.

No matter which platform or publisher.

Period.
you're going to be paying for 40 dollars for a game thats worth 60 dollars

[Karkarov]

DLC is a dicey issue to be sure. To make a longer story short I will give my arguement in the form of examples.

DLC that is done right and good: GTA IV

DLC that is not done right and bad: Basically any FPS made in the last two years. I mean really, do you think those bonus Halo maps weren't ready to go at launch and couldn't be fit on the disc? If you do you are very very dumb.

Edit: Dragon Age Origins is also fairly bad about this. The two at launch dlc's were blatantly ready well before launch and could have fit on the disc. They also cost a rather large amount of money considering they both last less than 3 hours and one of them screams "originally part of the game not DLC". The only thing that saves it is the ability to get one of the two free depending on how you buy the game.

[kat_ears_kahrain]

DLC is a dicey issue to be sure. To make a longer story short I will give my arguement in the form of examples.

DLC that is done right and good: GTA IV

DLC that is not done right and bad: Basically any FPS made in the last two years. I mean really, do you think those bonus Halo maps weren't ready to go at launch and couldn't be fit on the disc? If you do you are very very dumb.

Edit: Dragon Age Origins is also fairly bad about this. The two at launch dlc's were blatantly ready well before launch and could have fit on the disc. They also cost a rather large amount of money considering they both last less than 3 hours and one of them screams "originally part of the game not DLC". The only thing that saves it is the ability to get one of the two free depending on how you buy the game.

I pretty much agree with the examples. GTA IV also released the DLC on discs, which shows how substantial it was.

I'll add another bad thing about DA:O. Having NPCs go on and on about something that seems genuinely interesting, then saying you need to go buy this DLC. Ripped me out of the game so fast I got whiplash.

[KTA]

I don't care what it is.

It is the principle of the thing.

I do not support incomplete games that have DLC.

No matter which platform or publisher.

Period.

Principle of what? Don't want it don't buy it, you know why they support title's post release??? Things get cut from EVERY game, and guess what most people like DLC. In fact now DLC is planned ahead of time. Big deal, no one's twisting your arm. You can usually tell is something is already on the disc if it's just a 108kb key to unlock content, then bitch w/e.

But supporting a title post release is a good thing, not sure why you assume the worst 100% of the time. Your loss.

I mean c'mon now.

[lesky1369]

i bought all three map packs for cod:waw making it a $90 game for me, but it kept me and my friends playing. the multiplayer maps sucked, but the zombie maps were great. dlc is awsome. it keeps you from having to buy so many games. if you like a perticular game, you can keep it fresh with dlc. right now i'm playing demons souls, and i love it, but some dlc would be great.

[Hamel]

You know you don't HAVE to buy the DLC minigames and skins
I didn't buy the extra customs for SF4 and I didn't feel cheated or anything like that

[Ciel Tynave]

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

[Foobar]

Let's take a look at this here article:

The first DLC pack is scheduled to arrive Christmas Day, and will include ten stages for the game's Block Defense mode, as well as ten custom character models for players to edit. It will cost 250 Yen ($2.75). On January 8, ten more custom characters will be released for 100 Yen ($1.10). So it's some extra levels for a minigame and some skins. Are these things that would make you skim the disc out the window in a rage if they didn't come on the disc? I'm not saying that they will or won't be included in the NA version, because I don't know, but this isn't exactly chicanery on a Dragon Age: Origins level.

This.

There is a difference in content that is made after-the-fact and content that was blatantly withheld for the sake of making an easy buck.

Of course, BioWare spins it as to prevent you from buying a used copy. That's pretty easy to see through when they stick a salesman for premium content in your party's camp. Worse is that they weren't bug tested before release for download.

Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3 on that score, too. Namco-published RPGs on Live tend to get this contrived kind of DLC treatment as well.

But I'm not so eager to hit everyone with the same brush. Would something like, say, Rock Band or Little Big Planet be wrong to have DLC? They don't exactly plan to have sequels for these games and if they do, its certainly not quickly.

Heck, Rock Band has to go through a lot of extra hoops, paying out royalties to record labels and such before they they even make the downloadable tracks. But in time all that revenue has allowed them to start work on the Rock Band Network, which is going to be part of the next iteration of the series.

Media Molocule, on the other hand, has no plans whatsoever to make a sequel to LBP for PS3. So how do you keep that game fresh? You add content. Most of its just optional stuff, too. Like Final Fantasy-themed sackboys, which there are, again, some royalties that have to be paid out, but there's other content they sell to expand the game.

Rock Band and LBP are not "incomplete games" they were just designed to be expanded.

[lol, forums]

For the most part, this is how DLC works:

DLC is planned for the game > Extra revenue is expected > Budget is increased > More content is created for the game.

Bottom line, if it weren't for the DLC option, the content that appears as DLC wouldn't exist for the most part. If that's enough to consider a game "unfinished," then you can think that of every game to come out, since they all end up having content from the original design cut due to budget and time constraints. DLC allows that content to actually happen.

[kat_ears_kahrain]

Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3 on that score, too. Namco-published RPGs on Live tend to get this contrived kind of DLC treatment as well.

I'll defend Bethesda's choices. They have yet to screw up content with their games. If you wait long enough, they release a "Game of the Year" edition with all the content they've released. Usually at the same price that the game originally launched at. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 have all done this, and I really like that path for extra content. It feels more like an expansion, and even if you never get it, you never get the feeling you're missing anything.

Namco is top-tier offender for DLC. Doesn't matter what genre. When a game has over $300 of DLC anywhere, that's just... rage-inducing...

[Zachalmighty]

OP, please. Stop being a baby. You are not being forced to buy the DLC and it doesn't expand on the story so your claims of the game being unfinished is ludicrous.

[Tivor]

Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3 on that score, too. Namco-published RPGs on Live tend to get this contrived kind of DLC treatment as well.

I'll defend Bethesda's choices. They have yet to screw up content with their games. If you wait long enough, they release a "Game of the Year" edition with all the content they've released. Usually at the same price that the game originally launched at. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 have all done this, and I really like that path for extra content. It feels more like an expansion, and even if you never get it, you never get the feeling you're missing anything.

Namco is top-tier offender for DLC. Doesn't matter what genre. When a game has over $300 of DLC anywhere, that's just... rage-inducing...

I think when Foobar said Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3, he(she?) was referring to the "they weren't bug tested before release for download" part in the previous paragraph.

I really wanted to play Fallout 3, but when I read so many reports of having to put up with various bugs and glitches (especially with GOTY edition), I decided it wasn't worth the trouble. :(

[kat_ears_kahrain]

Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3 on that score, too. Namco-published RPGs on Live tend to get this contrived kind of DLC treatment as well.

I'll defend Bethesda's choices. They have yet to screw up content with their games. If you wait long enough, they release a "Game of the Year" edition with all the content they've released. Usually at the same price that the game originally launched at. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 have all done this, and I really like that path for extra content. It feels more like an expansion, and even if you never get it, you never get the feeling you're missing anything.

Namco is top-tier offender for DLC. Doesn't matter what genre. When a game has over $300 of DLC anywhere, that's just... rage-inducing...

I think when Foobar said Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3, he(she?) was referring to the "they weren't bug tested before release for download" part in the previous paragraph.

I really wanted to play Fallout 3, but when I read so many reports of having to put up with various bugs and glitches (especially with GOTY edition), I decided it wasn't worth the trouble. :(

Ah yeah... bug testing is a must. I can understand some things getting through, but blatant crashes and upside-down guns are things that should be fixed before release, not after.

[Karkarov]

OP, please. Stop being a baby. You are not being forced to buy the DLC and it doesn't expand on the story so your claims of the game being unfinished is ludicrous.

Damnit! Stop making sense, this is an internet forum don't you know you aren't allowed to do that here?!?!?!

[Nephlabobo]

For the most part, this is how DLC works:

DLC is planned for the game > Extra revenue is expected > Budget is increased > More content is created for the game.

And sold to the consumer in bits and pieces at overblown prices.

The only good thing about the GTA DLC was that it was released on a disc.

What bothers me is that when Sony and MS pushed *SO* hard for these next gen formats, Sony in particular touted all the extra storage space as one of the benefits.

If Blu-Ray has all this extra storage space, why is it not being used?

If I'm expected to buy all this extra DLC, then why am I not just getting the game on a DVD and getting a terrabyte drive on my console?

(The amount MS charges for their hard drive upgrades is ludicrous).

Money. It's all about nickel and diming the consumer anyway they can.

I expect more from Atlus, but unfortunately now I won't be surprised when they start selling demon DLC packs for the next console SMT game.

[slayn]

Edit: Dragon Age Origins is also fairly bad about this. The two at launch dlc's were blatantly ready well before launch and could have fit on the disc. They also cost a rather large amount of money considering they both last less than 3 hours and one of them screams "originally part of the game not DLC". The only thing that saves it is the ability to get one of the two free depending on how you buy the game.

If you had to pay for The Stone Prisoner on launch day, either you completely ignored the packaging, which very prominently tells you that it's included free and includes a card with the code, or you pirated the game. Either way, it's your fault that you're out fifteen bucks. Warden's Keep, though, wasn't really worth the seven bucks. I doubt Return to Ostagar will be worth five bucks.

Other than that, you were spot on.

If Blu-Ray has all this extra storage space, why is it not being used?

The extra space often gets used for uncompressed audio.


The only DLC that's actually bothered me was the versus mode for RE5. The case here, for 3DDGH, is something I'd likely just ignore since it doesn't add anything to the core game. I find it hard to get upset over some levels for a minigame I probably won't play much of and some extra skins :-/.

[Gen Eric Gui]

Wow...just wow. I hardly even know where to begin on this one.

And sold to the consumer in bits and pieces at overblown prices.

SOME of it is. Not all of it. The DLC being talked about in this thread is $1 for an extra game mode. That's hardly overblown.

The only good thing about the GTA DLC was that it was released on a disc.

So the fact that each one was basically a new game in and of itself has no bearing? That's meaningless?

What bothers me is that when Sony and MS pushed *SO* hard for these next gen formats, Sony in particular touted all the extra storage space as one of the benefits.

If Blu-Ray has all this extra storage space, why is it not being used?

It...is? Why do you think games like FFXIII require multiple DVD's but only one Blu-Ray disc to hold it? There's a lot of space on the disc, and devs are using it to hold things like uncompressed sound files and High definition graphic files.

If I'm expected to buy all this extra DLC, then why am I not just getting the game on a DVD and getting a terrabyte drive on my console?

Because that would be ludicrously expensive? A system with a 120 Gig harddrive is more than enough space to store tons and tons of games. I have a 20 gig 360 and I have the entirety of Last Remnant, Castle Crashers, Exit 2, Alien Hominid, Bionic Commando, Shadow Complex, several demos, and all my saves, and I still have more than 5 gigs left. A terabyte of hard drive space is ludicrous overkill that hardly anybody would ever need.

(The amount MS charges for their hard drive upgrades is ludicrous).

Eh, that's true. But they have to make a profit, and if you don't like it, get a PS3.

Money. It's all about nickel and diming the consumer anyway they can.

Since when has this been false in the gaming industry? This has been true since games were in Arcades and the devs made them ludicrously hard to make you have to keep pumping quarters in.

I expect more from Atlus, but unfortunately now I won't be surprised when they start selling demon DLC packs for the next console SMT game.

Well first of all, I'm not aware of any Atlus game that has had paid DLC for it(You ARE aware that this game is a FROM Software game, and the inclusion of DLC was not a decision made on Atlus' part, right? Please tell me you know that much about the situation...) Second, only a handful of companies have been known to create paid DLC for integral features to the main game, like demons would be to an SMT game.

Third, you are still not differentiating between DLC that was obviously stripped out from the game to make money (like the Dragon Age quests, all those levels from Katamari Forever, or the alt costumes in SF4) and DLC that is released after the fact to create more stuff for a game that could not have been created before the game was released (Most of the GTA4 DLC, Fallout 3 areas, etc) You may not be aware of this fact, but content in games costs companies money and time, and you also don't seem to grasp the concept of devs coming up with ideas after a game has shipped. When devs are still producing new maps and areas for games YEARS after the game has actually come out (GTA4, Halo, Gears of War, several racing titles), this is not "stuff that was held back to gouge the consumer" it's additional stuff that you can pay a couple bucks for to keep your favorite game alive and kicking. BIG. DIFFERENCE. And if you plan to enjoy anything in this age of gaming, you need to take notice of that difference instead of just applying a blanket statement that ALL DLC IS EVIL AND FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ####ING THE CONSUMER EVIL COMPANIES ARE EEEEEVIL.

Fourth: I'm sure you also chose to ignore this, but in the original article on this it's stated that the DLC is coming with a patch that actually alters the code to ALLOW the DLC to even exist. Do you know what that means? This DLC wasn't planned. This is stuff that wasn't even on the table when the game went gold on production. Your entire theory that this is FROM gouging you for a whole DOLLAR (HOLY JESUS WHAT WILL WE DO) is groundless.

[sarshelyam]

I think the argument is moot. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Stop making excuses for why you're being chintzy. Conspiracy theories that companies intentionally develop and leave content off when a game ships to retail is just silly. Think of DLC merely as a way to extend the value of the game. Considering 3DDGH is only 39.99, a little DLC here or there to squeeze even more gameplay out is certainly welcomed. If you don't like the price, just enjoy the game you paid for...the whining really doesn't deserve a response.

Oh wait...perhaps Atlus should just include it all and charge us 20.00 more like every other new release this gen. Would that make you happy?

[Gen Eric Gui]

Conspiracy theories that companies intentionally develop and leave content off when a game ships to retail is just silly.

Well, with stuff like Katamari Forever where huge portions of the game were on the disc but locked until paid for separately, and Street Fighter 4 where the DLC costumes were free in the Arcade version of the game (which was out almost a year before the console version) and yet they were paid DLC in the console version, there IS some truth to that "consipracy theory". It's the idea of painting ALL DLC with that brush that is completely ludicrous, especially with things like Ballad of Gay Tony and that racing game that had like a gig of free DLC that came out two years after it's release.

[Zoltor]

Let's take a look at this here article:

The first DLC pack is scheduled to arrive Christmas Day, and will include ten stages for the game's Block Defense mode, as well as ten custom character models for players to edit. It will cost 250 Yen ($2.75). On January 8, ten more custom characters will be released for 100 Yen ($1.10). So it's some extra levels for a minigame and some skins. Are these things that would make you skim the disc out the window in a rage if they didn't come on the disc? I'm not saying that they will or won't be included in the NA version, because I don't know, but this isn't exactly chicanery on a Dragon Age: Origins level.

Lol is this a Joke thread, I really don't see any reason for him to complain, It's extra content, which adds additional gameplay(think like expansions in MMOs).

Also on top of that, 1-3$ is a joke, that's pocket change, I suggest he goes and looks what Squaresoft tries to scam people out of(with the wii CC games, even the crappiest DLC for those game cost like 6$ each, and most of the better DLC stuff that cost 10$ each, don't even add additional gameplay areas).

DLCs are a good way to go about expanding a game, as long as the developers aren't greedy about it(and the DLC actually expands gameplay), extra stages for like 2$ is a bargain(and the costumes are only 1$, so it hardly matters), so what is he complaining about again?

[Foobar]

Bethesda is a repeat-offender with Fallout 3 on that score, too. Namco-published RPGs on Live tend to get this contrived kind of DLC treatment as well.

I'll defend Bethesda's choices. They have yet to screw up content with their games. If you wait long enough, they release a "Game of the Year" edition with all the content they've released. Usually at the same price that the game originally launched at. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 have all done this, and I really like that path for extra content. It feels more like an expansion, and even if you never get it, you never get the feeling you're missing anything.

Namco is top-tier offender for DLC. Doesn't matter what genre. When a game has over $300 of DLC anywhere, that's just... rage-inducing...

Even the game of the year editions Bethesda puts out have issues, I waited for the GOTY version of Morrowind after giving up on the initial version for Xbox. When I found this version to have the same issues as before (multiple enchanted items making the game crash), Bethesda lost me as a customer. This after calling customer service to see if I could get a new copy just in case the disc was somehow bad, they refused.

They got complaints about it, they addressed them in the PC version, but Xbox was sloppy seconds. They showed Xbox gamers that they didn't matter by not putting stock in Live back then and it just leads me to conclude they do the console thing because the times demand it, not because they want to take it seriously

Both Bioware and Bethesda are notorious for games so "epic" in scope they can't be QAed properly. That's why they need to put some serious time into QA before going gold with games they make. In that time, they can also make the effort to make complete games.

Bioware actually used to do that, then make proper expansions, not nickel-and-dime out pieces of blatantly withheld content like they do now. Bioware says they want to encourage me to not buy used? Well, make a complete game and I'll buy new, leave it incomplete and I'll pay what I think its worth and not shed one tear that the store got my money and not them.

Bioware and Bethesda are now in the console world, they need to start acting like it or go back to being PC-only. PC gamers put up with their antics, but not all console gamers will.

[Nephlabobo]

SOME of it is. Not all of it. The DLC being talked about in this thread is $1 for an extra game mode. That's hardly overblown.

If it's not such a big deal, it should have been included in the game.

So the fact that each one (GTA DLC) was basically a new game in and of itself has no bearing? That's meaningless?

Well the fact that it was two digital games that ended up going onto a disc which is the best part.

It...is? Why do you think games like FFXIII require multiple DVD's but only one Blu-Ray disc to hold it? There's a lot of space on the disc, and devs are using it to hold things like uncompressed sound files and High definition graphic files.

FF 13 is *not* 3D Dot Game Heroes - irrelevant.

Because that would be ludicrously expensive? A system with a 120 Gig harddrive is more than enough space to store tons and tons of games. I have a 20 gig 360 and I have the entirety of Last Remnant, Castle Crashers, Exit 2, Alien Hominid, Bionic Commando, Shadow Complex, several demos, and all my saves, and I still have more than 5 gigs left. A terabyte of hard drive space is ludicrous overkill that hardly anybody would ever need.

I know tons of people who have 60 gb 360s that are almost out of space. If game companies have their way, everything will be digital and you *will* need terrabyte drives. It's another way of gouging the customer.

(The amount MS charges for their hard drive upgrades is ludicrous).

Eh, that's true. But they have to make a profit, and if you don't like it, get a PS3.

Have a PS3 - that doesn't mean what MS charges for their HDs is excusable.

Since when has this been false in the gaming industry? This has been true since games were in Arcades and the devs made them ludicrously hard to make you have to keep pumping quarters in.

That doesn't make it okay right now.

you are still not differentiating between DLC that was obviously stripped out from the game to make money (like the Dragon Age quests, all those levels from Katamari Forever, or the alt costumes in SF4) and DLC that is released after the fact to create more stuff for a game that could not have been created before the game was released (Most of the GTA4 DLC, Fallout 3 areas, etc)

Then collect the DLC, and put it on discs for the people that want it, like they did with the GTA stuff.

You may not be aware of this fact, but content in games costs companies money and time, and you also don't seem to grasp the concept of devs coming up with ideas after a game has shipped.

You may not be aware that you are a patronising douche, but you are one.

you need to take notice of that difference instead of just applying a blanket statement that ALL DLC IS EVIL AND FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ####ING THE CONSUMER EVIL COMPANIES ARE EEEEEVIL.

No, I don't. There is no difference. You need to stop being a patronising douche.

Take the time, do the game properly, and instead of putting aside 1/3 of the content for the DLC (as DLC is, you just refuse to acknowledge it), and put out a complete product, instead of gouging customers.

Your entire theory that this is FROM gouging you for a whole DOLLAR (HOLY JESUS WHAT WILL WE DO) is groundless.

I don't believe that companies go into game development saying "What are we going to do about DLC? Screw it, we'll leave it til the game is out and come up with something. It does not work like that with corporate games companies like that nowadays.

[QUOTE=Onion of Mystery;157638]Let's take a look at this here
DLCs are a good way to go about expanding a game, as long as the developers aren't greedy about it(and the DLC actually expands gameplay), extra stages for like 2$ is a bargain(and the costumes are only 1$, so it hardly matters), so what is he complaining about again?

DLC *is* greed. Pure and simple. There is no grey area on this issue.

[Zoltor]

To Nephlabobo:

Did it ever enter your dumb *** mind, that 1: DLC lets companies bypass space restrictions on DvD/blueray, 2: that opposed to offering a game with everything for 70-80$, they could sell the game for 40-60$, with the option to spend more, so you can try it out for cheaper, instead of spending all the money upfront on a game you may not like, and 3: DLC lets companies have the option to expand the game long after the release.

I don't know, those look like pretty dam big grey areas to me.

[Hamel]

Then collect the DLC, and put it on discs for the people that want it, like they did with the GTA stuff.



Wow.
You are dumb.
Seriously, do you want a $1 of worthless DLC (it's a freaking minigame and skins FFS) on a disc that will cost you at least $20?

[Inzaghi]

Take the time, do the game properly, and instead of putting aside 1/3 of the content for the DLC (as DLC is, you just refuse to acknowledge it), and put out a complete product, instead of gouging customers.

That's not how it goes. There's such a thing as scope and budget. When developers plan a game, they plan for lots and lots of stuff, and things always get cut because they run up against deadlines or budgetary constraints or something. This has always been true and it's still true today. In the past, this content would be lost forever and you would play the "complete" product, never knowing the rest of the game ever existed.

But today, with modern DLC-enabled systems, that content need not be lost. A developer can now, when the realities of game development eat into the planned level/feature set, say "All right, we'll set this aside for DLC" rather than "Okay, toss it." Developers benefit because they can finally release the complete visions of games they set out to make, even if some of it has to come after the fact, and consumers benefit because if there's a game they really enjoy, now they CAN get the complete product instead of what could be done under the circumstances.

[Nephlabobo]

But today, with modern DLC-enabled systems, that content need not be lost. A developer can now, when the realities of game development eat into the planned level/feature set, say "All right, we'll set this aside for DLC" rather than "Okay, toss it." Developers benefit because they can finally release the complete visions of games they set out to make, even if some of it has to come after the fact, and consumers benefit because if there's a game they really enjoy, now they CAN get the complete product instead of what could be done under the circumstances.

Selling it in bits and pieces is *not* complete.

To Nephlabobo:

Did it ever enter your dumb *** mind, that 1: DLC lets companies bypass space restrictions on DvD/blueray, 2: that opposed to offering a game with everything for 70-80$, they could sell the game for 40-60$, with the option to spend more, so you can try it out for cheaper, instead of spending all the money upfront on a game you may not like, and 3: DLC lets companies have the option to expand the game long after the release.

I don't know, those look like pretty dam big grey areas to me.

The whole point of Blu-Ray (according to Sony) was that the giant storage capacity of Blu-Ray was a check in Sony's favour. A game like MGS4 *might* fill a Blu-Ray - a game like 3D Dot Heroes is probably not.

And since no company is selling games for $40-60, (3D DGH is the exception, rather than the norm as you're suggestion) your point is obviously invalid.

I would rather have a complete product than a company doling out bits and pieces of a game like having to buy the ending to the last Prince of Persia game or buy entire quests like in Dragon Age.

DLC is exploitative to the consumer. There is no grey area in that fact.

[unknown]

Seems like someone is just trying to pick a fight to me.

Pretty sure someone mentioned this already but I'm too lazy to go over the thread. The game and DLC aren't even out yet, so no one can judge whether the game is incomplete and that Atlus is being greedy by charging us for DLC that should already be in the game.

Overall I'm not a big fan of DLC, especially when used as preorder incentives, so don't ever do that Atlus. Otherwise I'll never forgive you!

THREAD OVER

[Zoltor]

To Nephlabobo:

The only thing that matters, "the only thing" is if a game is good, what you are suggesting is 1: you would rather a game that Isn't finnished yet to be released as is, 2: wait upwards of a year additional time for them to finnish it or 3: you are against expansions long after the game has been released.

PS. Just by the mere fact you acknowledge it Isn't impossible to fill up a blueray, contradicts you assuming otherwise(anything in 3D takes an insane amount of space, even if it Isn't movie perfect, so without knowing how big the game is, you can't just assume there is ample space to work with.

Also you're dead wrong, all PS3 games cost 50-60$, and wii games generally are 40 or more, so yes companies are charging that.

You're clearly a kid, that doesn't want to beg mommy for money, you must be, because these prices are far from unreasonable, infact they are acceptionally well priced.

[Nephlabobo]

To Nephlabobo:

The only thing that matters, "the only thing" is if a game is good, what you are suggesting is 1: you would rather a game that Isn't finnished yet to be released as is, 2: wait upwards of a year additional time for them to finnish it or 3: you are against expansions long after the game has been released.

Would I rather wait a bit longer for a complete game without DLC than get an unfinished game earlier? You betcha.


You're clearly a kid, that doesn't want to beg mommy for money, you must be, because these prices are far from unreasonable, infact they are acceptionally well priced.

And you're clearly an idiot. It's got nothing to do with prices, it's about principle.

[Inzaghi]

Would I rather wait a bit longer for a complete game without DLC than get an unfinished game earlier? You betcha.

As I already said and you conveniently ignored, you have always gotten "unfinished" games earlier. It's the way development works. Take Final Fantasy VI, to pick an example at random. Siegfried shows up a couple times in bizarre, unexplained appearances, is mentioned in dialogue by other characters, and ultimately has no role or impact on anything, making him an unusually clear example of something the developers had planned for a fuller arc but had to cut very late in development--so late they didn't even have time to scrub him properly from the game. But they had to ship sometime, and the game went into release "unfinished" by your standards. If it had been released today, it's possible the Siegfried subplot could have been restored as DLC.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that if it wasn't for DLC, you would have gotten (for instance) everything that's since been added to LittleBigPlanet on the original disc.

And you're clearly an idiot. It's got nothing to do with prices, it's about principle.

Fewer personal attacks all around, please, or this topic will get locked.

[Kyuketsukimiyu]

Some games have content that couldn't have existed when the game was released. The Ezzio and Watchmen costumes for LBP are some of the best in the game, bu neither Assassin's Creed II or Watchmen existed when LBP came out. Folklore had a post-game contest to where fans were able o design a folk that would become available for DLC. This contest could only happen because of DLC. So if there was no DLC fans would have missed out on some awesome content that could only be made post-game.
Labeling all DLC as a rip off is is immature and insensitive. There are various reasons for it to exist from game to game. Sometimes the company is gouging the consumer for money, sometimes they had a cool idea that was unable to go into the final product. Each game deserves to have it's DLC evaluated individually.

[Gen Eric Gui]

Seeing how all of this guy's responses are either blatantly ignoring facts already posted several times or are just plain ignorant to astounding levels; this is either a really poor trolling attempt or he's never going to listen to reason anyway.

Some DLC is bad and blatantly a cheap attempt at money grabbing, but a lot of it is just a way for developers who have limited time and money to give the player content they would have never been able to get years ago. Until Neph grows up and realizes that there are limits on time and money in development cycles, I don't think he's ever going to give an inch on this subject.

[Tivor]

Would I rather wait a bit longer for a complete game without DLC than get an unfinished game earlier? You betcha.

.
.
.

It's got nothing to do with prices, it's about principle.

It sounds like your definition of "complete" game is when developers have developed the hell out of a game that there is absolutely nothing that could be developed for anymore.

The reality is that you'll never get such a product. There is no company in the world with infinite time and money to make a such game.

And even if you take the stance of "include everything that's been planned, don't leave anything out, I can wait", there are plenty of business reasons why that's not often feasible. There are obviously time and money issues involved, but the development team also has to cooperate and coordinate with other divisions of the company and/or another company altogether, and sometimes you have to work with their schedule. Anybody who's done collaborative works understands that sometimes you simply have to work with factors that are not in your full control and make compromises, and this is especially true in today's gaming industry where pretty much everything is a huge collaborative endeavor.

While you may think it's just a simple matter of delaying the release until all the would-be-DLC contents are completed to be included in retail release, the truth is that it's not such a simple matter to the people who are actually creating these contents.

No one here is denying that there are some DLC -- like those "unlock code" DLC -- that are silly at best. But you can't lump all DLC together and make a blanket statement like "all DLC are evil, everything should be included on disc."

It's all nice and good to have "principles," but principles can't exist in vacuum. There are always two sides to the equation. And if you are unwilling even to see things from the other perspective, then the said principles only come across as hollow and irrational stubbornness.

[sarshelyam]

It's all nice and good to have "principles," but principles can't exist in vacuum. There are always two sides to the equation. And if you are unwilling even to see things from the other perspective, then the said principles only come across as hollow and irrational stubbornness.

:agree:

Where is the stand up and applaud smiley? Seriously...this summed it up perfectly. Unless the principles are founded as a direct result of being in the industry and having a firm understanding of exactly what is going on here, it's exactly irrational and stubborn. Bravo Tivor for pointing out exactly where this argument fails.

Conspiracy theories that companies intentionally develop and leave content off when a game ships to retail is just silly.

Well, with stuff like Katamari Forever where huge portions of the game were on the disc but locked until paid for separately, and Street Fighter 4 where the DLC costumes were free in the Arcade version of the game (which was out almost a year before the console version) and yet they were paid DLC in the console version, there IS some truth to that "consipracy theory". It's the idea of painting ALL DLC with that brush that is completely ludicrous, especially with things like Ballad of Gay Tony and that racing game that had like a gig of free DLC that came out two years after it's release.

I understand the absurdity of generalizing GEG, but seriously...do you honestly believe the SFIV costumes in the arcade were...FREE? How many quarters do you have to dump in the game before it's considered FREE? That isn't the argument here, and in regards to Katamari Forever...are you sure about that? I have Tribute and Forever (same game) and there is NO DLC for it. If we're talking about Beautiful Katamari for the 360, well that's a completely different story that was orchestrated primarily by Microsoft and their displeasure for anything FREE.

Let's get back on track here because Inzaghi has made one of the few intelligent posts here. DLC is primarily a case of budget. Look at Assassin's Creed 2, one of the prime CURRENT examples. There are two key missing Memories towards the end of the game. The Memories are in the midst of two of the largest historical conflicts in Rennaissance Italy, naturally they'd be massive undertakings and most certainly had to be scrapped, albeit temporarily, due to the urgency of a Summer-wrap deadline for Fall ship. Dialog was recorded to account for this miss and Ubisoft does indeed have plans to address this miss down the road...First Quarter of 2010. Was it deliberate? Certainly not...but when you consider the other option of delaying the game nearly 6 months missing the Fall period, suddenly the investment proposition becomes a risk.

You simply cannot have this discussion without thinking logically about the concept of business. It isn't about gouging the customer, it's about calendar deadlines and the reality of delivering a product within a budget. Sales from the retail release often fuel DLC development...it reflects a consumer demand and quells investor fear related to risk of investment.

Bring it on ATLUS, I don't care what you do with this title as long as I get to play it in May...at 39.99...DLC or otherwise it's all good.

[Zoltor]

Seeing how all of this guy's responses are either blatantly ignoring facts already posted several times or are just plain ignorant to astounding levels; this is either a really poor trolling attempt or he's never going to listen to reason anyway.

Some DLC is bad and blatantly a cheap attempt at money grabbing, but a lot of it is just a way for developers who have limited time and money to give the player content they would have never been able to get years ago. Until Neph grows up and realizes that there are limits on time and money in development cycles, I don't think he's ever going to give an inch on this subject.

Yea, I decided there was no point in replying to him anymore, nothing anyone says is gonna make him see reason, when the fact is, there are a bunch of legit reasons for a company to have DLC for their game(s). Also for the most part, very "few" companies have been greedy with their implimentation of DLC, so generlizing DLC as pure greed, is nothing but ignorance, especially since games having DLC for that reason is actually pretty rare.

[Nephlabobo]

It sounds like your definition of "complete" game is when developers have developed the hell out of a game that there is absolutely nothing that could be developed for anymore.

The reality is that you'll never get such a product. There is no company in the world with infinite time and money to make a such game.

Well up until last gen that was the case. A game stood as a complete product, like a book. I don't see why that should have to change now. You don't buy 2/3 of a book and then download the end do you?

And even if you take the stance of "include everything that's been planned, don't leave anything out, I can wait", there are plenty of business reasons why that's not often feasible. There are obviously time and money issues involved, but the development team also has to cooperate and coordinate with other divisions of the company and/or another company altogether, and sometimes you have to work with their schedule.

I get what you're saying but the kind of thing where "We'll publish the game at this date and release the DLC at this date" is happening more and more, especially with DLC announcements coming so close after release, or even before release in some cases.

I would rather wait the amount of time it's taking for games like FF13 and Last Guardian and have no DLC.

No one here is denying that there are some DLC -- like those "unlock code" DLC -- that are silly at best. But you can't lump all DLC together and make a blanket statement like "all DLC are evil, everything should be included on disc."

When it's best for consumers, you can.

It's all nice and good to have "principles," but principles can't exist in vacuum. There are always two sides to the equation. And if you are unwilling even to see things from the other perspective, then the said principles only come across as hollow and irrational stubbornness.

The two sides would be - the greed of the publishers and the protection of the consumer. I don't see why I should bother seeing the point of a side that's wrong. Yes, I will grant you it's stubborn, but also right.

[Gen Eric Gui]

I understand the absurdity of generalizing GEG, but seriously...do you honestly believe the SFIV costumes in the arcade were...FREE? How many quarters do you have to dump in the game before it's considered FREE? That isn't the argument here, and in regards to Katamari Forever...are you sure about that? I have Tribute and Forever (same game) and there is NO DLC for it. If we're talking about Beautiful Katamari for the 360, well that's a completely different story that was orchestrated primarily by Microsoft and their displeasure for anything FREE.


Yeah, I got the title wrong. I mean Beautiful Katamari. The only Katamari games I can keep straight are the original two.

And the SF4 costumes on the Arcade being "free" meant that it wasn't like Tekken 5 where you had to pay money to unlock accessories in additon to paying to play the game. You could just eventually unlock it by playing the game for quarters. It was also locked on the console version with the explaination being that it was "additional content that took additional effort to make" and yet all the costumes except the ones for the console-specific characters had already been made.

Edit: Now it's just getting funny. I love how he quotes long posts full of logical, reasoned responses with a one-line NO IT'S BECAUSE COMPANIES ARE EVIL response. It's like he thinks he's a good troll.

[Manly Biceps]

Maybe scale back the sarcasm a little bit, Generic.

[Ephidel]

It sounds like your definition of "complete" game is when developers have developed the hell out of a game that there is absolutely nothing that could be developed for anymore.

The reality is that you'll never get such a product. There is no company in the world with infinite time and money to make a such game.

Well up until last gen that was the case. A game stood as a complete product, like a book. I don't see why that should have to change now. You don't buy 2/3 of a book and then download the end do you?

Perhaps not, but you can buy a book only to find that in order to finish reading the story you have to buy another one/two/three/undetermined books because it shoots off into a trilogy/series or a universe for other books to be set in.

And there is at least one instance (http://www.peterjames.com/2009/11/dead-tomorrow-paperback-and-iphone-app.html) that I'm aware of where an author's downloadable ebooks (released later than the hardbacks and simultaneously with the paperbacks) contain added content that the other versions do not.


Anyhow, depending on the DLC, I don't mind it, because most games will still be 'complete' without it.
I can play Disgaea 3 without ever purchasing extra characters, and if I so choose I can play Valykria without ever buying extra missions. The game will not be any less complete because I've done so... however it does give me the option of adding extra content to the game if I so desire.
I like the idea that once a game is out, thats not necessarily it. That if you want, there may well be other things to do with it afterwards, because the game will continue to be supported. I don't play LBP or music games but I can definitely see the value of DLC in those cases too.
The content currently being spoken of as an addition to 3D dot Heroes is, as far as I can comprehend, a minigame mode and some extra skins. I... don't see why anyone would be up in arms about that. If you want it, you can buy it... and if you don't, you aren't really missing anything at all :|

"DLC" that simply unlocks content that is already there, on the other hand, I dislike intensely.

(I also find some of the DA:O dlc annoying, despite having read about how it was initially thought that there was no way to get Shale into the release without him being separate.
My main issue in its case is how its handled. Its not so much that the DLC is available... its that its availability is intrusive to the game, because the game insists on telling you about it)

[Nephlabobo]

Perhaps not, but you can buy a book only to find that in order to finish reading the story you have to buy another one/two/three/undetermined books because it shoots off into a trilogy/series or a universe for other books to be set in.


No different from DDS1 and DDS2. I don't have a specific issue with that. (Unless it's Dot Hack where it was obviously split up to make more money)

And there is at least one instance (http://www.peterjames.com/2009/11/dead-tomorrow-paperback-and-iphone-app.html) that I'm aware of where an author's downloadable ebooks (released later than the hardbacks and simultaneously with the paperbacks) contain added content that the other versions do not.

And he is wrong to do so.

[MrPopo]

It sounds like your definition of "complete" game is when developers have developed the hell out of a game that there is absolutely nothing that could be developed for anymore.

The reality is that you'll never get such a product. There is no company in the world with infinite time and money to make a such game.

Well up until last gen that was the case. A game stood as a complete product, like a book. I don't see why that should have to change now. You don't buy 2/3 of a book and then download the end do you?
Your analogy is flawed. I have yet to see DLC that adds an ending to a game that you can't get otherwise. What I have seen is DLC that adds side chapters and interesting stuff. Let's take the Dragon Age example. There is DLC that adds a party member (certainly not required to fully enjoy the game) as well as a side quest. And I never got that side quest DLC, yet I managed to play through and enjoy the story of Dragon Age. That certainly doesn't sound like the analogy you posted.

And also, through every single console generation a game has been released with cut content. Every. Single. One. As Inzaghi already made mention of (and every single post of his you've ignored). Just like how every single movie is released with cut content. But then DVDs came out, and suddenly you had a new feature: the deleted scenes track. DLC is the deleted scenes track. If you want them then get them. If you don't want them then don't get them. You still have a finished product on your hands.

And even if you take the stance of "include everything that's been planned, don't leave anything out, I can wait", there are plenty of business reasons why that's not often feasible. There are obviously time and money issues involved, but the development team also has to cooperate and coordinate with other divisions of the company and/or another company altogether, and sometimes you have to work with their schedule.

I get what you're saying but the kind of thing where "We'll publish the game at this date and release the DLC at this date" is happening more and more, especially with DLC announcements coming so close after release, or even before release in some cases.

I would rather wait the amount of time it's taking for games like FF13 and Last Guardian and have no DLC.
Once again, you're interpreting events to suit your theory. Games have been trying to hit specific release dates for decades. The holiday time is always a big target. Now let's say you have some content that isn't finished yet and won't be finished in time to print the gold masters and get the disks pressed in time to meet that holiday release. In the past you had two options:

A. Delay the release of the game, missing out on getting the holiday shopping boom
B. Cut the content from the game, forever losing it to the mists of time

Now we have option C.

C. Remove the content from the release of the game and add it as DLC

Not every company has the option of going with A. This is a business reality and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. So let's compare B & C. With B we get no content, with C we're in the same position except now we can spend a little more money to get the content. That seems like a benefit.

No one here is denying that there are some DLC -- like those "unlock code" DLC -- that are silly at best. But you can't lump all DLC together and make a blanket statement like "all DLC are evil, everything should be included on disc."

When it's best for consumers, you can.

It's all nice and good to have "principles," but principles can't exist in vacuum. There are always two sides to the equation. And if you are unwilling even to see things from the other perspective, then the said principles only come across as hollow and irrational stubbornness.

The two sides would be - the greed of the publishers and the protection of the consumer. I don't see why I should bother seeing the point of a side that's wrong. Yes, I will grant you it's stubborn, but also right.
I lumped these two together. You are ascribing motivations to developers that may or may not exist. As I've listed, not every instance of DLC is formed from a group of people in a conference room cackling about how they will hold back content in order to gain more money. Some of them are BS; the unlock-code style DLC. Others legitimately add content to a game that, while not necessary to have to fully enjoy what was shipped, can extend the life of a game. And the part that really gets me is that because a game offers DLC, that means the game must be completely avoided. I suppose this means that you will no longer be playing video games on any major console in 5 years, as I highly doubt that developers will stop releasing DLC.

[Manly Biceps]

I'm going to wade in here for a second because I was called into the thread. Take this as MY two cents and not the company's, by the way.

Well up until last gen that was the case. A game stood as a complete product, like a book. I don't see why that should have to change now. You don't buy 2/3 of a book and then download the end do you?

That's not even remotely true, for either of your examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root

If you don't feel like reading that link, Below the Root is the culmination of a series of books that Zilpha Keatley Snyder wrote. She felt that she had to wrap up the book in an unsatisfying manner, and in order to rectify that, made a video game to finish up where the books left off.

"The game is a direct sequel to the books, and is meant by the author to be taken as canon. It originated in Snyder's realization that one of her final plot elements had been a huge mistake. She was being flooded with mail from adults and children, but could not see any way to change the ending now that the book was on the market. In addition, she had believed the event she described to be necessary to the ultimate resolution of the plot. Introduced to the concept of computer games, Snyder saw a way to redeem the situation while keeping and even advancing the original plot. The object of the game is to solve the mystery of what really happened."

So, not only did this happen well before this current generation with expansion packs, obviously planned sequels, and additional content discs, but this has happened in books, it's happened in movies, (Director's cut! Now with new ending!) it's even happened with music when previously unreleased studio recordings and live versions of the songs come out. The only difference between the act in this generation and the last one is that now you can download the stuff and save yourself a trip to the store.

You can certainly argue that the add-on content is far more prevalent now than it was in the past, but you cannot argue that it never existed before.

I get what you're saying but the kind of thing where "We'll publish the game at this date and release the DLC at this date" is happening more and more, especially with DLC announcements coming so close after release, or even before release in some cases.

I would rather wait the amount of time it's taking for games like FF13 and Last Guardian and have no DLC.

If you understand that his point has some validity, why don't you temper your response? Instead of "not buying the game period" why not only buy the game if it is either:

A) Already cheaper than a standard game.
B) Marked down.

I will point out that in the case of 3D Dot, the game's already cheaper than standard retail, and even if you bought the DLC, you'd still be buying the game for less than another game at retail. I don't see how you felt this particular situation reeked of corporate greed so much that you had to start a thread about it, but whatever.

No one here is denying that there are some DLC -- like those "unlock code" DLC -- that are silly at best. But you can't lump all DLC together and make a blanket statement like "all DLC are evil, everything should be included on disc."

When it's best for consumers, you can.

Except for the fact your stance it's not always best for consumers. It may be best for consumers like you, but it obviously isn't what's best for all consumers. Using Rock Band as an example, if I had to pay licensing fees for like 800 crappy songs I never want to play, I'd be far more upset than I am paying a-la-carte for songs that I DO want to play.

It's all nice and good to have "principles," but principles can't exist in vacuum. There are always two sides to the equation. And if you are unwilling even to see things from the other perspective, then the said principles only come across as hollow and irrational stubbornness.

The two sides would be - the greed of the publishers and the protection of the consumer. I don't see why I should bother seeing the point of a side that's wrong. Yes, I will grant you it's stubborn, but also right.

No, that is not what the two sides would be. No you are not right.

The two sides are the publisher's need for profitability in order to provide the consumer with content, and the consumer's desire for the publisher's content while being mindful of their money.

In your supposed situation, neither side has any incentive to cooperate with each other. However, in real life, the situation is symbiotic. The consumer has nothing to consume if the publisher isn't publishing, and the publisher has no reason to publish if nobody's consuming.

In a symbiotic relationship like this, failing to view the situation from the other perspective isn't right, it's wrong. You absolutely must take into account the other party's point of view, because refusing to do so is ultimately self-defeating.

[Nephlabobo]

Your analogy is flawed. I have yet to see DLC that adds an ending to a game that you can't get otherwise. What I have seen is DLC that adds side chapters and interesting stuff. Let's take the Dragon Age example. There is DLC that adds a party member (certainly not required to fully enjoy the game) as well as a side quest. And I never got that side quest DLC, yet I managed to play through and enjoy the story of Dragon Age. That certainly doesn't sound like the analogy you posted.

All stuff that should have been included. Period.

And also, through every single console generation a game has been released with cut content. Every. Single. One. As Inzaghi already made mention of (and every single post of his you've ignored). Just like how every single movie is released with cut content. But then DVDs came out, and suddenly you had a new feature: the deleted scenes track. DLC is the deleted scenes track. If you want them then get them. If you don't want them then don't get them. You still have a finished product on your hands.

First, there's one issue which hasn't been brought up. I suspect (don't know for sure) that a good portion of cut content in the past was *at least* partly due to space issues because of the format - cartridge, CD etc.

Now we have Blu-Ray, which is supposed to have all the space in the world according to Sony.

And seriously? Costumes for 3DDGH? That's *really* something you couldn't fit onto the disc?

That is the issue I have. It's just blatant gouging.

Once again, you're interpreting events to suit your theory. Games have been trying to hit specific release dates for decades. The holiday time is always a big target. Now let's say you have some content that isn't finished yet and won't be finished in time to print the gold masters and get the disks pressed in time to meet that holiday release. In the past you had two options:

A. Delay the release of the game, missing out on getting the holiday shopping boom
B. Cut the content from the game, forever losing it to the mists of time

Now we have option C.

C. Remove the content from the release of the game and add it as DLC

You forgot option D which is actually not be lazy or greedy and finish the product like it's supposed to be done.

I lumped these two together. You are ascribing motivations to developers that may or may not exist. As I've listed, not every instance of DLC is formed from a group of people in a conference room cackling about how they will hold back content in order to gain more money. Some of them are BS; the unlock-code style DLC. Others legitimately add content to a game that, while not necessary to have to fully enjoy what was shipped, can extend the life of a game.

No, they are the same. DLC gouges - it does not extend life.

And the part that really gets me is that because a game offers DLC, that means the game must be completely avoided. I suppose this means that you will no longer be playing video games on any major console in 5 years, as I highly doubt that developers will stop releasing DLC.

I probably won't be, but I have a pretty hefty backlog anyway.

[DamnedToBeFree]

This thread is hilarious.

[Manly Biceps]

Your analogy is flawed. I have yet to see DLC that adds an ending to a game that you can't get otherwise.

And just to show that I see both sides of the argument...

Fallout 3 released DLC that changed the ending. So, that would qualify as "seeing an ending that you wouldn't get otherwise".

[Dominions]

The two sides would be - the greed of the publishers and the protection of the consumer. I don't see why I should bother seeing the point of a side that's wrong. Yes, I will grant you it's stubborn, but also right.

You're wrong. You think videogames are made in Santa's workshop at the north pole or something. Without the "greed" side of the equation there would be no "consumer" side. There would be no games to consume. Those artists would be working on website banner ads and the developers would be writing word processors or databases where there would still be money to be made.

[Nephlabobo]

Your analogy is flawed. I have yet to see DLC that adds an ending to a game that you can't get otherwise.

And just to show that I see both sides of the argument...

Fallout 3 released DLC that changed the ending. So, that would qualify as "seeing an ending that you wouldn't get otherwise".

As did the most recent Prince of Persia.

[Gen Eric Gui]

And seriously? Costumes for 3DDGH? That's *really* something you couldn't fit onto the disc?

They're pre-built custom character models. The game is already shipping with a character creator that you can use to MAKE the things you can buy. These are just neat pre-built things you can get for a dollar if you don't feel like making them yourself. Once again, you show that you're jumping to ridiculous conclusions without understanding the situation.



Maybe scale back the sarcasm a little bit, Generic.

I'm sorry. :( I'm trying to be good.

[Inzaghi]

I'm sorry. :( I'm trying to be good.

Appreciate the effort, but if Nephlabobo refuses to be a slave to reality, not much point in talking at him anymore, I don't think. Thanks for playing, everyone.