BioShock 2's First DLC Already On Disc 466
An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up:
"Trouble is brewing in Rapture. The recently released Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack for BioShock 2 is facing upset players over the revelation that the content is already on the disc, and the $5 premium is an unlock code. It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small: 24KB on the PC, 103KB on the PlayStation 3, and 108KB on the Xbox 360. 2K Games responded with a post explaining that the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact, without splitting it between the haves and have-nots."
5 dollar patch (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!
That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory.
When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release. Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.
Essentially, they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game; access to the existing content was broken. They have the right to choose to do business this way, but that doesn't make it any less bullshit and this practice isn't going to impress customers.
Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea, Princess! Diving into a pile of garbage! Hey, maybe when we get out of here, you can show us around your home planet of Alderaan-Ohhhhhhhhh, too soon???
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:4, Insightful)
It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.
I was following Cities XL when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people, and laughed when they pulled their "planet offer" for not attracting enough interest. Yeah, $5/mo for something like that's a little steep, guys, especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present (like mass transit: buses, trains, and such...) All in all, that was rather sad. (I found Societies to be more fun, and that's saying something.) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:5, Insightful)
The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.
It really is shocking that anyone can appreciate when someone resorts to duplicity.
If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money at all for me to take that lock off so you have a place to conveniently set your drink, would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:5, Insightful)
What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.
The fact that its on the game disk is irrelevant though. For example, when I buy Windows 7 Home Premium, that disk also contains Windows 7 Ultimate. I'm not given a key to unlock Ultimate, but I can buy a key from Microsoft to upgrade to it if I want to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like a cheap way to nickel and dime us which is becoming the defining definition of this generation of gaming development and consoles.
DLC is a great concept but has turned into such a cash cow that companies are now developing the game and DLC at the same time so to increase their revenue pipeline in a shorter span of time. Its smart from a reve
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:4, Informative)
The Terran Legacy pack contains the same units, upgrades, and whatever else you need for multiplay. The only thing that it won't have is the campaign for Protoss and Zerg.
The rumor is that each game will have a campaign the length of the original SC, and if that's true, I'll be willing to pay for it.
Also, your assumption of a $60 price is insane. PC games aren't $60 when they come out, they're closer to $49.
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay Mr. Blizzard Troll Fanboy, I'll bite.
Blizzard (possibly the most evil gaming company to convert from awesome indie hood to 1984), will almost definitely try to do tiered access the same way they do with WoW, oh you didn't buy the expansion? Well you don't have to, but you will be the handicapped of Azeroth with no special parking, to the point that not buying the expansions means you've completely wasted all the time money you DID invest. I notice you didn't provide a link to your assertion so I'll just spout my opinion the same as you.
In addition, the most purchased game EVER, Modern Warfare 2, does and did have a $60 MSRP, and is still selling as such on Steam and probably elsewhere. No, I don't own it; nor will I.
I am an avid, long time gamer (25+ years), I supported Blizzard from Blackthorne on 3.5" floppy to WoW; never again. They've proven money is more important to them than anything else, their customer service is abysmal, their inflated monthly fees for a 5+ year old game are sad, they're pro-censorship and anti-freedom at every level. Their enormous Asian market keeps them afloat I'd wager. Yes, they have polished releases where almost no one else does. That's the one thing they have left, I wonder how long before it goes too. Once bitten twice shy? I got sick of re-buying scratched games and whatnot.
It seems like they will be milking the SC2 and Diablo III releases for as much as they can. I would rather seem them charge $80 or $100 up front and include everything than do something insidious like this which contributes to the DLC debauchery, which I think is wrong generally, as has already been posted, developers are now leaving things out on purpose to charge for them later.
I used to scoff at people who said PC gaming was dying. I've since sadly joined their ranks.
ps, fuck karma.
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:4, Informative)
What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.
Feeling cheated is kind of subjective. The whole thing with the new Starcraft games sounds like a cheat. It's not just Starcraft 2 but a trilogy of games, one game per race rather than one game with three races and three campaigns. And each game will go for $50 or $60. That feels like a cheat. It's supposed to be three full games worth of material but it doesn't feel right.
Lord of the Rings was shot like one big movie and released in installments. It didn't feel like such a cheat since the second one was in no way complete when the first hit theaters, likewise for the third when the second was released. And when released on DVD we knew the schedule in advance, movie versions first with expanded editions later. The whole set was expensive but well worth the money. But technically this is no different from Starcraft 2. Feels different, though.
It seems like the only way to handle this for games is to just get the game of the year or collected edition a year or three after release when all the DLC is shipped on CD. God knows nobody has enough hard drive space on the consoles to keep all the DLC handy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay. If I use it and then not pay, that's stealing and it is illegal.
Some other industries do this sort of thing, too. I'm working with a client right now that makes big machines that make stuff; they keep spare parts on the premises of their customers that pay for them as they use them. Some larger servers have things like unused disk or CPU capacity installed in them that sits idle; when you need to expand capacity all you do is call the vendor and they turn on the existing hardware... it's all there but you don't get to use it until you pay for it.
Referring to your original post, I don't think any of this is unethical... including what the game maker did (and, no, I haven't played the game, nor will I). Now is it consumer friendly? Different question and I probably wouldn't have made the same decision the game maker did if I were in their place; maybe sold the game as standard and premium editions or something like that. But there is no moral imperative that's being violated unless they said you bought everything on the disk and then failed to honor that.
Regards,
SCB
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting post. All 3 of your cases make the point of (hopefully) charging less for stuff you aren't going to use.
- How much would it suck if a hotel charged you for eating everything out of the mini-bar, whether you did or not?
- If the company gave you a 4 core CPU with 4 disabled, and simply unlocked the other 4 when you decided to upgrade, no problem, makes upgrading a breeze. But, only if their price was for a 4 core, and not equivalent to an 8 core.
So I think the same should apply for DLC, if they are reducing the core cost of the game for everything they lock out, good to go. If they are charging us for what we might eat from the mini-bar, AND charging to unlock the mini-bar, we have a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose no more so than it installs a cup holder with a lock on it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose no more so than it installs a cup holder with a lock on it.
Ouch. I got served.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
there was some other game where the exact opposite thing happened and i didnt even make it up either but i lost the link, forgot the game, and dont care enough about the quality of my post to do anything more about it. thank you!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I'd go with this for a car analogy.
Lets say you buy a nice sporty car, lets say a BMW at around 350HP. You've been using it for a while, and then your dealer tells you you can get an extra 50HP by applying a software patch, but it will cost you 2000$.
Well, they've been doing such a thing for a while, and people are actually quite happy with this .. because they got the car as it was advertised in the first case, and those extra HP are well worth the price of the patch and the engine warranty reducti
5 dollar game (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh, seems like only indy game companies get it right. About a year back I bought Defense Grid (TD) on Steam. Played through it - definitely worth the $5 I paid. A few days ago I fired it up again, and what do I find? More levels, and more game modes. The company just keeps on giving!
I guess what it comes down to is, indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game, while building up their name. Big game studios want your money, and want to figure out ways to get your money. Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals.
Re:5 dollar patch (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.
So much for being allowed a difference of opinion...
I don't see this as being ethical or unethical - its simply another sales method. Were you promised the extra content and features in the original sale? No? Then whats the problem? Your purchase isn't faulty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a matter of ethics because it tests the concept of what is right and wrong ("Ethics are for Everyone, Morals are for Me").
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publisher will fund them that way'
And that's cool, if that's what it takes to get the job done. This is different; the job was already done. They didn't even try to disguise it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dramatic much?
It's more fun that way.
Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will.
Don't be so presumptuous, I've already taken economics. I know very well they'll resort to most anything they can to make money; what that involves makes all the difference when it comes to PR.
Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business.
I assure you it has very much to do with ethics, and business is a realm that even in it's most primitive form surpasses anything describable as "basic".
Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.
Justified, hardly, but a little less arrogant.
I wish I could remove the checkbox for "post anonymously".
dont be silly (Score:3, Insightful)
They have the right to choose to do business this way
they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.
its selling an incomplete product. its basic fraud. these are now legal because we let them do so - they sell a 'game', but the definition of amenities in the game are not defined in detail, and also a shitty 'game experience may change' dropped into eula. this covers their ass from selling an incomplete product. it shouldnt happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more like selling a car, and then directing you to the performance parts department where you can purchase add-on parts that were developed prior-to and available at the time of purchase.
My truck didn't come with a supercharger, but the manufacturer had a factory-produced, dealer-installed, covered-by-the-standard-100k-warranty option available as an extra. Is the supercharger necessary? No. Is it desirable? Depends on the buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, I'll bite.
I have an XBL membership. Every once in a while, I download a demo of an XBL Arcade game. The other day I decided I liked the game enough to pay for it, and did so. Imagine my surprise when I realized that the only thing that was actually being downloaded was the activation key - all the code and resources needed to play were alread
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"I noticed there was a bit of confusion about our Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack file size, and I wanted to clear things up for you. The way our engine and game structure works is that people need to have the exact same content for people to play together. One of the challenges with post launch content for MP is that it can split the player base, and we want to avoid that whenever possible. For this
Fragment the player base (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, the real value here is the other people on the network, and not the game.
Sadly, this is not new practice in the print... (Score:3, Interesting)
industry. I work with equipment whose speed and certain other capabilities are determined by the license codes you pay for. To me, this seems dishonest.
I'm sad to see software publishers embrace this model, but not terribly surprised.
I will never pay for DLC (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.
But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
Because you are entitled to play the game? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:5, Insightful)
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
That statement disturbs me. Yes, having to pay for "DLC" that was already on-disc is a total sham, a ripoff. But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it.
But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense. By extension, do you pirate other software?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OP could simply be taking the stance that giving out part of a product then selling you the rest is wrong. It is illegal to sell what is advertised as a car; when you get it is has no muffler on it. I don't personally think this case is so obvious but the position isn't compl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That only applies to laws that are unjust. This has nothing to do with unjust laws. This has to do with a company charging for something that is already included on the original disc. Certainly it is something that isn't popular, but it has nothing to do with any laws. A company can charge whatever they want for something and break it up however they want.
People on here use pretty much any gripe they can to not pay
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.
But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
Bingo. I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy). If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it. However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).
Or, you know, you could just avoid the game if you disagree with the practices of the person releasing it. You basically lose any moral or ethical high ground by then going out and pirating the game.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:4, Informative)
That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software.
You must be new here, because it's well known that developers don't use DRM to stop piracy, they use DRM to stop second-hand game sales and to force games to become unplayable by turning off activation servers, thus forcing people to buy new games.
I don't feel entitled to it in the slightest. However, I'm not buying it due to the DRM - the company has already lost my sale. They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:4, Insightful)
They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?
How about because you're getting for free what other people are paying good money for? Is it fair to them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one made them buy a DRM ridden POS. They / you decided that they're ok with taking it up the ass from DRM. They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games, but they're too stupid and think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.
Your "you got it free and I paid for it" argument holds no ground. You decided that DRM was worth paying for, I decided it wasn't. You made the choice to buy it, so don't bitch about those who chose to save their hard earned money for something worth buyi
So you hate libraries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots evil pirates reading for free there.
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're just proving the point that pirates will come up with any excuse to -not- pay for something. If you disagree with a product, then don't buy it, don't steal it, don't advertise it, don't use it only at your friends house, just don't. There is NO entitlement to owning/renting/licensing/whatever the hard work of others without providing what they request in exchange. The only right everyone is justifiably entitled to is to NOT use any product they don't want to use.
But there is no political statement made by using something that you feel you're too good to pay for.
If someone does work, whether they make you a car, or a house, or a game, or some food, or whatever else. They have the right to ask for payment in return for your receipt of the product. If you don't desire to pay them their price, then the -only- justifiable response is to simply not use their product. Restaurant too expensive? Don't eat there. You have no right to wander into the kitchen and just take the food. House too expensive? Don't like the HOA rules? Don't live there, but you don't get to move in anyway and just ignore the price. Game has DRM you don't like? Spend your hard earned money on another companies game that you -do- support. But you don't have the right to still play the game anyway.
As for second hand game sales, you want to see that change? Again, don't spend any money on any product you can't resell afterwords. Enough companies go under from the boycotts and they'll stop pulling that crap. But simply pirating it instead? Then you're just a statistic, someone who they will always convince themselves that if they make it annoying enough, you will eventually be forced into purchasing.
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. It's just fucking disgraceful. You're not protesting crap, you're just throwing a hissy-fit.
This is like Ghandi going on a hunger strike, then ordering Domino's delivery (vegetarian, of course) three hours in.
People who want to change the world make *sacrifices* for it. If you're not making the sacrifice, you're not doing squat except deluding yourself into thinking stealing games is ok. (Whether or not you would have bought it anyway is *irrelevant* to the conversation.)
You can't get pissy about your own rights without respecting the rights of others-- in this case, the developers, artists, writers, network administrators, etc who created the game and who have the right to control its distribution.
All you're doing is weakening the message of people who really care. Because as long as you carry your current attitude, everybody's just going to assume that people who rant about DRM are only doing it to justify stealing. (As in your example.) Screw you.
Re:I will never pay for DLC (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't particularly agree with the OP's claim that "causes him to pirate games", your whopper metaphor is equally lousy because whoppers are not digital.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.
But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
So pay once. You get the product you paid for.
If the publisher offers extra content, feel free to ignore them. They're not asking for more money to play what you already have.
Whether the content is alread
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wait a few years for the GOTY edition to be on sale for $20.
Still waiting for Fallout 3.
How long until... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?
On the 360 or PS3? It probably will never. Maybe someone can try on the PC but I'm pretty sure they will be doing checks against such a crack when you log in to their servers. It would be trivially easy to detect if someone has done this.
Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.
What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it.
Re: (Score:2)
That was meant to be "wasn't absent".
Re: (Score:2)
Was it also mean to be an argument? DRM is what enables use of the media (or keeps it disabled), duh.
This pricing scheme is rotten. At least with DLC you could say to yourself, " well, there wasn't room on the disk or it wasn't completed yet, so I'll pony up $5 to cover costs". This is completed content, already on a disk which you've paid a license to use the content on. The cost of creation is already set, the media and license to content has been purchased, so it shouldn't be extra to use what's already
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it even be illegal for someone to do this?
Most likely. But even if it's not it would be trivially easy for 2k Games to block people from their servers by trying to crack the game to access it.
They bought a license to it already, is the publisher breaking the law by forcing someone to pay more to access something they already bought?
Under what statutory or case law would constitute this as illegal? It's content that was disabled and never advertised as being part of the package.
Re: (Score:2)
2k (Score:2)
I understand DLC is going to be more prevelant in the future, but I hope us gamers don't get hosed with unfinished games that the company requires an additional payment just to see all of the original content.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some hard lessons are going to be learnt before DLC becomes a tool that is used fairly. Just wait until DLC becomes integral to gameplay instead of optional... THAT will piss off just a few people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can just get a used copy of ODST and get all the multiplayer maps included.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that they are trying to make people really bored of Halo 3 so that when Halo: Reach comes out, people will be so sick of Halo 3 that they will hop on the new version right away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons I like Bad Company more then Modern Warfare.
When the first bad company came out multiplayer wasn't very good, I don't think it even had conquest mode. but today I pop in the game and it's pretty fun, I don't have to buy some crappy DLC to get the real online experience.
Compare this to CoD:W@W this game was actually pretty fun the day I bought it. But it only came with some of the content, Now there are 3-4 DLC's out and they want $10 bucks each. If I want to play a game today I ha
Speaking of being boned by DLC (Score:5, Insightful)
Dragon Age:
I got boned by that "Keep" DLC with the storage box. I made it to the top of the Keep, killed everything, on the way out I notice that Picture you click to make a chest pop out of the wall..I'm overloaded so, Hey I'll just bop down to the storage box, unload and come back.
NOPE! Since I "Beat" the Keep , the doors now no longer open, Chest lost forever. I was so pissed.
They could have just dumped that damn storage box at camp since the door to the keep was closed forever after you beat it. I paid for that damn Keep and now I can't enter it? What Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
You weren't the only one who had keeping the spoils from the DLC [penny-arcade.com].
Not surprised at all (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why people would feel happier paying for DLC that they feel came out after the game's release. If that were the overwhelming opinion then all companies would do is complete the DLC before the game was released (on the same schedule as before) and then artificially delay it for a couple of months.
That said, I love DLC, as it's what's prevented me from paying $50 for any new title. Nowadays I just wait a couple of years for a gold/platinum/complete/game of the year edition and pay $5-20 for a large amount of gameplay. I look forward to playing Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 in 2012 :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a long tradition of game sequels. These are additional content that come out after the game's release - not that much different than DLC is it?
A big difference between pre-release and post-release content is that post-release content can take feedback into consideration in its development. Even if it starts during QA of the final game, the post-launch DLC can incorporate gameplay and content that players felt was lacking. Sequels often take the chance to remove annoyances and add more of what peo
Haves and have nots. (Score:2)
Of course you want everyone to be able to play games with people who have downloaded the DLC! Obviously, you want them to see what they're missing by being a "have not".
This reminds me of the Descent 3 expansion pack, which introduced a new choice of ship to the existing 3 models, which was pretty much superior in every way. Even if you didn't buy the expansion pack, you could still play with people who had it and see their ship in all it's black and multi-missile-launching glory -- I can't remember if it
Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just me or do I see more outrage than the time MS shipped all versions of Vista on a single disc, and it was only the product key you got (and the price you paid for it) that determined the edition it installed. If you skipped the product key it had to ask you which edition to install!
AFAIK they're still doing this with 7.
A lesson to be learned (Score:5, Funny)
If customers succesfully manage to cause PR trouble for 2K over this, developers will have to take notice and they will never do this again with any other game: for subsequent releases, the 108kb key will be padded with 350MB of nothing. PR crisis averted!
What's DLC stand for now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sidestep (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?
All this outrage is going to do is to force developers to move that content off-disc so they can pretend they developed it outside the standard development cycle. You don't really think company execs will say "gee, we'd better provide better value," do you? Particularly when every other company jumps aboard?
Re: (Score:2)
So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?
They wouldn't have gotten caught and the question would never have concerned us. That makes it difficult to discuss what could have been.
In retrospect, it would have been the same bullshit, it just wouldn't have stirred the outrage.
Sheeple (Score:2, Insightful)
will still pay for the damn thing. Gamers are some of the biggest mindless consumers there are right after the Apple fanatics :)
You get a few companies like Rockstar who release DLC which is basically the equivalent of an entire new game. That's the kind of DLC people want.
The funny thing is that DLC is a perfect way for publishers to make sure they will always get some $$ on used game sales. BUT savy people know that if you just wait 6-12 months you'll be able to buy the SE version of a game that includ
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind DLC usually. Like in the case of Borderlands. I liked the game, but it was enough for me. The bugs and the cheating really killed any hope of multiplayer that I had with the game. But the DLC idea was nice.
If they had tried to get me to pay for 'locked' areas that were already in the game, however, they wouldn't have gotten my money. Moreover, I would have returned the game if I could have and explained why. Games should NOT have DLC from day one unless it's a cheap game to begin with. S
Complete scam (Score:2)
It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.
If they can't afford to make thes
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk.
This is technically impractical, considering all sorts of resources might and often do end up on a game that aren't actually used. The "coffee" scene in GTA3 comes to mind.
I dont know... (Score:3, Insightful)
who to be more angry with, the company, or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again.
Gamers' bill of rights? (Score:2)
Gamers are getting shafted more and more these days.
I think we should bond together and form some kind of consumer advocacy group, maybe offer some kind of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" type trade mark for compliant games.
Here's what I would put in my own bill of rights:
1)Right to resell games - either on virtual games or real, at a price that I set.
2)Ability to play my game at a friend's house without having to redownload (there are broadband caps, you know-and the next generation of consoles probab
I'm sorry, what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mind paying for expansions (Score:2)
Waters are being tested (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole thing is interesting to me. I think we're sort of watching a paradigm shift in the way publishers and consumers interact.
Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter? Everyone who purchased a copy of the game knew what they were getting into. They willingly exchanged money for the game as it was. This unlock was not included in that transaction. Then, the publisher asks people to pay more money for additional content. People decide whether or not they want that content.
However, we have this notion that once we've bought a 'thing' we should have full access to it. I like this idea, personally. I think most of us here do. When they reveal that you bought the disc, and it had the content ready to go and you are locked out, that's evil.
However, if they did the same thing but shipped it without this content on the disc, that would be OK? If they COULD have put it on the disc, but they didn't - does the publisher have an obligation to release the content if it is finished? I think that gets a bit more gray.
What if they finished this the week after the disc shipped? Is that OK?
Is it that we're theoretically 'covering the cost' of the development of the game with our $60 or $50? And then the price of DLC is an incentive for them to continue expanding the game? On the other hand, they delivered a game in a state that you can choose to buy or not. What is hidden in the disc's dead space is of little concern, right?
DLC has caused some interesting ethical and financial quandries. One the one hand, it seems like game prices are going up by degrees. We're paying $60 for a game, PLUS another $5 here and $10 there. Some games, especially multiplayer titles, may cost you upwards of $100 by the time you're finished. Are we getting our money's worth? Are we getting a good deal for our gaming value? At the same time, do publishers have an obligation to tell us up front what we're getting into: ie, you will pay $60 for this game and an estimated $x/interval for DLC in order to have the 'complete' experience.
Not to mention the whole 'project $10' initiative - where there's a code in the box that you can only use once, and it locks used owners out of content that you would otherwise have to pay for as DLC...
Complicating matters is that there's not any competition in the market - if you want a COD:MW2 map, for instance, you're getting it from IW/Activision/MS Live. There's not a competitor that can sell you a similar product at a competitive price.
I think the future is going to be full of more of these practices. And, by and large, the average gamer is going to be oblivious.
Nothing new. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a test. This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now. 2K was just following standard procedure. Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.
I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them. They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles. They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game. Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us. Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.
If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes. They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line. As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints. This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.
Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see multiplayer as being much of a big deal for Bioshock 2. There are just too many great games that were made for multiplayer, instead of a game like Bioshock, where multiplayer was clearly an afterthought.
A lot of people who haven't yet bought Bioshock are just going to see if maybe there's a scene release of the single-payer instead of enriching a company that has such hostility toward their customers.
I'm not condoning it, but I can understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.
And I'd be willing to bet that 2k Games will then block any person from their servers who have done this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll repost Aphoxema's comment above, since it is the best Car Analogy for the scenario.
If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money for me to take that lock off , would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.
Can you understand it now? Can you understand that -having- content but being unable to use it as frustrat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new here. Move along. (Score:4, Informative)
The reason it seems so irksome in this case whereas people are OK with the Windows situation is that you know upfront that you're buying one version of windows that has a certain number of features, from a list the company offered you. When the company drip feeds extra features to you at extra charge it interferes with the normal way people judge value, so they feel swindled, hence a general dislike of DLC. But DLC isn't as bad as it could be - at least you're getting extra content that wasn't available before. When it turns out that the "new" content isn't actually new development work, it feels like you're being exploited.