Does DLC cheapin the quality of the original released product? - Page 3

I see this differently.

When I efforted through the first couple hours of Dragon Age, I finally got to the point where you are out in your camp and I notice this new guy off to the side that wasn't in any of the story thus far. So I walk over to him and strike up yet another of the umpteen billion tiring NPC dialog conversations, only this time, this NPC is trying to hawk an expansion pack on me, in the middle of the game.

This may be common practice in games now-a-days, but it was the first time I witnessed it within a game. Imo it really pulled me out of the story and left me feeling a bad taste in my mouth.

Although I still agree that games should be judged based on the content offered vs. the price, I also do agree with people that feel DLC (especially DLC hawked to you in-game) cheapens the overall game. I don't think it should be given for free, so much as I'd prefer to see none of it at all.

Personally, I'm pretty much of the opinion that I'd rather play 2 complete games, rather than play one game with 6 different DLC add-ons.

-Suntan

Assassins Creed 2 -- (the last AC game i will ever buy) with two middle chapters "damaged" and unaccessable in game, bumping you way into the future of the game time line, and then coming back a month later with paid DLC to access them.

Simply inexcusable in my opinion.

I have no issues with paying for DLC that extends the game play, gives an alternative story/path/point of view, new weapons, or acts as a prologue or epilogue to the existing content, but ripping out the middle of the story and then charging extra to go back to it...

That's a fair enough point, however in-game advertising has been around since I can remember. I think my first brush was with the old Scott Adams text adventures on the Vic-20. Sierra did it, too with all of their "quest" games. (I'm sooooo dating myself).

It's definitely a gripe, but I doubt that getting rid of DLC would get rid of in-game advertising. Instead of hawking the DLC content, they'd hawk the sequel or another game by the same publisher.

None of it at all? Really? So, Rock Band would contain 30 songs and that's it? No option to increase your library? FPShooters would come with their limited number of maps and that would be all?

I disagree completely. If I don't like DLC, I don't download it, but I wouldn't want to deny the ability for others to increase the longevity of a game they enjoy.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what's to stop you from doing that now? Most DLC is additional content that rarely has any impact on a single player story/campaign. Can't you play "complete-games" now, without downloading any DLC? Why should the ability to download unnecessary additional content affect your choice to play only the "complete game"?

I'm not sure how you define "real choice", but it seems like you think "real choice" means any choice you desire. The more choices, the better, but as the consumer you don't get to make up your own rules. Sorry, but that's just not the way things work.

You can choose to buy the DLC for the XBOX.
You can choose NOT to buy the DLC for the XBOX.
You can choose to play on the PC and get the DLC for free.

Those are just a few of your choices.

By mocking and constantly telling people they are wrong for having personal opinions different than yours, well that's pretty much what you are being.

Oh, I played a lot of those old Sierra games too. I don't ever remember having an NPC placed prominently in the game for the sole purpose of selling me more game.

As for rock band, I have zero interest in it. Whether it comes with 5 songs or 5,000.

And as for game longevity, who are we kidding around here. If a game is even fractionally well received in the market, it's coming back in a year or two with a sequel. I'd rather have the sequel to a good game released 2 weeks earlier than have an option to buy tacked on content. You're free to feel differently, but stop insinuating that this thought is wrong. It gets tiring to hear, and quite frankly, it's something you do over and over Vespa. Regardless of the topic.

In any case, my opinion is what it is (you trying to tell me it is wrong not withstanding.) At best DLC has zero detrimental effect on the core game. At best. However, it would be interesting to hear unvarnished opinions from some of the game makers as to the notion of parts of a game's core content being changed/modified/watered-down to make it more accessible to adding DLC into the overall setup.

-Suntan

I thought this was place for open discussion and debate. Asking someone to provide evidence to support a point, or providing contrary evidence/analogies is not "telling people they are wrong". I didn't realize the skin was so thin in here.

As for mockery...


Not NPCs, but I distinctly remember signs for other games. And predating that, the Vic20 text adventures ALL had a note/sign/book/etc within the game that you'd read and undoubtedly find an advertisement for one of their other text adventures. My point is/was that in-game advertising has existed long before DLC came into play.

That being said, do you think that if DLC did not exist, that in-game advertising would disappear?


But certainly you wouldn't be selfish enough to deny DLC to those that do enjoy it? Do you see the benefit of DLC to the RockBand/GuitarHero community?


Where did I say - or even insinuate - that this is wrong? My first comment to you was a compliment! You summed up my thoughts perfectly and I acknowledged it. You then commented on my post and I replied. I wasn't rude. No name calling. I simply asked you questions about your opinion.

I told you that I disagreed (with your comment that you'd rather see "[no DLC] at all") and then I told you why I disagreed with you.

I'm not sure what to say if that is all it takes to get you riled up. People will disagree with you. Seriously Suntan, and I mean this with all due respect... Lighten up.


Again, WHERE in this thread have I told you that your opinion is wrong? You're entitled to hold any beliefs you want.


I agree. I also think it follows that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Interesting, then, that academic treatments of the problem go out of their way to put "rational" in quotes and explicitly define it as only being rational when you only consider personal financial gain. Which is exactly what I said before.


The MGS4 multiplayer packs were $15 and contained some regurgitated maps from the MGS3 online component. I also seem to recall having a harder time finding games after the DLC came out. That said, I wasn't directly citing that example, I was just rattling off the types of DLC scenarios that would be bad form. I was making up numbers to illustrate those scenarios, probably subconsciously drawing from my MGS4 experience. That's why it's abstract, not specific. Get it?


See, there's this notion of a hypothetical statement. You use this thing called "imagination" to consider abstract, representative scenarios that don't have to be concrete examples. A lot of times they begin with a word like "if", as in the statement you quoted. They're really quite useful, but only when the audience understands their purpose. Sorry I didn't tailor my message sufficiently for your level of understanding.

- Jer

And I agreed with you in my response. Here it is again. Emphasis mine.


I used the phrase "seemingly rational". The paper you linked to used the word "rational" in quotes. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I"'m sure if I wrote a few more paragraphs, I could have been clearer, but I sense that I'm "wordy" enough as is.

But it really doesn't matter to understand the analogy. The experiment expects that people will behave a certain way - call it rational, "rational", irrational, logical, stupid, expected, etc - it doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters is that the predicted result does not factor in an emotional response.

The real result is obviously different than the expected result in that some people would still accept the low offer, but a significant percentage of the participants would not accept a low offer for any variety of emotional reasons (spite, punishment, etc).

The reason I feel that this is analogous to the DLC issue is because I feel there are two main responses to DLC content:

Response #1 is similar to the expected response above. The only thing that matters is "does this content have value to me". That's it. Emotional factors (such as, how much profit are they making? did they cut this content from the original game? etc) don't enter the decision making process.
Reponse #2 is similar to the real response above. A significant portion of the gaming community uses emotional factors to color their decision making process.

That's it. That is ALL I'm saying in regards to the ultimatum experiment. Personally, I feel that the first response makes the most sense. Others don't. Call response #2 the rational response if it helps. It doesn't affect the nature of the analogy. Two groups with two opinions based on two different criteria.*

*I'm sure that there are other groups, but the probably fall into one of the two groups above.


First of all, that sounds a lot like you're mocking me. A simple "yes" would have been sufficient.

But seriously, I understand your 'abstract' concept. I just don't understand why you would base your opinion on hypothetical, "abstract" points, and "made up" numbers rather than on experience. In the context, I certainly don't think you can fault anyone for assuming that you were talking about real experiences...




ETA: By the way, that's an excellent paper in your link! Where'd you find it?

One of the things that you're all talking around is that DLC is very different in single player games versus multiplayer games.

DLC in single-player games is usually more like bonus content or deleted scenes, and it is rarely (if ever) as good in quality as the original retail release. These aren't necessary. You can't really accuse these of being a "rip off" because they're easy enough to just not buy, and you don't miss out on anything (and, yes, that includes AC2).

DLC in multiplayer games is more like a de facto subscription fee. If you want to keep playing a multiplayer game like Modern Warfare seriously, you generally have to buy the new map pack DLC. But, again, not really a "rip off" because if you play the game that seriously, you're certainly getting more than your money's worth. Still a hell of a lot cheaper than a subscription fee. Or (since this thread's in the PS forums) you still end up spending less on DLC than you would on a year's XBL subscription.

Regardless, the two are very different beasts.

You see. This is the kind of crap rebuttal that is so annoying and counter productive.

I tell you my *opinion* which is that I would prefer that game companies work on the next new title instead of putting out half baked DLC. But you come back with this. Using suggestive language that I am being selfish, and by using entirely too much hyperbole (But certainly) you suggest that my opinion is outlandish to begin with. It's annoying. And quite frankly, it doesn't do much to actually continue a conversation.

Like I said, you do it all the time. All over the place. It's annoying. Feel free to take these comments any way you want. Feel free to think that I am just being an over-sensitive prick or a hypocrite, or feel free to take it to heart and re-examine your posting style.

-Suntan

I think he's pointing out your specific reference to the music game genre. You don't like it so you don't care at all about it, and honestly, reading that response from you makes his question seem valid.

Here's the exact exchange:



Just because you don't like a genre doesn't mean that they shouldn't continue it with DLC. I mean, really, most of the disc based versions are fancy DLC packs anyway.

And don't get me wrong, I am generally in agreement with you here, ESPECIALLY that F'ing BS that they put in Dragon Age. That was purely uncalled for and is absolutely nothing like in game advertising that was done in old school Sierra games. Mentioning a totally new and different experience != telling you that you can get more stuff in this game if you just click here and buy it. That's absolute BS.

WTF? Where is this coming from? Companies have wanted to give free content on Xbox Live but have been denied. You claimed that companies have the right to offer whatever they want at whatever price they want. I said that's not true, since they cannot offer stuff for free. It's a phony choice.

That's not about me "making up my own rules", it's about companies not having a choice in what they can offer to their customers on the service. On Xbox Live, they really don't have that choice because Microsoft doesn't let them.

So, your gripe is that publishers want to give away stuff for free, but can't, due to XBL's policy. That I understand. So what's your solution?

(As an aside, I'm unfamiliar with the way XBL operates. If someone were to download content, who pays for the bandwidth?)

You're reading way too much into things. Take a deep breath and relax.

You'll notice that I have specifically *not* commented on games like rock band because of two main reasons: 1) I don't play them, I don't care about them and as such I don't care how they run those. They could charge a monthly subscription fee for them and give you monthly new songs for all I care.

2) Rock band games are not really the same as other games. The basic game play is pretty much standard and the only real content is the songs themselves. As such, they don't merit the same discussion as games that actually have content.

Once again, I'm not commenting on rock band. Not because I am trying to hide any opinions I have about them 9with respect to DLC or otherwise,) but because I don't *have* any opinions about them.

The fact that he keeps trying to use games like rock band to throw in my face, when I have made it completely clear that I don't play them, just goes to show how he's not really interested in discussing the topic openly.

-Suntan

So in that case, yes, you do see the value in DLC to those gamers that enjoy music games

You know, other than music DLC, I think the only thing I've ever downloaded was for Valkyria Chronicles and LittleBigPlanet. Both of those DLC came out well after the game was released and actually added something real to either game.

I honestly can't think of another piece of DLC I've purchased.

Yes. I really wouldn't care if Rock Band LLC, or whoever they are, gave players an Itunes-like store so players could download new hits to press buttons to every day of the week.

My comments were in relation to games that are not structured anything like rock band. My gripe is with comments like,


It's a strawman argument, brought up about a type of game I said I don't play, intended to paint me as a selfish prick. It's disingenuous and counter productive.

Now it's the last I'll say about it so that, hopefully, we can move on.

I should have just kept my comments in this thread limited to my first post.

-Suntan

So when you said "I'd prefer to see [no DLC] at all", you were using a personal definition of DLC that didn't warrant the inclusion of games like RockBand because they merit a different discussion? I'm not sure how anyone would have known that.

It's not a strawman at all. I never misrepresented your opinion. I asked if that was your opinion, based on your "i don't care" reply. You got defensive and played the victim, when you could have just made your opinion a bit more clear, like you just did:



I agree. It's really much ado about nothing.

The solution is easy - let publishers put up stuff for free without hassle if they want to.


I don't know. Whoever pays for, say, the demos now, which are frequently huge. Bandwidth is cheap.

What do you mean by "let" them? XBL has set a policy. Are you saying that XBL's policy should be removed? If so, under what authority?


So in the case of Valve, who pays for their bandwidth when their DLC is downloaded?


Millions of downloads add up.

Uhh, whoever makes the policy? Since when is Microsoft's policy written in blood, not to be questioned? It's a ****** policy. They should get rid of it. It's anti-competitive and anti-customer. You can't tell me that publishers have the right to publish what they want at whatever price they want when they can't publish something for free.


Have you ever heard of Steam? Valve does. They own the storefront, they push patches and updates through automatically.



Then why isn't Microsoft charging gamers for demos? Because it's good publicity. Free DLC is good publicity too.

BTW considering how huge Microsoft is I really doubt any of that would make a blip. They gobble up obscene amounts of bandwidth on a daily basis. It's Microsoft we are talking about there.

But why should they? They're in business to make money.


I've heard of them. I'm just unfamiliar with how they operate. So Valve doesn't use XBL's bandwith. Interesting.

Because, like I said, it's anti-competitive and anti-consumer. You don't always need to crap in your customer's faces to make money.

Valve's annoyance with MS' XBL policies have drove them into the arms of Sony, where they are bringing Steamworks. Presumably this will allow Valve to deliver content to PS3 owners in the same fashion as they do PC. This could be really big for Sony, and harmful to Microsoft.



I don't know how they do it on XBL, I was talking about PC. On the PC they pay for all the bandwidth of delivering this content. I assume it will be the same on PS3.

You do realize that you're talking about MS, right? How many times now have they been under threat of an anti-trust suit?


A few thousand hookers in Amsterdam say hi.


Sony and MS have different methods of charging publishers. AFAIK MS charges a percent of sales, while Sony charges for straight-up bandwidth (including demos and trailers). I think this is part of the reason why PSN has fewer demos than XBL Marketplace.

How is it anti-competitive?

As for it being anti-consumer, there are plenty of policies that seem anti-consumer. For instance, Nintendo not only forced publishers to purchase cartridges from them (which they may have been able to get cheaper elsewhere), but they limited the publishers to two titles per year, to avoid oversaturation on the market (and shovelware). That certainly seems anti-consumer (more games = good!) and anti-competitive.

Either way, it doesn't make a difference. MS is free to make these decisions. It might pay dividends, or it might come back to bite them on the butt...


Ahhhhh... The free market at work! MS does something that a company doesn't like and they bring their business to a competitor.


It's not a great argument, but if they are indeed using XBL bandwidth, and want to give away free DLC, I can see why MS wants them to charge at least a minimum fee. Or they can do what PSN does and charge them per gig.

Ok. That was funny.

And if I recall correctly they got in hot water from the Justice Department over it.

Did they? I remember several lawsuits during the NES heyday, but not this particular one. Do you have a link?

No. On second thought it might have been the NYS AG. They ended up agreeing to a settlement where they sent everyone a coupon for money off NES games. Nintendo was pretty rotten back then.