DLC and feeling ripped off

[fatpat268]

Not only that, but $35 is a horrible price for SC4. I remember buying it for $10 new at best buy a few months ago.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Juddog

Releasing armor for your horse or an extra map seems like a rip off, stuff like that should be free.

I've never understood why people say that things that other people put effort into creating should be free. It's great when it is free, but who are we to tell someone they should give their work away for free?

Because often the content could have easily been included in the original game and does not warrant a seperate download, yet they purposely hold back content already created in order to release it as DLC and make extra $$.

 

[gorcorps]

It's not a scam if you don't research what you're buying OP. It's your own fault.

 

[lupi]

the more they get even a couple idiots to buy the crap they put out as payed DLC, the more they add as pay for play and the less they will include as standard or free upgrades.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Because often the content could have easily been included in the original game and does not warrant a seperate download, yet they purposely hold back content already created in order to release it as DLC and make extra $$.

This.

The content has already been developed and is sitting on the game disc, you just need to unlock it with $. That type of DLC i hate, and refuse to partake in.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Dumac

Because often the content could have easily been included in the original game and does not warrant a seperate download, yet they purposely hold back content already created in order to release it as DLC and make extra $$.

This.

The content has already been developed and is sitting on the game disc, you just need to unlock it with $. That type of DLC i hate, and refuse to partake in.

Whether or not it's on the disc is irrelevant. You're paying for the game, and it comes on disc, but that doesnt give you the rights to all the data on the disc. For instance, just because it's on the disc and in the game doesnt give you the rights (or ability) to rip the soundtrack.

It certainly feels more like you're being stiffed you're paying for something that you already have in your "possession", but with any game the developers arbitrarily decide what you get when you buy the game - it doesnt matter whether or not they've developed it already.

By that reasoning, all DLC should be free, since once they're done with it, it's "already been developed".

But given how people feel about it, it's a stupid way to do things. Even if they could just put it on the disc, they shouldnt, just so they can avoid this line of thinking entirely.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Juddog

Releasing armor for your horse or an extra map seems like a rip off, stuff like that should be free.

I've never understood why people say that things that other people put effort into creating should be free. It's great when it is free, but who are we to tell someone they should give their work away for free?

Because often the content could have easily been included in the original game and does not warrant a seperate download, yet they purposely hold back content already created in order to release it as DLC and make extra $$.

If you're not happy with the amount of content that comes with the game, why would you buy it?

 

[Boobs McGee]

Somewhat off topic, but SC4 was under 15 bucks at blockbuster used and they are or were running a buy one get one deal for their cheap used games. That might take the sting out of the dlc purchase if you found one at blockbuster and returned the gamestop copy.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Dumac

Because often the content could have easily been included in the original game and does not warrant a seperate download, yet they purposely hold back content already created in order to release it as DLC and make extra $$.

If you're not happy with the amount of content that comes with the game, why would you buy it?

I understand your point, and I make a promise to myself to not buy a game unless I think the amount of content that it comes with is worth it.

However, I can't help but feel conflict inside me when they release content that either is on the disk or could have easily been on the disc as paid DLC available upon release. I wish that I could maintain your mentality, and just focus on what I've paid for, but I can't feel like I'm somehow getting ripped off. It is like I bought a cake, but I can't eat the frosting already on it unless I pony up some extra money. Sure, I should just be happy with the cake, but that frosting just keeps staring at me.

It is even worse in games that make the experience feel incomplete without DLC, such as an area that is just blank of unfilled unless you buy the DLC to fill it, and so-on.

This is even compounded upon by the fact that nowadays, with DLC, we pay for less. I miss the days where I would pay $20 or $30 for an actual expansion with substantial content that could net me another 100 hours of gameplay, when now developers charge $1 for a door or $5 for a 2 hour, shallow, and rehashed experience.

That said, I have made a habit of not buying DLC or games that rely heavily upon them. Voting with your wallet is the best option, but it is disheartening when many flock to products your don't like, causing the market to shift against your consumer preferences.

 

[tw1164]

My only complaint about DLC is that the prices tend to be set in stone. I've been playing Crackdown (which came out in 2007) and the DLC is still priced at 800 points. That's the same price I paid for the game.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: R Nilla
Yay, another DLC thread!

Originally posted by: Juddog
Take me for example, after feeling the utter disappointment from this DLC I will not buy DLC ever again. I will buy the base game and that's it.

Why stop there? Why not condemn the entire industry and stop playing games altogether because of one bad gaming-related experience?

It's silly to give up entirely on this form of content delivery simply because of one bad purchasing decision. There are no absolutes. As with all things there are both good and bad forms of DLC. It's unfortunate that your first experience was with the latter.

I'm new to the whole PSN and PS3 crowd, I guess that's the only reason that this surprised me. I'm used to either buying console games where everything is included at launch, or buying a PC game that has mods / add-ons that are free. The only exception I can think of is Half Life 2, where I paid a little extra for the Orange Box which came with the 2 expansion packs. The HL2 expansions were excellent bang for your buck. That's my idea of how I expected DLC to be.

So I'm a noobie to the whole PSN experience and approached it from a PC perspective, where small expansion material is typically included in patches for free. Take for example Warcraft 3. Blizzard has released many maps for free, automatically included in their patches. They opened up map making to the masses, who have come up with great maps like DOTA (which I still play to this day).

I can name a ton of other PC games that I have bought where the developer created a patch which has a couple of extra things they add in there. The money they gain is from the fanbase; a good game with free DLC for minor things adds more loyal followers, who in turn spread good comments about the game via word of mouth which encourages more people to buy it which makes the developers more money.

To me it just seems like a cheap tactic. Now that I have been scammed once by the developers I won't be scammed again.

The comment about condemning the entire industry is a bit ridiculous though, but I haven't grown fully accustomed to this sub-forum so I guess people blowing my comments way out of proportion should have been expected.

Bolded part #1: Boy, are you in for a shock. Prepare to be nickle-and-dimed to death by console DLC! New map? $5. A few new costumes? $5. Horse armor? A couple for $2. Check out Fallout 3's DLC, for example. The game cost $60...how many DLC packs came out in the months after release? Five? Isn't the cost of the DLC add-ons for FO3 more than the cost of the actual game? Oblivion is another fine example of the very obvious negatives of DLC.

Bolded part #2: You must be new to the Console forums...you made a negative (yet true) comment about DLC...prepare to be torn apart by the DLC apologists who think it is okay for companies to nickle-and-dime us for content that really should be free (since they add little value to the game and didn't take much time to develop) or already included in the game. 😉

At least you got a PS3 though, so there is the possibility of free DLC. Microsoft has a policy against free DLC on XBOX Live I believe, which I remember at some point in the past, didn't Valve and/or Epic speak out against Microsoft's always-charge-for-DLC policy?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: tw1164
My only complaint about DLC is that the prices tend to be set in stone. I've been playing Crackdown (which came out in 2007) and the DLC is still priced at 800 points. That's the same price I paid for the game.

Yeah the SC IV DLC never dropped in price, even though you can buy the entire game for $15 as members pointed out above, it still costs $3.99 to unlock the weapons that are already included in the game, and $1.99 for each of the 3 DLC armor packs (total 20 or so pieces of equipment), plus Yoda is another $5. On top of that they never made the LE DLC available to the general public either.

 

[PingSpike]

I think DLC only really makes sense in a few genres, but developers/publishers are shoehorning it into every game they make because they just love the idea of that revenue stream. Most games really just should follow the old tried and true expansion pack format.

I think, first of all, it only makes sense in games that have a very strong single player component because of community schisming. Games where everyone doesn't have to have matching clients basically. Take the battlefield games with "booster packs". You charge for a map in a FPS and the end result is no one plays that map in multiplayer. Neither people who bought it or didn't buy it. Everyone drops when it switches to a paid map. And the people that do own the map have no one to play with, so they drop. Hell, people drop on PC games when they have to download a map and that costs them nothing. That shit belongs in an expansion pack so the community doesn't get split up as much. If you split up the community enough, it'll just disappear. The trouble is they churn out so many FPS games, and frankly they are probably the genre that is least amiable to a DLC setup.

And in single player games, the prices are usually retarded. $2 for Oblivion horse armor or that wizard tower? C'mon. And when you have hobbists putting out stuff of similar quality for free it looks extra retarded.

I think RB DLC works pretty well, but mostly because I consider that a local multiplayer games. I've never played it on Live or whatever, but I'd have to imagine that schisming problem is the same.

Its a buyer beware thing I guess. I stopped buying games on release day for PC long ago, because I found they were a lot more fun a year later after everyone else beta tested them for me. Now with console games you have to know how the DLC shakes out to know if half the game doesn't show up turned off out of the box awaiting your credit card number.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: R Nilla
Yay, another DLC thread!

Originally posted by: Juddog
Take me for example, after feeling the utter disappointment from this DLC I will not buy DLC ever again. I will buy the base game and that's it.

Why stop there? Why not condemn the entire industry and stop playing games altogether because of one bad gaming-related experience?

It's silly to give up entirely on this form of content delivery simply because of one bad purchasing decision. There are no absolutes. As with all things there are both good and bad forms of DLC. It's unfortunate that your first experience was with the latter.

I'm new to the whole PSN and PS3 crowd, I guess that's the only reason that this surprised me. I'm used to either buying console games where everything is included at launch, or buying a PC game that has mods / add-ons that are free. The only exception I can think of is Half Life 2, where I paid a little extra for the Orange Box which came with the 2 expansion packs. The HL2 expansions were excellent bang for your buck. That's my idea of how I expected DLC to be.

So I'm a noobie to the whole PSN experience and approached it from a PC perspective, where small expansion material is typically included in patches for free. Take for example Warcraft 3. Blizzard has released many maps for free, automatically included in their patches. They opened up map making to the masses, who have come up with great maps like DOTA (which I still play to this day).

I can name a ton of other PC games that I have bought where the developer created a patch which has a couple of extra things they add in there. The money they gain is from the fanbase; a good game with free DLC for minor things adds more loyal followers, who in turn spread good comments about the game via word of mouth which encourages more people to buy it which makes the developers more money.

To me it just seems like a cheap tactic. Now that I have been scammed once by the developers I won't be scammed again.

The comment about condemning the entire industry is a bit ridiculous though, but I haven't grown fully accustomed to this sub-forum so I guess people blowing my comments way out of proportion should have been expected.

Bolded part #1: Boy, are you in for a shock. Prepare to be nickle-and-dimed to death by console DLC! New map? $5. A few new costumes? $5. Horse armor? A couple for $2. Check out Fallout 3's DLC, for example. The game cost $60...how many DLC packs came out in the months after release? Five? Isn't the cost of the DLC add-ons for FO3 more than the cost of the actual game? Oblivion is another fine example of the very obvious negatives of DLC.

Bolded part #2: You must be new to the Console forums...you made a negative (yet true) comment about DLC...prepare to be torn apart by the DLC apologists who think it is okay for companies to nickle-and-dime us for content that really should be free (since they add little value to the game and didn't take much time to develop) or already included in the game. 😉

At least you got a PS3 though, so there is the possibility of free DLC. Microsoft has a policy against free DLC on XBOX Live I believe, which I remember at some point in the past, didn't Valve and/or Epic speak out against Microsoft's always-charge-for-DLC policy?

Yeah I'm new to the console forums. I was just giving out my first impressions after having bought the PS3, I wasn't prepared for the lashback about DLC, and didn't know it was already an issue here.

 

[Kev]

People are morons. That's why most DLC exists.

 

[Kev]

PS - If you buy avatar clothes on Xbox 360, you should be banned from the internet.

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Bolded part #1: Boy, are you in for a shock. Prepare to be nickle-and-dimed to death by console DLC! New map? $5. A few new costumes? $5. Horse armor? A couple for $2. Check out Fallout 3's DLC, for example. The game cost $60...how many DLC packs came out in the months after release? Five? Isn't the cost of the DLC add-ons for FO3 more than the cost of the actual game? Oblivion is another fine example of the very obvious negatives of DLC.

I have been out of the PC gaming scene for a few years, but don't the developers charge for DLC on PC as well? For instance, you mention horse armor.. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember there being a charge for it as well. (I originally played OB on PC).

Now, of course on the PC you have user created DLC which is ( or at least used to be) mostly free.. This is for the most part non-existent on consoles & I think is what causes confusion for people coming over from the PC world. If you want DLC, in any form on the console be prepared to pay for it. Their servers, their content, always going to cost $$.

DLC is DLC, but I think this is an important distinction if you are trying to make a comparison. When people espouse the virtues of PC DLC, they tend to speak about the great free user content that is available. If you look at apples vs apples, I think you will find things to be pretty similar.. Developer created horse armor, both sides get gouged, Fallout 3 DLC ( when other systems release) will likely be the same.. PC isn't going to get "The Pitt","Operation Anchorage", etc without paying for it.

The glaring issue (I believe) you guys are seeing is the lack of ability to create and distribute user content.. Its absence makes some of the more ridiculous Dev DLC much more obvious.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Kev
PS - If you buy avatar clothes on Xbox 360, you should be banned from the internet.

You can take my lightsaber and my remote controlled warthog from my avatar's cold, dead hands.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Juddog

Releasing armor for your horse or an extra map seems like a rip off, stuff like that should be free.

I've never understood why people say that things that other people put effort into creating should be free. It's great when it is free, but who are we to tell someone they should give their work away for free?

If the customer has already bought the game, then adding a little bit of extra content shores up the fanbase and makes people more loyal. Nickle and diming the fanbase just makes people resent the developers. Take me for example, after feeling the utter disappointment from this DLC I will not buy DLC ever again. I will buy the base game and that's it.

Yup. The folks at Harmonix should be giving away hundreds (maybe even thousands) of dollars in DLC because people ALREADY bought the game... the 700+ extra songs would easily make people more loyal instead of nickle and diming them.


But in reality... you answered your own question here. You've already bought the game. You have the game and it's fully functional without the DLC. You wanted something more, you paid something more. Don't see how it's such a hard concept that paying someone to make add-ons to the game isn't free... thus needs to cost money.

 

[Ackmed]

^ True. Except if somewhere in the design meetings they want to include so and so features. Then someone says, "we can just DLC that stuff and make more money". So they keep things out, that would have been in the game to start with, just to charge for them later.

 

[Raduque]

Man, gamers will bitch about everything.

 

[Oyeve]

Some DLC is great, some sucks. Buyer beware. DLC for RB and BO Paradise is great. DLC for Saints Row 2 is a total ripoff. I always try and see what the DLC does and if I can find reliable reviews for it then I check it out before buying.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Some DLC is great, some sucks. Buyer beware. DLC for RB and BO Paradise is great. DLC for Saints Row 2 is a total ripoff. I always try and see what the DLC does and if I can find reliable reviews for it then I check it out before buying.

This is what I'm learning now. For all the people flaming me, like I said I'm new to the console DLC scene so this is my first experience with it. So far I did download some games like Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix and am quite happy with it; I also downloaded "Flow" for my wife to play and she and I both enjoy the game as something casual to do, so both of those I would say are worth it.

The SC IV DLC is definitely not worth it though. The Rockband stuff looks like it would be worth it, just because you'd get to play your favorite song if it becomes available. I'm becoming more cautious now with any DLC that costs money and will be sure to review it beforehand now.