Have Videogame Publishers Gone Too Far?

(EDIT: I'm aware of the blocky-nature of the post, perhaps it's my net connection, but the best I can do seems to be this, as proper editing seems to be against me)

This revolves around the issues regarding blatant cut-content, re-packaged as DLC, Online passes, DRM and, of course, the BS that is SOPA.

Now in the last few years we've seen a lot of really crooked business that has pretty much eaten away at the moral fibre of an industry that we all know, love and support. Everything about this industry seems to have become a massive cash-grab, attempting to work in the here-and-now, instead of in bigger, better and more intelligent long-term investments. Publishers push for maximum profit with minimum work, act like dictators over the talented (well, most of the time) individuals who work hard to deliver a somewhat decent experience, and have now began to exert control over their twisted, perverted and morally backrupt creations even when the product has long since changed hands, owned by other human beings...the collective 'we' that constitutes the consumer base.

Online passes don't seem like a big deal, right? Actually, this method alienates those who haven't the income to buy games new-and in this economy with another possible recession of the horizon, that really is a big deal-something we can all appreciate is driven not by greed alone, but by utter spite. DRM punishes and irritates the innocent more than the guilty. DLC has become a running joke, the idea that was supposed to make games last longer than they were upon release has been corrupted into map-packs, weapon-packs, costume-packs, pointless extra characters, none of which contribute to the overall experience, especially when most of these map-packs are multiplayer orientated, and are copied from previous incarnations of the same franchise to make a quick >insert own currency here<. There are, of course, a few exceptions, but these are few and far between compared to the bigger picture, which is sad, because this should have been a golden age of gaming, but instead, we get reiterations, and bad ones at that, with nothing exciting to add, sometimes even killing nostalgia in the process.

Now this SOPA business has many a critic abuzz about the potential for a group of high-strung, for want of a better description, bastards with an entitlement complex, being granted the ability to circumvent the law in order to shut down any site they believe has crossed a line that only they can see, which separates legal use of so-called 'intellectual property'. EA and Sony, Microsoft, Apple and even Nintendo have all but backed this act. This returns us to the title question: Have publishers, companies and greedy pricks gone too far? And should control be wrestled from their grubby little fingers and put into the hands of human beings living in the real world, a world that is far from simple, but works practically? Does this hinder, more than help, consumer/publisher relations?

(And would you rather see this in blog form, just asking, I didn't plan on it being this length)

Aaaahh big block of text!

1st world problems, huh?

@Winternet: Sorry about that, the editing is all fucked up, maybe it's my net connection, couldn't seem to make it stick in a non-blocky way :S

I think the SOPA issue is more worrying then the other stuff. It could have some pretty unfortunate ramifications if it goes through. My opinion on the other stuff you mentioned is kinda a meh. I don't like a lot of it but it's kinda the nature of the industry right now. Everyone's still trying to figure this stuff out and the only way stuff like online passes and shady DLC practices will change is if people vote with their wallet.

They will keep selling if people keep buying.

@TheSouthernDandy: SOPA really is a major issue, I just feel that maybe the other situations led to this point. Voting with our wallet is fine in theory, but the problem lies with the irritating fact that a lot of these publishers have a monopoly over excellent developers. However we wallet-vote about certain titles, they always have one that will draw a majority in, and given that fact, its almost impossible to make a point and stand our ground unless we stop buying games altogether. And with that action, we'd have no used games of particular titles. So then the whole system collapses in on itself.

There are so many things that make me want to yell angry words at you, but I'll hold back and leave it at this: much of your argument is flawed.

Let them run their businesses how they like. Vote with your money, not with guns.

@Video_Game_King: Fire away if you want, I'm just calling it as I see it. Lately, there have been more than a few people converting to the same attitude as myself, to varying degrees. You may think most of my argument is flawed, I just see it as the natural progression of a system that got out of hand, and now we're, literally, paying for it.

I have no problem with online-passes or whatever a code from a newly bought game gives you. It only devalues the used game a bit to cut into the heaps of money, that Gamestop makes with used games. So if you buy a game used, instead of for example 30 bucks, it should be 20 bucks + 10 bucks for the online-pass. Of course that's how it should be. What happened with Arkham City and Gamestop is bullshit. Actually, everything that happens at Gamespot is bullshit.

Season passes and extensive DLC offers at a game's launch I absolutely hate though. I have drawn my consequences already and didn't buy Gears 3 and Forza 4 just because I don't want to support this kind of DLC model.

@TheSouthernDandy: I'll agree with you there, saying it outright is better than hiding behind crappy excuses, and it'd earn them at least a shred of begrudging respect.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm also putting it out there that some people don't have the luxery of buying games new, and that adding an additional fee for that used purchase could be a complete deal-breaker, which can stop them from purchasing the next title in the series, if there is one, new, at a later point in life when they could be more financially stable. It just seems short sighted and stupid to me. If one of those SF costumes was cammy in her M.Bison uniform, then you can be forgiven...Abel in a onesie? Then be ashamed sir.

@CptBedlam: Thats a good point. And I do have an issue with a used game staying at the same price while the online pass adds another 10 quid onto the overall price.

Launch-day DLC is pretty much bullshit to me. I've never seen the marketing reason for such a decision, as it pretty much screams that they just cut shit out of the game in order to sell it to you, just for a minor profit. If I ever purchase Gears 3, I'm not bothering with the DLC, there's too much and really, you don't need it.

EDIT: however, I will say that if the Online pass cuts off a section of the game, arbitrary or not, and hinders a new or used purchaser, then its not worth the hassle. Most of the Online pass crap isn't even a bonus...just holding a section ransom until you cough up the cash, only to discover that it wasn't worth it. Maybe a trail system would be a better idea, try a bit, then decide if you want to buy.

@TheSouthernDandy: ...ok, I'll let you away with this one, but only because you have a convincing story to back it...just...just don't look at Abel in the onesie, in fact, I'd like to know who actually wanted that costume in the game? Who thought 'we need a manthong' in this game? I'll tell you who...someone with a lot of problems...

@Dookysharpgun said:

@CptBedlam: EDIT: however, I will say that if the Online pass cuts off a section of the game, arbitrary or not, and hinders a new or used purchaser, then its not worth the hassle. Most of the Online pass crap isn't even a bonus...just holding a section ransom until you cough up the cash, only to discover that it wasn't worth it. Maybe a trail system would be a better idea, try a bit, then decide if you want to buy.

Developers and publishers are about to figure this shit out. I can't imagine that an online pass for a poorly tacked-on mp for Dead Space 2 sold well, for example. But what if it was a lenghty single-player level? Arkham City was another step into this direction and other games did similar stuff. I expect bigger chunks of the single-player experience to be part of the "online pass" in the near future.

@Dookysharpgun: "And should control be wrestled from their grubby little fingers and put into the hands of human beings living in the real world, a world that is far from simple, but works practically?"

Seriously? That's going a bit far. Control of what, their own companies? Ideally, their games will sit on shelves, while companies and studios that listen and care see greater success. That's my solution. Use the carrot, it always makes a bigger difference.

As for DLC, it does indeed make a game last longer. Everything you mentioned does precisely that. It's not a corruption, packs of things extend gameplay. They are also optional. The real problem is that games keep getting shorter and shorter in anticipation of DLC.

I try to buy games that do things I want to see more of. Like games with large single-player campaigns, (Deus Ex: HR, Crysis 2, Skyrim) free iterative expansions, (Minecraft, TF2) pay models I agree with, (League of Legends) and developers I respect. (Portal 2) It helps that most of those things make for better games.

They wouldn't make the DLC if it didn't make them money, and it seems to make them quite a bit. Maybe it doesn't appeal to you, but it appeals to someone out there. Otherwise they'd have stopped making it, or would have moved on to something else. And no one is forcing you to buy it, either.

The DRM issue is largely over on the PC because of Steam, and has never been that big an issue on the consoles. We still have examples of bad DRM, but compared to the crap we put up with ten years ago... it's really not that bad.

SOPA is a problem. And I say that as someone who believes strongly in intellectual property. They make the data, they own it and deserve to reap the benefits of it. However, going so far to shut down unwitting distributors? Sorry, no. Truth be told, if the movie, music, and software industries hadn't had their heads up their asses the last fifteen years, they'd have already moved beyond this. There are ways of protecting their IP without making things inconvenient for the end user. They're just too focused on getting rid of 100% of the piracy when they should settle for 75%. Is that greedy? I don't think so, but it's definitely a stupid and pointless waste of their time.

It's also a waste of time to focus purely on the companies when part of the responsibility lies with people. They're the ones buying crap DLC. They're the ones downloading torrents. There's definitely a cycle of idiocy going on, and it's not solely the responsibility of the guys running media companies. I think a rational person should understand the necessity of making money on these products, even as the companies recognize that loosening rules on media would make many people less likely to steal it. In the end, though, there are too few adults in the room on this one.

@CptBedlam: See, I think that Arkham City was a very small step. If you take the fact that Catwoman was advertised since E3, and then cut to make her a DLC, Online-pass unlock, then it really isn't that grand a progression. Catwoman felt very...iffy to me. Her story was short, pointless really, given the overall context of the game. Having said that, if they were to release Robin and Nightwing into the singleplayer experience, then I would be on board with that, as they could have helped break up the story and actually make the DLC worthwhile, incorporating a general theme of how these missions were going to break down. I'd love to see proper DLC with a full-length SP level, but apart from RPGs, this rarely ever happens, and I don't think Rocksteady copped what a good idea it would have been to incorporate more of the Bat-family into the game, because then we'd have decently paced levels with alternating characters with purpose, instead of a single character with a ho-hum story...I'm disappointed in it is all I'm saying.

What bothers me more than Day-1 DLCs are on-disc DLCs. Now that is just walking up close, say "look, look over there. See? The nice waterfall and the green grass? Go there, it's yours, you did bought the game. NO! Wait, oops, that out-of-bounds until you pony up some more cash". I mean why should I pay X amount for a game and then add another Y cash? Is that what the industry now calls "being a company that listens to their consumer base"? Because I don't remember saying that I wanted pay more for less.

@bananaz said:

@Dookysharpgun: "And should control be wrestled from their grubby little fingers and put into the hands of human beings living in the real world, a world that is far from simple, but works practically?"

Seriously? That's going a bit far. Control of what, their own companies? Ideally, their games will sit on shelves, while companies and studios that listen and care see greater success. That's my solution. Use the carrot, it always makes a bigger difference.

As for DLC, it does indeed make a game last longer. Everything you mentioned does precisely that. It's not a corruption, packs of things extend gameplay. They are also optional. The real problem is that games keep getting shorter and shorter in anticipation of DLC.

I try to buy games that do things I want to see more of. Like games with large single-player campaigns, (Deus Ex: HR, Crysis 2, Skyrim) free iterative expansions, (Minecraft, TF2) pay models I agree with, (League of Legends) and developers I respect. (Portal 2) It helps that most of those things make for better games.

Actually, I'm more talking introducing a body of quality control, limiting the input publishers have to the development process, and ensuring that a certain quality standard is met before the game is shipped.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with that, as your point cuts both ways. A lot of more recent DLCs are cut-content. In truth, the data is already there, so really, the games aren't being extended in terms of gameplay, they're merely being brought up to the standard they should have been on release. The argument that it is optional is also something I can't get behind. If you love a game, then you are going to buy the DLC, not because you want to, but because you have to, otherwise you've just wasted 45-60 quid on a title that you'll never play again, because it was too short to begin with, but this is not a contradictory statement on my original point: I simply mean that since the game is cut down to bare minimum to sell more DLC, companies are actually ripping games up to give the illusion that DLC is additional content.

You do what you can, and that's fine, but even then.... Bethesda will always be their own publisher, so they're untouchable. Square Enix and EA own deus ex and crysis respectively, and games like Minecraft, in order to grow, require more publisher backing, leading to the same problems. I'm not a big MMO guy myself, so payment options aren't something I can comment on. Valve have Steam, so they're safe, but games like Portal 2 are rare, and valve have a habit of stiffing their fans on titles for years at a time, long after they announce a release. I'd like to think that buying these games supports more titles like them, but right now, it would seem that without some form of reins on some of the larger publishers, we're doomed to see one excellent game every 3-5 years, the gap being filled with mediocre titles than are forced to dance to a publisher beat for profit alone.

Fuck SOPA. Fuck it horizontally, vertically, diagonally, through the Z axis and the fourth dimension.

The only people who might be happy about SOPA would be people like this girl:

\snide assumption that a lot of videogame publisher execs play little or no video games (obviously exempting any developers who are also publishers)

@Hameyadea said:

What bothers me more than Day-1 DLCs are on-disc DLCs. Now that is just walking up close, say "look, look over there. See? The nice waterfall and the green grass? Go there, it's yours, you did bought the game. NO! Wait, oops, that out-of-bounds until you pony up some more cash". I mean why should I pay X amount for a game and then add another Y cash? Is that what the industry now calls "being a company that listens to their consumer base"? Because I don't remember saying that I wanted pay more for less.

Jeff had a thing or two to say about this in his recent Jar Time, I know it's sub only but he basically came down in favour of on-disc DLC arguing that the reason it's even built and put in the game is that the designers were expecting to sell it as DLC. If not for DLC, it wouldn't have been there. He also said that for fighting games on-disc DLC works well because people who bought the DLC can still use their special characters online with people who didn't buy the DLC. As always, if you don't think it's worth it don't buy it.

However, I'm not sure his argument stands up too well. Regardless of the mechanics or reasoning behind it there still seems to be something shady about it. Even if there's no difference between them putting that content on a server instead of putting it on the disc, it still seems shady. You paid for an advert, but not only an advert, an advert made out of the very thing it's advertising. It's extremely compelling because it's right there on the disc ready to fucking go, and you know other people with less moral fortitude are gonna go for it, and that's going to mean everyone online has got it, and you're going to feel even more pressured to get it. However you rationalise it you still feel like they're exploiting your completionist state of mind when playing a game to part you and your money.

@Dookysharpgun said:

since the game is cut down to bare minimum to sell more DLC, companies are actually ripping games up to give the illusion that DLC is additional content.

Example of this actually happening in a game anyone gave a shit about or it didn't happen.

@haggis: I'm sorry but the 'nobody is forcing you to buy it' response is the reason why we can't have a proper discussion about DLC anywhere.

I'll concede to most of your other points, but I think that you emphasise people who buy pointless DLC as an equel problem, though I believe quite a lot of them are ignorant (as in just not aware) of anything else out there in the gaming industry, or how it screws with the rest of us. Take people who only play games like BF or CoD. I know people who only ever play games in that vein, and never picked up a controller before than. Some people only play sports games, or racing titles. They don't know anything else, because they aren't as involved as we are in the industry they play games, but they don't aim to broaden their horizons. If thats the case, then can they really be placed at fault for the fact that publishers are exploiting ignorance for profit? People are aware that they buy it, they don't know the ripple-effect it has on the rest of the industry.

Having said that, there are people who buy this crap and know full well what they're doing, they simply don't care. They're pretty damn bad, but they aren't a major problem, because I'd like to think a lot of people have common sense when it comes to wise spending habits...at least, a number that isn't low enough to make me cry.

Either way, the people in the wrong are the publishers, who exploit whatever demographic they can in order to turn a profit, which will inevitably lead to a severe lack of progress in the industry, as we've seen as of late. Yes, we get great titles, and yes people buy them, but some of the biggest mistakes in the videogame industry are made by publishers who aim to captivate a certain audience, who really doesn't want to know any better. Can the consumer really be blamed for that? Its a double-edged sword, but it really does sit more with the publisher than the people, at least, from the way I can see of it.

@Dookysharpgun: No you misunderstood me. With "figure this shit out" I meant the companies are slowly figuring out how to make the "online pass" a thing for SP-focussed games. No one cared for Dead Space 2 MP, but people cared for Catwoman - or the lack of.

The codes that come with new games in the near future will probably unlock increasingly substantial parts of the single-player experience.

@Insectecutor: Mass Effect 2, Zaeed mission pack and character on day one, Kasumi and overlord being part of the original code, but being locked out. Batman Arkham City (to a lesser extent). Assassin's Creed 2, two entire sequences were held back. MVC3, except they then decided to just scrap it and release UMVC3. From what I've heard, Gears of War 3 seems to be a point of contension, with day-one season passes, and the general SP concept being a shadow of its original concept. Those are just off the top of my head. Oh and any CoD game. Just putting it out there. Oh and Halo Reach.

Most games where you feel that there was more to the overall experience missing than what you recieved.

All those things, except for SOPA, are all fine with me as long as they are quality products still. The way things are right now is fine, but I'm worried it will be taken for granted soon.

@CptBedlam: Oh right, sorry about that...actually that just ended up being really depressing. God dammit. Can't they just leave their codes out of my SP games?...

The video game industry was always going to be a capitalistic cash grab for the most part. It's an industry and that is of course what industry is, not that I'm saying that justifies the actions of some publishers by any means. I think there is a pretty strong argument for the idea that publishers may be limiting themselves financially in the long term by screwing over the customer for their own game in the short term, but I really couldn't say definitively whether that argument is right or wrong. All I can say is that while I don't think the consumers have always been right on issues like day-one patches and on-disc DLC, there are some publishers who are pulling moves I really don't like.
 
This SOPA thing though, it goes way beyond anything they tried with online passes, cheap DLC, bad DRM and the like. The kind of legislation they're proposing here is ridiculous, unfair and tyrannical, and these people should absolutely not be handed the kins of power the SOPA would grant them. Fortunately, SOPA is very likely to become law but just seeing that companies are trying to push this forward seems like an aim for a ridiculous abuse of their power and one of the biggest "fuck you"s they could give to consumers, media outlets and general fans of their work. I'm sadly not hugely surprised to see a company like EA supporting it but the fact that Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple and the ESA are supporting it too is just disheartening to see. I think this serves as a strong reminder that these companies are not the warm friendly people they want us to think they are.

@Hameyadea said:

What bothers me more than Day-1 DLCs are on-disc DLCs. Now that is just walking up close, say "look, look over there. See? The nice waterfall and the green grass? Go there, it's yours, you did bought the game. NO! Wait, oops, that out-of-bounds until you pony up some more cash". I mean why should I pay X amount for a game and then add another Y cash? Is that what the industry now calls "being a company that listens to their consumer base"? Because I don't remember saying that I wanted pay more for less.

That is pretty much my major problem with DLC in general. ME2 was the biggest offender, with most of its DLC being on-disc, but required you to pay to access it. They don't listen, thats why I'd like some kind of quality control or regulatory body in place so that decisions like this could be made null and void before shipping the game. They only want more money, and the bleeding hearts routine they're using to justify every skanky action they take is just irritating. They're playing on a consumers love of a game to make them sink more money into it. Much like an MMO, if you want to content, you better have the money, otherwise, you don't get full access to the game you purchased anymore.

@Dookysharpgun said:

@haggis: I'm sorry but the 'nobody is forcing you to buy it' response is the reason why we can't have a proper discussion about DLC anywhere.

I'll concede to most of your other points, but I think that you emphasise people who buy pointless DLC as an equel problem, though I believe quite a lot of them are ignorant (as in just not aware) of anything else out there in the gaming industry, or how it screws with the rest of us. Take people who only play games like BF or CoD. I know people who only ever play games in that vein, and never picked up a controller before than. Some people only play sports games, or racing titles. They don't know anything else, because they aren't as involved as we are in the industry they play games, but they don't aim to broaden their horizons. If thats the case, then can they really be placed at fault for the fact that publishers are exploiting ignorance for profit? People are aware that they buy it, they don't know the ripple-effect it has on the rest of the industry.

Having said that, there are people who buy this crap and know full well what they're doing, they simply don't care. They're pretty damn bad, but they aren't a major problem, because I'd like to think a lot of people have common sense when it comes to wise spending habits...at least, a number that isn't low enough to make me cry.

Either way, the people in the wrong are the publishers, who exploit whatever demographic they can in order to turn a profit, which will inevitably lead to a severe lack of progress in the industry, as we've seen as of late. Yes, we get great titles, and yes people buy them, but some of the biggest mistakes in the videogame industry are made by publishers who aim to captivate a certain audience, who really doesn't want to know any better. Can the consumer really be blamed for that? Its a double-edged sword, but it really does sit more with the publisher than the people, at least, from the way I can see of it.

I'm not convinced it matters if you think people who buy what you think is lousy DLC are ignorant. They want to buy it. It's available. They buy it. I'm not sure why they should care that their buying of the DLC somehow offends you. Why, again, does it bother you so much that they're buying DLC you don't like? If they are getting enjoyment out of the DLC (and they seem to be, or again, they wouldn't buy it), then they aren't being exploited. They're buying something they enjoy, and something the game companies can make.

They're making choices with their money that you wouldn't. It's fine to disagree with their purchases, but I'm not sure why you're upset about it. I can't stand CoD and Halo, but I don't get upset when people spend their money on them. I'm happy that they've found a game they enjoy. You come off as a bit of an elitist--those gamers aren't as good, or smart, or enlightened as you. Maybe you don't intend it (I'm assuming not) but that's how it's coming across.

Game companies are in business to make a profit. They make things we like, and we buy them. The idea that people are being exploited somehow because they're spending money on something they want ... it just doesn't make any sense to me. I think this exploitation you seem to see is little more than a difference in taste.

In the end, the "nobody is forcing you to buy it" is an important point, whether or not you want to admit it. People are free to make choices about what they play. Perhaps we might wish they'd make different choices, but in the end our opinions about what other people should or should not be doing simply aren't important.

@Gamer_152: I feel that SOPA is just a continuation of the trend though. They've tried to control as much as they possibly could, and now they're going so far out of bounds that it seems like they're on a power-trip. I thought Nintendo, a company that prided themselves on appeasing their fan base's every whim, might have a little more respect for us than seemingly heartless publishers like EA. I don't understand why they want this power though. What could you possibly achieve that won't sicken your fanbase to such an extent that they abandon you completely, and you lose all the support you built up from day one of your establishment?

To be honest, the fact that these groups have joined together is sickening, and I know that SOPA is utter bullshit and is a thousand times worse than anything I've described, but I just feel that, in a really twisted way, we brought this on ourselves, and now we're reaping the results. Allowing these companies to believe that they were bigger than Jesus was our first mistake, and not correcting them was our second. While thats all in the past, we can't forget that fact, that we could have brought them back down to earth if we bothered to care, but we were mostly blind to how crazy they were becoming.

I'd like to think that now, this has pretty much driven a wedge between the fans and the companies, and that kind of breach of trust has irreparably damaged the relationship, so now we can finally start to see what they are. As you said, they aren't warm and friendly, they're ruthless, and getting more ambitious in their greed and spite.

@Dookysharpgun: Let's get serious here, I don't think any video game publishers believe they're bigger than Jesus. That statement is just unnecessary.

It seems to me that most of the problem you have with DLC and what companies are doing as a "cash-grab" is the entire purpose of a business. Companies need to make money and many game developers and publishers have found ways to capitalize on DLC. Whether or not you personally think that DLC is good or not is irrelevant. People vote with their wallets and someone is certainly buying all of this awful DLC you're against. DLC is meant as a way to get more enjoyment out of a product that you've already purchased.

People who play only games like Call of Duty and Battlefield don't buy map packs because they're ignorant. They buy them because they like the game, and want to switch things up a bit in the multiplayer. Once again no one is forcing them to buy these map packs, they're doing it by choice. It's one thing to talk about whether DLC content is good, it's an entirely different thing to talk about whether or not it's "ruining" gaming.

@haggis: I think you misunderstood me. It doesn't offend me. It sets a bad precedent when companies exploit certain groups in order to make a profit. This in turn, makes other publishers think 'hmm, we could do the same thing, and make big money from it', which has happened. You don't want to acknowledge that the 'nobody is forcing you to buy it' is really a lazy sentiment used when people don't really care to engage with how these situations can resonate. I'm not personalising this, I'm talking about the adverse effects that these concepts have on the rest of the gaming industry.

Exploitation of collective ignorance is exploitation. If your consumer doesn't know what quality in a game is, that there are certain standards that every game/DLC is held to at some point ever year, then giving them anything is a bonus, they don't play anything other than that game, having never experienced anything else, more of the same is welcome, and they're never aware of any improvements that could be made. That doesn't give you the right to slack off and never improve on any factors, or even release DLC that isn't worth a damn. It isn't the consumer's fault. They're not aware, and instead of making them aware and saying, "would you like X, but with improvements?" everyone just writes them off. If they aren't given any other option, then why won't they go back to what they know? Let them make their choices, but let them at least be informed. Is that too much to ask?

SOPA is a mess for sure. Copyright was supposed to promote and reward ARTISTS and content creators. Instead large corporations use it as a weapon to suppress and silence while shafting the actual innovators and artists. Something has to change. It may get very ugly and nasty before it gets better.

As far as online passes and DLC goes - I just look at the deal they are giving me. I read reviews. Is what I'm about to buy worth it? I disregard all DLC, promo codes, passes, all that BS. Is the game they are offering with the DRM terms they require worth it to me? yes/no? Sometimes it's no even though I really wish it could have been yes. I didn't buy Batman.

@drac96: You missed the point of what I was saying, I've said it before: Publishers releasing DLC to an uninformed demographic to make profit sets a bad precedent. As such, other publishers will follow suit. I'm talking about ignorance of reprocussions of their actions, that they could ask for more, but they shouldn't have to. As a result, publishers openly exploit this to cut down games and throw out DLC to make far too much profit, then never turn that profit back into their product. Nobody said anything about ruining any game, it cheapens the game's overall potential, which should be so much more than anyone is getting. I'd like everyone to get an equel experience. Clearly you have your own understanding of what I said, but you'd be wrong.

Nintendo thought they were bigger than Jesus when the Wii released. They're rethinking that now though. I'm sorry if that offends you in some way, it was never my intention, but in my view, its the truth.

they haven't gone far enough, they need to go so far that the entire industry crashes... so we can start allllllll over.

@Dookysharpgun said:

@haggis: I think you misunderstood me. It doesn't offend me. It sets a bad precedent when companies exploit certain groups in order to make a profit. This in turn, makes other publishers think 'hmm, we could do the same thing, and make big money from it', which has happened. You don't want to acknowledge that the 'nobody is forcing you to buy it' is really a lazy sentiment used when people don't really care to engage with how these situations can resonate. I'm not personalising this, I'm talking about the adverse effects that these concepts have on the rest of the gaming industry.

Exploitation of collective ignorance is exploitation. If your consumer doesn't know what quality in a game is, that there are certain standards that every game/DLC is held to at some point ever year, then giving them anything is a bonus, they don't play anything other than that game, having never experienced anything else, more of the same is welcome, and they're never aware of any improvements that could be made. That doesn't give you the right to slack off and never improve on any factors, or even release DLC that isn't worth a damn. It isn't the consumer's fault. They're not aware, and instead of making them aware and saying, "would you like X, but with improvements?" everyone just writes them off. If they aren't given any other option, then why won't they go back to what they know? Let them make their choices, but let them at least be informed. Is that too much to ask?

You haven't proved exploitation, or ignorance. Both are assertions, not arguments.My answer, that you don't need to buy it, isn't lazy: it's an argument about choice. People make choices about what to buy. Their choices will never agree with yours. Or mine. Or anyone's. We all have different tastes. It isn't some lack of "engaging" with "resonance"--whatever that means. It's simply a recognition that tastes vary, and that no, the world will not end, nor will the gaming industry be harmed, by the fact that people like different things, including things we wish they wouldn't like.

No, it's not exploitation to sell something to someone with different tastes than you. There's a lot of shovelware out there for the Wii, for example. Gamers like me look at it and think, "This is shit. No one wants to play this." But I can't tell you how many times I've seen people really enjoy those games. Those people are not being exploited. They actually like what they're buying most of the time. Their enjoyment may be incomprehensible to you and me, but it's real. They've seen the games I enjoy. Those games don't appeal to them. If people are happy with their choices (and most are), they aren't being exploited.

Renaming disagreement as "ignorance" doesn't move the DLC argument forward at all. If you don't like the DLC, try arguing about that. Say, "I wish they'd make more DLC like this and not like that." Make a substantive argument about DLC. But going around saying developers are "exploiting" consumers who are "ignorant" makes the debate about motivations. Motivations about people that you do not know, and have never personally met. If you've got problems with DLC, it should be about the DLC. Not about people. You'll probably find everyone more receptive to your argument.

You should watch the latest Jar Time to hear what a measured opinion about DLC sounds like.

I like the use of 'blatant cut content'. Stuff has been cut in video games since forever. There was supposed to be a motorcycle level in Streets of Rage that they cut out (that you can still find in the ROM). Mewtwo was cut out of the original Super Smash Bros. In Perfect Dark you can still find mentions of being able to take a picture of a head with a Game Boy Camera and load it up into the game. Sometimes stuff gets cut.

If you don't like it don't buy it.

@haggis: TBH you and quite a few others seem to be focused on the DLC thing, instead of looking at the bigger picture of how it all points towards publishers getting too big for their briches. People have a right to better treatment, they're consumers, not idiots, and deserve respect. From the most recent event of SOPA, we can see that developers simply don't give a shit about us, DLC was a very subtle issue, with very opposing views, but Online Pass systems interlocking with DLC, seeking to control an experience that now belongs to someone who purchased the game, is disrespectful. If anything, DRM, DLC, Online Passes and SOPA are a natural progression of the growing disregard of publishers towards consumers.

You don't want to believe in the exploitation of sections of the gaming community? Fine, do whatever you want, but me? I enjoy games. I enjoy them enough to want people to want more. To get more, without asking, without pushing, without the bad attitude they get from publishers and devs because they're expected to work is not an unreasonable goal. The recent activities that publishers have partaken in solidifies the fact that they couldn't give two shits about you, me, or anyone really. You want me to make a substantial argument about DLC? What is there to make that hasn't be said a thousand times. Nobody is renaming anything here but you, and I have a feeling that this is just going to go around in circles, because you have beliefs that you're pushing onto my argument in order to make yourself right, without adding anything remotely viable to the overall debate. You're simply focusing on one point, and can't seem to break out of that mindset. Speaking to me as if I don't know about viewpoints is simply pointless...viewpoints are easily influenced by any number of factors, external or otherwise. I don't have to know anyone to make observations about bad publisher attitudes and decisions. I made my argument about PUBLISHERS and their attitude towards DLC, which is the root of my argument, you made this about people, lets not get confused here. Maybe you should be more receptive to the fact that you don't seem to understand where I was coming from, and if you don't want to acknowledge that, then I'm afraid this will go nowhere.

@Dookysharpgun said:

@CptBedlam: Thats a good point. And I do have an issue with a used game staying at the same price while the online pass adds another 10 quid onto the overall price.

Launch-day DLC is pretty much bullshit to me. I've never seen the marketing reason for such a decision, as it pretty much screams that they just cut shit out of the game in order to sell it to you, just for a minor profit. If I ever purchase Gears 3, I'm not bothering with the DLC, there's too much and really, you don't need it.

EDIT: however, I will say that if the Online pass cuts off a section of the game, arbitrary or not, and hinders a new or used purchaser, then its not worth the hassle. Most of the Online pass crap isn't even a bonus...just holding a section ransom until you cough up the cash, only to discover that it wasn't worth it. Maybe a trail system would be a better idea, try a bit, then decide if you want to buy.

There are a lot of time when something is getting added and not cut though. DEv's have a lot of free time between a game going gold and a game being released. Programmers, level designers, artists etc etc, have nothing to do because they're not really needed on the next game while the ideas people are still hashing out concepts and stuff. The reality is, a lot of stuff gets cut from games, either because it can;t be finished in time or it doesn't fit. 10 years ago, we would never get to see that stuff, but because of the internet, dev's will finish it and put it out. That's why I love a lot of this stuff. Don't think of them taking stuff away all the time, think about how they're adding it on, whereas a few years ago we would never see that stuff, we have the option to now. And why shouldn't publishers charge for it. They put extra resources into finishing that map or that character skin, so why not charge it?

And even if you still hate it, realize that we're in the very early ages of this stuff. The current gen wasn't designed for this shit, hell, there are a good number of 360's that don't have hard drives. In 5 or so years, when consoles can handle this stuff better, and publishers and developers learn how to use it better, then it'll be fine.

I don't mind DLC as long as it is not required in order to enjoy the game. I always feel compelled to buy whatever DLC comes out for a game I like though :(

I don't mind online passes either, since I generally buy games new.

@Jason_Bourne: I'd like to view it from the 'putting things in' perspective, and did for a long time. But lately, along with other, more questionable decisions, the most extreme of which is SOPA, I feel that games just don't have the content in them to support that view and that publishers are now trying to sink their claws into every aspect of the game industry. I'm not really sure how I can explain it any better than: Publishers force unrealistic development time on devs, and you can feel it, you know, at points where games actually feel rushed? Then force certain aspects to be cut and re-released at points. It isn't because they can't finish it on time, we could see with ME2 that a lot of the paid DLC codes were finished and on disc, more because DLC requires a substantial investment and publishers want as much profit as they can get. I know this argument has been done to death, but does it come down to people not wanting to acknowledge it because they don't care? Or because realising that they aren't getting a full deal and buying what they should own on-disc is highly depressing?

But even so, my point still stands: DLC is one part of a larger problem. Not all DLC, some DLC is rather good, Online passes, DRM and following up with the 'screw you' that is SOPA, kinda made me realise that I have no issue with publishers making money, but when it comes to the point that they control your purchases, limiting your experience and playing the 'poor us' routine to justify it, I have a major issue when they totally disregard respect towards us for petty reasons of wanting more power. Ten years ago we didn't need more to our games, we got what we paid for. I know it might sound weird, but any game I played ten years ago was highly polished, because it was known that these games were released and nothing could be done with them after that. DLC alone seems to be a crutch nowadays, and I'd like to believe you when you say that in 5 years, things might change with better consoles. I have a hard time believing it though, without publishers being muzzled and devs given full control over their work. For some devs, DLC gives them a chance to expand on ideas they had in development, this is true, but they rarely get to expand on that as they're thrown to new projects. When they get a chance, the DLC is usually lackluster, because they have neither the time nor the resources to make it good. If they are given the resources, they have a strict set of guidelines, and even then, the length of time between creating and distributing it it unrealistic from a profitable standpoint, just look at the Half-Life 2 Episodes fiasco to see how it could all go wrong. I'd like to see DLC handled by a dedicated section of developers, because then they wouldn't have to split time, but as of late, DLC seems, to me at least, to be cut content.

Im sorry,

SOPA?

@Dookysharpgun said:

@haggis: TBH you and quite a few others seem to be focused on the DLC thing, instead of looking at the bigger picture of how it all points towards publishers getting too big for their briches. People have a right to better treatment, they're consumers, not idiots, and deserve respect. From the most recent event of SOPA, we can see that developers simply don't give a shit about us, DLC was a very subtle issue, with very opposing views, but Online Pass systems interlocking with DLC, seeking to control an experience that now belongs to someone who purchased the game, is disrespectful. If anything, DRM, DLC, Online Passes and SOPA are a natural progression of the growing disregard of publishers towards consumers.

You don't want to believe in the exploitation of sections of the gaming community? Fine, do whatever you want, but me? I enjoy games. I enjoy them enough to want people to want more. To get more, without asking, without pushing, without the bad attitude they get from publishers and devs because they're expected to work is not an unreasonable goal. The recent activities that publishers have partaken in solidifies the fact that they couldn't give two shits about you, me, or anyone really. You want me to make a substantial argument about DLC? What is there to make that hasn't be said a thousand times. Nobody is renaming anything here but you, and I have a feeling that this is just going to go around in circles, because you have beliefs that you're pushing onto my argument in order to make yourself right, without adding anything remotely viable to the overall debate. You're simply focusing on one point, and can't seem to break out of that mindset. Speaking to me as if I don't know about viewpoints is simply pointless...viewpoints are easily influenced by any number of factors, external or otherwise. I don't have to know anyone to make observations about bad publisher attitudes and decisions. I made my argument about PUBLISHERS and their attitude towards DLC, which is the root of my argument, you made this about people, lets not get confused here. Maybe you should be more receptive to the fact that you don't seem to understand where I was coming from, and if you don't want to acknowledge that, then I'm afraid this will go nowhere.

the publishers do not owe you or I ANYTHING.

they pay for games to be made and they want to make a return on that investment. all your cries of evil and exploitations are just nonsense.

have you ever wondered why games the price of games have not go up in price with inflation. if you take that into consideration and that inflation will double the price of a product every 10 years then games now should cost in excess of £100. but they don't games have stayed at around £30 to £40 for the last 15 years. but the cost of development has shot up massively. but putting the price of games up to much would just stop people buying them. so publishers NEED to find new avenues for revenue. I know this idea disgusts you and the thought of publishers actually wanting to make a profit is evil to you. but the fact of the matter is these publishers are not charities that exist to furnish you with games. they are business with overheads. and if they are not profitable then they will not be able to make games. this is the case for any product you buy. this many seem like im stating the fucking obvious but i felt it needed to be said as you clearly very naive.

i agree with what was said in the last bombcast. that i have yet to feel that the games i buy are cut short or lack the content to justify the retail price. DLC is a way for the publisher to offer extra content for those that want extra content. for those that do not want the extra content.. well they can just not buy it.

and as for the online passes. well why the fuck should a publisher give a shit about the second hand market. every second hand game sold is one sale lost to them. why should they provide a online service for FREE to someone that is NOT THERE CUSTOMER. they are gamestops customer.

money has ALWAYS driven the games industry, right back to day one.

The dlc stuff hassent botherd me. Because, at least for the games I buy, they are removed from the main story line. I do not feel compelled to buy any of it, and dont. A younger me, a couple years ago even, probably would have though. The SOPA thing scares me, and I dont like It at all. But as a tax paying company they can take any stance they want. You should really have more of a problem with the fact that corperations are given the same rights as people, but people are not given the same rights as corperations.