So is everyone really just going to accept On-Disc DLC?

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Cheapoz (1143 posts) -

I'm angry, okay? Internet angry. Really really mad. I love Gears 3, I think it's insanely well polished in every way. Also Gears 2 MP was fantastically supported from broken to almost functional for over a year.

By now you should all be aware there's maps and a ton of characters on disc. (On top of this weapons skins business.) Most likely to end up as on-disc DLC, and from all corners of the internet it seems I can't find anyone as upset as me about it?

To me there's an element of trust that comes with DLC; that I paid for the very best complete product Epic could give me by the time they pressed a disc. Now it appears they held back and want to charge for work they've already done, and you and I already paid for?

Does that make you upset? Or are you kinda meh...

#2 Posted by RE_Player1 (7946 posts) -

On-disc DLC is the worst. I wanted to smack the guys for saying it can be acceptable.

#3 Posted by Gabriel (4131 posts) -

Games are now 4.5 hours and it's now acceptable to put DLC on the disk.


#4 Edited by Kyle (2374 posts) -

I really don't care. I almost never buy DLC. Some people have this idea that they're entitled to every single piece of content available at the time of a game launch for $60, and I don't really understand that mentality. As long as the thing I pay $60 for is worth $60, I'm okay.

I get the problem with having the DLC on the disc, but really the alternative is just having it on a server and making you pay to download it, rather than pay to unlock it; They were never going to give it to you either way, so it seems like a moot point to me.

#5 Posted by BraveToaster (12636 posts) -

I enjoy Gears of War 3's multiplayer, so I don't mind shelling out a few bucks for more maps.

#6 Posted by Rindokisuto (2 posts) -

meh.. nothing to get upset about.

#7 Edited by Commisar123 (1854 posts) -

Yes because I don't give a shit, also it makes the experieance better for people who don't have the DLC and they have already given me $60 worth of content.

#8 Posted by Levio (1802 posts) -

Gamers waste their time playing video games for hours on end, so it's not like they had much willpower to begin with. Expecting any kind of resistance (real resistance, not just pointless forum rants) from the consumers is a fool's errand.

#9 Posted by sodapop7 (418 posts) -

What makes you think all downloadable DLC was done after the game was released? Everything you've mentioned are extras that don't really matter except for maps which are released in packs for every shooter at this point anyway.

#10 Posted by Lukeweizer (3105 posts) -

I can see their argument for compatibility's sake when it comes to people having or not having dlc. But when it comes on the disc, just give it to us. We basically already own it. I'm kind of disappointed with Gears anyway, so I don't think I'll be buying much for it.

Also... Skyrim. When it comes out, I won't give a shit about anything.

#11 Posted by TooWalrus (13341 posts) -

I am going to shove my sawed-off up Cliffy-B's ass, and pull the trigger. Happy?

#12 Posted by Slaker117 (4857 posts) -

I'm more than happy with the game I got for $60, so I've got no bones about whatever they are holding back. I also have no plans on buying any type of multiplayer DLC.

#13 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13807 posts) -

As of late the best DLC was the Borderlands stuff. NONE of that was on disk. 

#14 Posted by DuderMcBrohan (19 posts) -

You know what messed up MK's online? The DLC not being on the disc. If it makes the matchmaking work smoother, I'm all for it.

#15 Posted by Antikythera (59 posts) -

Meh what you gonna do? Fight the MAN!? It sucks but I'm either going to want it and buy it or I'm not going to care and just well not buy it.

#16 Posted by Jadeskye (4392 posts) -

Meh i'm way past the point of caring about this crap. On the disc, off the disc, as long as it works i really don't care any more.

Theres bigger problems in the gaming world.

#17 Posted by amomjc (978 posts) -

Yes we are going to accept strong and intelligent business decisions because we are adults. We are not 14 anymore where every little change spawns a passion in us to go out and rant about it on the internet.

Epic made a decision to help the silliness that Mortal Kombat is feeling, and I hope more companies do that. There is nothing wrong with developing paid content during the game's development and putting it out on release, just because it was made before the release date does not mean it is required on the disc. People are just too entitled.

#18 Posted by RE_Player1 (7946 posts) -

@DuderMcBrohan said:

You know what messed up MK's online? The DLC not being on the disc. If it makes the matchmaking work smoother, I'm all for it.

I think that is an edge case that could have been prevented if they planned better, putting it on the disc isn't the answer or at least the right answer.

#19 Edited by Mr_Skeleton (5195 posts) -

If they weren't some stupid skins I would mind but seriously who gives a fuck about a rainbow colored gun.

#20 Posted by project343 (2880 posts) -

@Cheapoz: Best-case scenario: you don't pay for silly weapon skins.

Worst-case scenario: you do; in doing so, you fund Epic Games' next licensing fee for a crazy ass Gears of War trailer song.

#21 Posted by prestonhedges (1961 posts) -

in my day all that shit was on the disc, but you didn't have to pay for it, you unlocked it

enjoy your modern video games, kids

#22 Posted by ExplodeMode (851 posts) -

Your demo is a ton of 15 year olds with Moms CC and single guys with nothing else to waste money on.  People are going to accept anything.  You're fucked.

#23 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5286 posts) -

Weapon skins I don't mind. They're flashy, dumb things and I'd much rather have my golden lancer. If someone wants to be an idiot and pay $50 for all of them, so be it. I just hope they're so miniscule in number that Epic decides not to continue that trend.

Map packs I don't see the reason for being on-disc, though. That doesn't really make sense, considering you need to buy the maps and can't play them otherwise. People shouting "Mortal Kombat!" like their method sucked are silly, too. Mortal Kombat had to download entire characters and move sets. Any new arenas would need to be downloaded as well. If you didn't pay for it, you didn't get it. Gears 3 is a shooter. The only paid DLC they can really offer is map packs, and some campaign stuff. None of which facilitate the need for on-disc DLC.

And really, why buy a map pack that's on-disc? Map packs work because they're fresh and interesting, usually informed by the feedback from players who have spent hours on the game modes. To lock away maps for on-disc DLC is stupid, since by the time they release they would not be informed by player feedback, and would just be new shiny skins that don't facilitate better gameplay.

#24 Posted by PulledaBrad (631 posts) -

I understand being upset at this but look at it this way. Multiplayer-wise its probably best to have all that stuff on disc when its pressed, other wise you get what happened to Mortal Kombat where people werent DL the compatibility packs and it was fucking alot of things up. Having it on disc means that even that douche that refuses to get the compatability files they already have it on disc and everyone can be happy. Not saying its the right thing to do but it is a reason for having it there.

#25 Posted by ch13696 (4760 posts) -

I don't understand it either, but most gamers are so brainwashed that they will give their money for any small piece of DLC. Pretty soon, you won't be able to buy a single used game and you will have to pay monthly to play any game. You want to play your PS4? Gotta pay $8 a month.

#26 Edited by benjaebe (2870 posts) -

Oh stop your complaining. Of all the games to bitch about on-disc DLC, you picked Gears of War 3? It's easily one of the most fully-featured games released this year. Who cares if a few of the maps (I think 3) and the characters are on-disc for compatibility reasons. It's by no means a gimped game at all.

I mean, they probably put the first map pack (or at least some of it) on disc because they had a bunch of time after the game was pretty much finished and Microsoft pushed the release date back. They were already planning the DLC and had time to get it on disc.

#27 Posted by DeanoXD (659 posts) -

i am just curious what DLC is on the disk? excluding characters and gun skins. is this something confirmed?

#28 Posted by benjaebe (2870 posts) -

@DeanoXD said:

i am just curious what DLC is on the disk? excluding characters and gun skins. is this something confirmed?

Three maps and some character skins. They more than likely had time to press it to disc because the game got pushed back, but it was budgeted as DLC so it's not like they can release it for free.

#29 Posted by DrPockets000 (2875 posts) -

Super don't care.

#30 Posted by musclerider (633 posts) -

Only thing worse than on-disc DLC are the infinite threads on GB about it.

#31 Posted by Cheapoz (1143 posts) -

Fine, I'll roll over and take it too. Sucks is all.

Gears 3 is the free-to-play/micro-transactions business model, with a full retail buy-in price.

#32 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

It's really pathetic to complain about the content provided in a game with a 14-18 hour campaign, two fully fleshed out co-op side game diversions (one of which is so in depth that you likely could spend 20-30+ hours playing) and a full multiplayer component to complement it all --- and then complain about some dlc weapon skins and the possibility that some retro-flashback bonus maps may already be on the disc.

Get over yourself.

#33 Posted by SpudBug (707 posts) -

stop whining

#34 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

@Cheapoz said:

Fine, I'll roll over and take it too. Sucks is all.

Gears 3 is the free-to-play/micro-transactions business model, with a full retail buy-in price.

Its not though, because most free-to-play/micro-transactions business models provide content that actually adds value to the game if you get it (AOE:online and new civilizations, new starships in Star Trek:Online, new dungeons, levels, specialized weapons and powerups in TF2 -- etc, etc.)

Gears 3 provides some cosmetic color palette swaps for guns. That's the extent of the micro-transactions, and is hardly straying from its typical business model of $60 dollar base game and $45 in add-on expansion content (maps plus one or two added chapters) throughout a year and a half period.

#35 Posted by BisonHero (8564 posts) -

@Kyle said:

I get the problem with having the DLC on the disc, but really the alternative is just having it on a server and making you pay to download it, rather than pay to unlock it; They were never going to give it to you either way, so it seems like a moot point to me.

What this guy said.

In the old days, your console wasn't online, so there was no feasible way to charge you for irrelevant shit like weapon skins or multiplayer characters. So they just made that stuff hard to unlock, to give extra value to the game and hopefully stave off trade-ins. But believe me, they would've loved to nickel and dime you for that stuff prior to this generation if they had been able to.

#36 Edited by 234r2we232 (3175 posts) -

Oh no. They planned ahead and arranged their special extra content with the release of the game - people being angry because developers are arranging their DLC ahead of time is sad. If you want something to complain and protest about, look at what EA do to their games: i.e. the Skate series; removing features from the past iteration/s and including it as day one DLC. Premium skins are silly, but that's it. At least they're not splitting actual content or their community/player base with them.

Also, Mortal Kombat was always broken and people were silly for ever buying it. Just throwing that out there.

#37 Posted by SpudBug (707 posts) -

I don't give a shit about weapon skins if they were on the disc, on the internet, on an add on disc, or if you had to pick them up from cliffy B's house.

Who gives a shit, play the game or don't.

#38 Edited by Marz (5745 posts) -

Characters, skins, and etc are fine on disc.  Otherwise you get the Mortal Kombat conundrum where you can't play with skin packs if people don't download the extra supplemental skin packs so they can see them in game.... just one of the many failures of the Xbox patching process.

#39 Posted by Akrid (1391 posts) -

Look at it this way: That stuff wouldn't have gotten made if the developer had no way to monetize it.

#40 Posted by MetalMoog (969 posts) -

I think I've definitely got my $60 worth out of Gears 3. The game is packed with explosive glowie goodness. So yeah, I'm not too miffed about paying for more even if it is just an access code. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter to me much whether it's already on the disc or whether I'm downloading it. I don't think it validates the purchase any more by having to download it.

#41 Posted by Vexxan (4625 posts) -

Day one DLC is stupid, if it's done it's done, put it in the fucking game from the start. Don't make us pay you again.

#42 Posted by buzz_clik (7284 posts) -

I look at it like this: were you going to buy it? If yes, then you've got it. Never going to buy it anyway? Then what does it matter?

#43 Posted by CrazyBagMan (886 posts) -

I'm not upset because I have more important things to worry about. In some ways I envy your life for being so carefree that this makes you so mad, in other ways I don't.

#44 Posted by wickedsc3 (1043 posts) -

Character skins, weapon skins, ect... are fine as they are required for matchmaking purposes, just ask MK. But when they include campaign levels like "lost missions" or something like that on the disc I find it a little greedy. Because it is clearly thought out and done to make more money because all that had to be on the disc before content lock, they cannot just "throw it on" because they had extra time, it had to go trough the same review process as the main game did.

#45 Posted by big_jon (6180 posts) -

it's pretty sleazy.

#46 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -

@Marz said:

just one of the many failures of the Xbox patching process.

It's actually a failure of NetherRealm Studios as Capcom have worked around it with the Street Fighter IV Costume Catalog. Download that and you can view every costume without having purchased them.

If you don't download it, matchmaking is unaffected, you merely see players with default costumes.

#47 Posted by canucks23 (1080 posts) -

Eh... I guess that's what happens when you magically get an extra half year of development time, when you were already on track for your original date. I feel like i got my moneys worth with the game though, and by the time they do end out putting most of that stuff out, i'll probably have moved on to other games.

#48 Posted by DeanoXD (659 posts) -

@benjaebe: gotcha, overall i guess it doesn't bother me since i was one of the people who bought the season pass so they already have my money but it was a value to me because i know i will play the content.

#49 Posted by Twinsun (578 posts) -

DLC is the new business model, because people are willing to pay for it. It's a quite clever trick actually, but sadly the amount of content you get for your money is rarely justified.

But yeah.. The only way to work against this trend is with your wallet I suppose, but I fear you would be working against the indifferent consumer masses out there.

#50 Posted by Demento (55 posts) -

Us poor folk in Alaska have to deal with low monthly usage limits, so I am all for not burning up my limit for DLC when they can easily put it on the disc.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.