IT'S ON THE DISC!?!

Oh my God... this download for the DLC is only a few KBs... this must mean...

 THE DLC IS ON THE DISC
We've all seen it (or at least people complaining about it). Company X announces a few extra levels or some new challenge levels to download for a measley 5$-10$-15$. You pay the price and download it, only to find that it appears to be an unlock, it's way to small of a download for it NOT to be on the disc. 
 
FUCK COMPANY X, RIGHT?
Wrong (maybe).
 
Pre-included DLC isn't the worst thing ever, hell it might not even be all that bad! I'm no game-making man, but I have to imagine that it's not really companies saying "Hey let's fuck with the guy that just spent $60 on our game." I believe DLC on a disc is acceptable in some cases, here are two hypothetical situations where DDLC is ok.
 

Situation 1

Ted: Hey Bill, I know Space Bug Killer 4 is going to have 12 levels, but wouldn't this level and this level be cool too?
Bill: Yeah, but I don't know if we could get those done in time, you know the big-wigs said it has to be out by Q3.
Ted: Well isn't there anything we can do?
Bill: Sure, put a small team onto making those levels, but don't make them integral to the story, that way we can release them as DLC either on the disc or later, if we don't finish them in time.
Ted: Cool, thanks Bill.
Bill: I've been sleeping with your wife, Ted.
 

Situation 2

Shawn: Hey, Call of Combat: Modern Duty has a pretty good single player, eh Steve?
Steve: Yeah, but that level where you fight the Russian robots seems kinda... I don't know it doesn't really fit in.
Shawn: But we spent all this money making it!
Steve: Well here's what we'll do, we cut it and we can offer it to the public, via DLC. It's not the best thing we've ever done, but if people really want more of our game we can sell it to them.
Shawn: Ok, sounds like a plan. Hey have you been sleeping with Ted's wife?
Steve: Yeah.
Shawn: Me too. high fives
 

So what have we learned?

 
1) Ted's wife is a whore.
2) DLC on the disc isn't all that bad. Sometimes it's just developers with no other options trying to do what's best. Would you rather they released it 3 weeks later and pretend it wasn't already done? And if you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.
 
(P.S. Does it feel dirty defending multi-million dollar companies? It sure does.)
93 Comments
93 Comments
  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited by GlenTennis

Oh my God... this download for the DLC is only a few KBs... this must mean...

 THE DLC IS ON THE DISC
We've all seen it (or at least people complaining about it). Company X announces a few extra levels or some new challenge levels to download for a measley 5$-10$-15$. You pay the price and download it, only to find that it appears to be an unlock, it's way to small of a download for it NOT to be on the disc. 
 
FUCK COMPANY X, RIGHT?
Wrong (maybe).
 
Pre-included DLC isn't the worst thing ever, hell it might not even be all that bad! I'm no game-making man, but I have to imagine that it's not really companies saying "Hey let's fuck with the guy that just spent $60 on our game." I believe DLC on a disc is acceptable in some cases, here are two hypothetical situations where DDLC is ok.
 

Situation 1

Ted: Hey Bill, I know Space Bug Killer 4 is going to have 12 levels, but wouldn't this level and this level be cool too?
Bill: Yeah, but I don't know if we could get those done in time, you know the big-wigs said it has to be out by Q3.
Ted: Well isn't there anything we can do?
Bill: Sure, put a small team onto making those levels, but don't make them integral to the story, that way we can release them as DLC either on the disc or later, if we don't finish them in time.
Ted: Cool, thanks Bill.
Bill: I've been sleeping with your wife, Ted.
 

Situation 2

Shawn: Hey, Call of Combat: Modern Duty has a pretty good single player, eh Steve?
Steve: Yeah, but that level where you fight the Russian robots seems kinda... I don't know it doesn't really fit in.
Shawn: But we spent all this money making it!
Steve: Well here's what we'll do, we cut it and we can offer it to the public, via DLC. It's not the best thing we've ever done, but if people really want more of our game we can sell it to them.
Shawn: Ok, sounds like a plan. Hey have you been sleeping with Ted's wife?
Steve: Yeah.
Shawn: Me too. high fives
 

So what have we learned?

 
1) Ted's wife is a whore.
2) DLC on the disc isn't all that bad. Sometimes it's just developers with no other options trying to do what's best. Would you rather they released it 3 weeks later and pretend it wasn't already done? And if you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.
 
(P.S. Does it feel dirty defending multi-million dollar companies? It sure does.)
Posted by xyzygy

Situation 1 was riveting. Bloody hell, riveting. 
 
And I agree with you.

Posted by supermike6

I feel like if I'm paying for a disc, I should gain access to the things on that disc. 

Posted by Jadeskye

I love this thread. i don't even have an opinion, i wanna get down with ted's wife.

Posted by ch3burashka

Both your "situations" assume the DDLC isn't integral or even "unfinished". I can't think of any DDLC that falls into either category.  
 
If it's on the disc, it's on the fucking disc. I purchased a piece of media, and am entitled to that media. Imagine if music CD's came with "bonus tracks" on the disc... that you had to pay to unlock.  
 
The real reason they're doing this (I believe) is to skimp on bandwidth costs. That's inexcusable.

Edited by iDarktread
@GlenTennis said:
 

Shawn: Hey, Call of Combat: Modern Duty has a pretty good single player, eh Steve? 

Someone please delete this thread before the guys who are making the next Call of Duty get single-player on-disc downloadable content stuck in their minds. 
 
Informative thread, nonetheless.
Posted by GlenTennis
@CH3BURASHKA said:
" Both your "situations" assume the DDLC isn't integral or even "unfinished". I can't think of any DDLC that falls into either category.  "
What do you mean by integral?
Most DDLC is extra levels, like in Bioshock 2 where it was confirmed as cut from the game.
Posted by thaijedi

I'm a wizard, and I've been doing Ted's wife. Anyway, I've never thought of it like that before. You think of it like @GlenTennis: "hey you want them to give it to you or not?" But then again we have no proof that THAT type of thinking is actually what is going on. If it is awesome, if not FUCK Company X and Ted's wife.

Edited by Dtat
@supermike6 said:

" I feel like if I'm paying for a disc, I should gain access to the things on that disc.  "

QFT 
 
I understand when DLC comes out soon after release it means it was being developed after development on the game was finished. I'm cool with that.  
 
But if it's on the disk, and all I pay for is the ability to unlock it from the disk, that's fucked. It's already done. It shipped at launch. I bought the disk. Give me everything you put on it you greedy bastards.
Posted by WEGGLES

I, usually, don't have issue with DLC. 
 
And I don't have issue with launch DLC. 
 
But I'm totally not OK at all with DLC on the disc. 
 
Launch DLC can be justified by the gap between going "gold" and release... if it makes it on the disc it's pretty shady to sell it to me. 

Edited by Skald

The way I look at it, if the game is already worth your $60 or whatever, don't worry about it. And if Game X was really expensive to make and they need to recoup their costs a bit, but it was a genuinely good game, I'm fine with them selling DLC. 
 
But games that offend me with how stupid their DLC is? I will never buy those.   
 

@CH3BURASHKA

said:

" I purchased a piece of media, and am entitled to that media. Imagine if music CD's came with "bonus tracks" on the disc... that you had to pay to unlock. "

If the album stands on it's own without the bonus track, what's the difference? If it's a really good album, I'll buy the bonus track anyway. What difference is it if they make a whole new single with that song on it? The only difference is whether it's one album or two. 
 
At the end of the day, witholding content is witholding content, same as anything. Whether Shuma and Jill are downloads or unlock keys, I'm still pissed that fighters are witheld content in a fighting game. On a disc or on a server, they still aren't available to someone who doesn't pay Capcom for the privilege.  
 
Also, high fives for Steve and Shawn.
Posted by Hero_Swe

If it's on the disk then the unlock should be free, for I have already purchased the entirety of the disk and therefore every byte of data on it. If the DLC is not on the disk itself then It is entirely fair to charge for it.
Posted by DoctorTran
@xyzygy
Situation 1 was riveting. Bloody hell, riveting. 
 
And I agree with you.
I want, nay, need a continuation of this.
Posted by ___pocalypse

I am sad there was a "women are whores and objects for men to use" joke in this.  hurr durr what a slut lol etc. Lame.

 I like DLC in general, but if it's on the disc and I have to pay for it later, I'm going to feel a little bit cheated. There's really no good reason to have completed content locked on a disc, other than cash monies. It's pretty skeezy for a company to do that to their supporters IMO.

Posted by Skald
@GlenTennis said:
" (P.S. Does it feel dirty defending multi-million dollar companies? It sure does. "
GlenTennis, you're failure to close that parentheses has ruined my day.
Edited by Daveyo520

DLC is good when it couldn't be done for release. So those extra levels that couldn't be finished and released later are ok. But that means it will be released later. If it is on disc that means it is done. Things that are done should not be DLC and included. Anything on disc should come with the price of purchase. Don't release it later if it is done "release" it by making it come with it. If you are afraid its not part of the real game just put it in a different menu, like Zombies mode for call of Duty. 

Posted by GlenTennis
@extremeradical: Fixed, thank you. 
 
@___pocalypse said:
" I am sad there was a "women are whores and objects for men to use" joke in this.  hurr durr what a slut lol etc. Lame.  "
That's not the joke I was trying to make at all. I, for one, have never talked with co-workers infront of a water cooler, but based off of what I've seen on Mad Men I assume all the conversations lead to one character revealing how they've cheated on the other character's significant other. 

To any women offended by my statement I'm sorry, and in my next hypothetical situation it will be women talking about how they slept with eachothers' husbands.
Posted by niamahai

what if everybody is required to download a 'title update' so that everyone have the same assets in their game, but only the ones that pay have the access to it?

Posted by MattBosten

The way I see it it's like a Director's cut DVD; where you'd expect to pay more for a more extensive experience. I imagine that unlike film companies, game producers can't afford to produce two separate discs per platform, one featuring the extra content and one not. Also as far as I'm aware, when you purchase a game you're purchasing a licence to the software and thus are not entitled to everything on the disc. Although I do agree it's a bad practice. 

Posted by Wrighteous86
@Hero_Swe said:
" If it's on the disk then the unlock should be free, for I have already purchased the entirety of the disk and therefore every byte of data on it. If the DLC is not on the disk itself then It is entirely fair to charge for it. "

Yeah, I hate when I buy a new PC, and there is antivirus software and office programs that I have to pay to use!  It's on the computer, so I own it already!  I hate when I buy a movie on DVD, and I have to pay for a digital copy, I own it already!  You mean I have to pay to put my Rock Band 1 songs in Rock Band 2?  I own them already! 
 
There are many examples of media or content that you can own with specific restrictions.  Get over it. 
 
People did all this bitching about Dragon Age DLC when it came out the same month as the game, despite the fact that the game had been completed and gone gold months earlier and Bioware had been using the time since to build new content.
Posted by ___pocalypse
@GlenTennis said:
" @extremeradical: Fixed, thank you. 
 
@___pocalypse said:
" I am sad there was a "women are whores and objects for men to use" joke in this.  hurr durr what a slut lol etc. Lame.  "
That's not the joke I was trying to make at all. I, for one, have never talked with co-workers infront of a water cooler, but based off of what I've seen on Mad Men I assume all the conversations lead to one character revealing how they've cheated on the other character's significant other.  To any women offended by my statement I'm sorry, and in my next hypothetical situation it will be women talking about how they slept with eachothers' husbands. "
lol it's more so that it opened up the rest of the thread to be full of jokes about sexing Tim's slut of a wife (and high fives to the men that happily cheat with a friend's wife), when really it's just a good discussion topic all on it's own, and doesn't really need the "yeah I'd do Tim's wife toooo" gag. I would not condone ladies making men into slutty objects either :(
Posted by GlenTennis
@___pocalypse: Point taken. Next hypothetical situation will involve a guitar-playing chimpanzee riding a donkey. That way everybody wins.
Posted by Skald
@niamahai said:
" what if everybody is required to download a 'title update' so that everyone have the same assets in their game, but only the ones that pay have the access to it? "
EA does this on some of their PS3 games in the form of patches, and every iOS game does it too. 
 
What does everyone think about this? It's not on the disc, but it isn't a separate download either. 
 
@Dtat said:
" I understand when DLC comes out soon after release it means it was being developed after development on the game was finished. I'm cool with that. "
I seriously doubt that that's always true.
Posted by Dtat
@extremeradical said:
" @niamahai said:
" what if everybody is required to download a 'title update' so that everyone have the same assets in their game, but only the ones that pay have the access to it? "
EA does this on some of their PS3 games in the form of patches, and every iOS game does it too. 
 
What does everyone think about this? It's not on the disc, but it isn't a separate download either. 
 
@Dtat said:
" I understand when DLC comes out soon after release it means it was being developed after development on the game was finished. I'm cool with that. "
I seriously doubt that that's always true. "
You may be right. The Bombcast dudes seem to be of that opinion as well though. On one of the more recent episodes, they talk about this very situation. Development on a game is closed long before it's release. They aren't adding things the month of release. That would mean that DLC which comes out a couple of months after the game is released were probably put into development after production on the main game was finished. Not always of course, but it's a likely scenario. There is no excuse if the content is on the disk however.
Posted by ___pocalypse
@GlenTennis said:
" @___pocalypse: Point taken. Next hypothetical situation will involve a guitar-playing chimpanzee riding a donkey. That way everybody wins. "
Oh that is just entirely offensive to the chimpanzees. They are very well versed in the ways of donkey riding guitar solos, and to imply that they aren't is just racist.  
 
 
:D
Posted by KimChi4U

I think the whole gaming industry is a mess with stuff like pre-order bonuses and DDLC. Hopefully with the disc-less future we'll see an end to this stuff. 
 
disc-less...disc-less....disc-less....doesn't that word look odd to you?  

Posted by SeriouslyNow

DLC on disk isn't always inexcusable.  There are people that want the base game and people who will pay for more.  That's really all there is too it.

Posted by HatKing

I'm only okay with on the disc DLC if it is something that people who bought the game new get for free.  That seems to be the trend anyway.  It's a good way for the game makers to say "FUCK YOU!" to GameStop.
Posted by Skald
@KimChi4U said: 

" I think the whole gaming industry is a mess with stuff like pre-order bonuses and DDLC. Hopefully with the disc-less future we'll see an end to this stuff.  disc-less...disc-less....disc-less....doesn't that word look odd to you?   "

So they just put it in the game files and lock it away. Same thing.    
Posted by Khann
@HatKing said:
" I'm only okay with on the disc DLC if it is something that people who bought the game new get for free.  That seems to be the trend anyway.  It's a good way for the game makers to say "FUCK YOU!" to GameStop. "
Why do people think Gamestop is the only place to buy used games?
Posted by jonnyboy

It's a really simple question: How do you sell a $60 game for $70 at no extra cost? It's really not that complicated.

Posted by Bennyishere

Another point is that patches can be several megabytes. If the DLC is really small, they can put it out through the patch, and then have the download be an unlock key.

Posted by Oldirtybearon

There is no reason, ever, for DLC locked on a shipped disc should be okay, in any consumer's mind. Video games are products, not services. Services you pay a fee to use, and are locked into a license agreement. Products, you buy, and you use however you see fit. 
 
I don't give a flying goddamn what some "ToS" buried in the back of a manual says. Companies that deal in electronic goods have tried to pull this crap before in telling the consumer how their product can be used, and they've been smacked down for it. The worst thing is when you see consumers encouraging the behaviour that fucks over other consumers. It's like everyone is in such a rush to the trough and don't care how they get it, how much money they spend, or how brutally one sided the terms are. It's disgusting, honestly.

Posted by HatKing
@Khann said:
" @HatKing said:
" I'm only okay with on the disc DLC if it is something that people who bought the game new get for free.  That seems to be the trend anyway.  It's a good way for the game makers to say "FUCK YOU!" to GameStop. "
Why do people think Gamestop is the only place to buy used games? "

Obviously they're not.  They're just the face of the used game market.  Look at it this way, if my Windows Vista computer crashes I might say, "fuck you, Bill Gates!"  Obviously he isn't the only person who works at Microsoft, but he's the face and therefore he takes the insult.  Why am I explaining this?
Posted by EpicSteve

Don't worry duder, I'm brining my harddrive right now. 

Posted by DarkShaper
@WEGGLES said:
" I, usually, don't have issue with DLC.  And I don't have issue with launch DLC.  But I'm totally not OK at all with DLC on the disc.  Launch DLC can be justified by the gap between going "gold" and release... if it makes it on the disc it's pretty shady to sell it to me.  "
Pretty much sums up how I feel, for me it's not as much the reality of what they are doing but what it feels like. I would not care if the content was done before it went gold, I just don't want it on the disc. 
Posted by Marcsman

This is old news
Posted by ch13696

That still doesn't make sense. "Oh hey, we can't finish the level or the level doesn't look good with the game. So, let's sell it separately instead". Why not just offer the damn thing for free on the disc. In all seriousness, that sounds like the company trying to make a quick buck.

Edited by FesteringNeon

I hope this doesn't lead to companies eventually make us pay "per level" in games. I can see it now, (insert $5 to see what happens next!)
EDIT: removing ,), to comply with thread.
EDIT2: adding ,), to comply with thread. (i liked it before.

Posted by melcene
@GlenTennis said: 

  To any women offended by my statement I'm sorry, and in my next hypothetical situation it will be women talking about how they slept with eachothers' husbands. "

Wasn't offended in the least.  I thought it was dumb to even draw a "women are whores" conclusion. Although when he brought it up I thought of  
 
  
  
 Also, Bill & Ted - LOL! 
 
 To the issue at hand... so people would be perfectly okay with paying for the same DLC they're already paying for as long as it weren't on the disc?  Doesn't that sound a little off?  "I'll pay for this DLC, just don't make it easier for me to get."   
 
As @SeriouslyNow: basically said, the people that want that content are going to pay for it.  Those that don't care aren't going to bother paying.  If it's that big of a deal to people, don't bother paying. 
 
People usually already know WHAT the DLC entails, so they can decide whether they think it's worth purchasing or not.  If they decide it's worth purchasing, and then find out OMG IT WAS ON DISC CONTENT! so what? They were already willing to pay for that content.
Posted by Dalai
@Marcsman said:
" This is old news "
I know. We all know about Ted's wife. We've all slept with her.
Posted by Jeffsekai

Ted's wife sounds hot.

Posted by Little_Socrates

Dirty or not, you're still dead on.

Posted by Binman88
@CH3BURASHKA said:
"If it's on the disc, it's on the fucking disc. I purchased a piece of media, and am entitled to that media. Imagine if music CD's came with "bonus tracks" on the disc... that you had to pay to unlock.   The real reason they're doing this (I believe) is to skimp on bandwidth costs. That's inexcusable. "
How is that scenario any different from limited edition CDs with bonus tracks that have been in the market for years? Let's see... one CD has 10 tracks and costs a certain amount of money, and another Limited Edition CD has the same tracks plus two extra bonus ones and cost a little bit extra. No problem there right? You buy the normal CD with its advertised 10 tracks and that's all you're entitled to - ten tracks for which you paid a licence to listen to in accordance with certain limits and restrictions (for example, you may need to pay for another licence if you planned to play that CD in public places like a restaurant or grocery store). I'm sure you agree that's fair, right? Would you consider it a major catastrophe then, if the normal CD you bought turned out to be exactly the same as the Limited Edition, only the bonus tracks were locked away? Why exactly do you feel entitled to every byte of data on that disc despite only paying for a licence for a certain part of it? 
 
Out of curiosity, have you ever read an EULA for any media you've purchased?
Posted by RecSpec

Remember back in the day when this stuff would be left on the cutting room floor? The only reason you would know it existed was through some developer going "Yeah, we had more characters/maps/ideas, but we ran short on time so we cut them." 
 
At least we get SOME of these things. Which 5 years ago would have been lost forever.

Posted by FlyingRat

  I'm sorry, man. But neither of your situations make sense. If they're not sure if it'll make it onto the disc in time, then it's fine if they release it as DLC afterwards, but when it does make it onto the disc before it ships, that invalidates your argument. Since... they did have enough time, so... why did they put it on the disc and then lock it away?
 
As far i can see, the only reason for DLC being on the disc, is business men telling the developers to remove a level or two, so they can make a little bit more money.

Posted by Apocralyptic

I've actually been impressed that most DLC isn't integral to the original game, i.e. I doesn't seem to me like companies are taking stuff out of the game that should be part of the main experience and trying to sell it separately.  Most of the DLC I've gotten seems to only be worthwhile for people who really liked the original game.   
 
I do get a little bit annoyed on the rare occasions when DLC adds something that I think should have been in the main game (e.g. Warden's Keep DLC for Dragon Age adding a party stash for your extra loot).

Edited by spazmaster666
@supermike6 said:

" I feel like if I'm paying for a disc, I should gain access to the things on that disc.  "

You may have access to the data, but you don't have access to the license to use that data. When you buy the game, you're not just buying the content on the disc, but a license to use that content (i.e. this is why copying the disc and giving it to a friend is illegal since they don't have a license to use the data). Hence while you may correct that you should be able to access the actual data on the disc, you still have to buy a license for it, which is essentially what they are selling when the DLC is on the disc.
Posted by GlenTennis
@Apocralyptic said:
" I've actually been impressed that most DLC isn't integral to the original game, i.e. I doesn't seem to me like companies are taking stuff out of the game that should be part of the main experience and trying to sell it separately.  Most of the DLC I've gotten seems to only be worthwhile for people who really liked the original game.    I do get a little bit annoyed on the rare occasions when DLC adds something that I think should have been in the main game (e.g. Warden's Keep DLC for Dragon Age adding a party stash for your extra loot). "
I know what you mean. The Mad Moxxi DLC for Borderlands had that bank you could store your guns in, which should have been in the main game.
Posted by Claude

It's hard for me to say I don't like DLC or DLC already on a disk, because I haven't bought any DLC. Unless, you count the two Oblivion expansion packs that included DLC. I guess I have a voice by not purchasing anything. I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority though. As more time passes, I'll buy as I might not have a choice.

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2