DLC, Game Journalists that Need to Shut Their Mouths, and You
By Fish_Face_McGee 58 Comments
DLC. You guys all know it. Popularized with the advent of this console generation, games have been finding their way to sell us extra content. Many of these tactics have severe flaws, which I feel the need to outline today, as well as touch on an issue I've seen from a certain games podcast.
Day One DLC
It's exactly what the name says: DLC that comes out on the day of the game's release. There are legitimate reasons for this occurrence, believe it or not. Take Dragon Age: Origins for example. Much of the DLC that came out on launch was planned to be post-launch content. However, the game got delayed to Fall of 09 and they were able to work on the content and finish it well before the game was released. That's also the explanation as to why the Shale content was quite tightly woven into the main game and why the Warden's Keep DLC contains a personal chest that the party camp does not (when Bioware discovered that a camp chest ended up become an issue). I understand the general gamers' question of "Why was this not included in my game?" when if they were able to finalize the content to ship on the same day as the game, and as someone without any intimate knowledge of the topic my assumption would be that it was not finalized until after the discs were being pressed. However, the wrong stance to take with this type of DLC is that your game is incomplete without it. You are free to feel that way, but it is the developer's choice as to what makes the game complete. Personally, I feel that, even if work was started prior to the game going gold, if content was finished after the game was then my extra money is going towards extra work. As unsettling as this tactic may seem, it is nowhere near as shady as the next form.
108 KB (or other incredibly small size) "Keys" to Unlock On-Disc Content
Once again, the point is rather clear. Many games (however, a declining number) had "extra" content which was, in fact, included on the disc. This is an area where I feel that we are being ripped off. I understand that the definition of ownership of digital content is blurred beyond most recognition. For instance, you are technically only buying a license to play the game when you buy it. However, I don't think it's unreasonable (even if it's technically incorrect) to feel entitled to the contents of the disc you just spent $60 on. As far as I'm concerned, the money I give the publishers funds the development of the content contained on in the box I'm purchasing. Any extra money I give funds extra work. Obviously, these publishers and developers disagree. There's really nothing else to say other than that it's a shitty move to get more money. If they really want to sell it as extra content, just make it an unlock code that weighs in at a couple megabytes. Make it seem substantial so that I don't have to feel like I'm being ripped off because I know that it's just a key.
Game Journalists that Need to Just not Talk About it
Anyone who listens to the Joystiq Podcast probably already knows why I wrote this in the first place. For the past year (pretty much since the gaming world cried Bullshit over the Resident Evil 5 Versus DLC) Chris Grant and Ludwig Kietzmann have deemed it necessary to take every possible opportunity to insult those of us who don't like being ripped off with DLC. Using a typical "nerd voice", they will make comments about DLC that are intentionally unreasonable to satire gamers whose complaints actually are quite reasonable. We just paid $60 for a game, don't ask us to pay more for a while and/or don't ask us to pay more for content we already posses (in some form at least). Two episodes ago (if I recall) people who do not like unfair DLC policies were compared to software pirates who say that they steal games because they would be ripped off otherwise. There's a rather large issue with that statement, at least in regards to the people making it. By virtue of us being console gamers, it is fair to say that for the good majority of us, we buy (or have bought for us) all of our games. By virtue of Joystiq being a gaming news publication that has reviews and receives numerous copies of games that get shared across the staff, it is fair to assume that Joystiq staff members do not spend money on all of the games that they play. Now, I know that this is standard across all gaming publications, but most other gaming publications don't make comments that insult the intelligence of their viewers/listeners/users. I know that many journalists will buy the games that they borrow from their company if they enjoy it a lot, and I know that Chris is an avid user of Goozex. However, the impression made by those comments from people in their position is unsettling to me. Just months ago, Joystiq was stressing to hardcore Xbox fanboys that the E74 Error is a real problem and they're trying to help the consumers. If memory serves, Justin McElroy was the person who, not only wrote the articles that got the 3-year warranty to cover the E74, also made the consumer-defense comment. Interestingly enough, I don't recall Justin ever being rude to the DLC-haters. Maybe Justin's the only person who wants to keep consumers from being screwed. I don't know. All I suggest is that, if you are able to play full games for free, you are better off not commenting negatively on people who actually pay for all of the games they play (either by renting or purchasing) who don't like how DLC is being done.
Da End
If anyone forced his/her way through this WALLoTEXT, I appreciate your patience. For those wondering, I would have sent this in an email to Joystiq themselves, but, at best, I would have gotten a nerd-voice recital of parts of this blog with more idiotic comments spewed afterwards. Also, in this way, I have the potential of having a conversation with other people in a similar situation as me. So, yeah.