PDA

View Full Version : DLC - Money Making Scam?!


oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 09:46 AM
Having had Xbox live in years past when i lived with my parents (before the new dashboard even =O), I've only just had it in my own house for about 2-3 months now...

Now, at first i thought DLC was the coolest thing around...Games i thought i had finished, played through repeatedly, got bored of the same old storyline & missed playing (Fallout 3, Borderlands) suddenly had new missions, weapons and excitement that i could aquire from the comfort of my armchair....

However, Just recently i've been thinking...It seems developers aren't just making DLC to add-on to a game that has run it's course...It's like they're making a game and holding back a portion of it, just to release it a couple of weeks later and screw a little more money from us gamers...Which i feel is abit of a bum move...If i've just paid 40 and upwards for a game...And i'm aiming for the 1000G...I don't want DLC released in a couple weeks that will update the GS to 1250 or whatever...And then feel that i HAVE to buy the DLC in order to fully 100% the game...

Does this not seem unfair to anyone else?!...If not, then what's your opinion?!... =/

KAG1092
10-07-2010, 10:04 AM
No-one's forcing anything to do anyone. It's just reasonable economics. They earn money making extra content. Nothing fishy going on. I think it's an okay deal, just like expansion packs in the good ole days. It's not like it's anything new. Starcraft had it's Brood War, and Fallout 3 has it's DLCs.

Yaymez
10-07-2010, 10:15 AM
I think that the idea of DLC is a great one to be fair. I think the main problem is the extreme variations in pricing. There is no consistency.

On one hand you get DLC content in Fallout 3 fantastic and well worth the money. But on the other you get sub-par DLC for the same price in other games.

I think people will accept the idea of game DLC once the market aligns and prices are placed in more appropriate context with the nature of the actual content. Until then it is a bit of a minefield in terms of value-for-money. Which is why I usually wait for a few user reviews first. :)

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 10:15 AM
No-one's forcing anything to do anyone. It's just reasonable economics. They earn money making extra content. Nothing fishy going on. I think it's an okay deal, just like expansion packs in the good ole days. It's not like it's anything new. Starcraft had it's Brood War, and Fallout 3 has it's DLCs.

Don't get me wrong....I'm not saying it's evil at work...I actually purchase and totally enjoy the DLC of some games...What i'm getting at is...It seems that some games are being released with certain content, that could just as easily have been put in the game, being held back...Just to release it a couple of weeks later to earn another small payday...Which again, i understand from their pov...I just think it's unfair...If i pay 40 for a game then have to shell out another 10 a fortnight later just to get the extra 6 'cheevos worth 150G then i feel it's abit of a side-swipe at my original sacrifice...

And i hear what you're saying about "not being forced"...But as i like to 100% games, including their achievements...When DLC is released, with an update that increases the GS automatically...Then it does feel that i'm bein made to purchase it in a way...'Cos otherwise, it's a game i'm never putting in my 100% Club...


Am i just being crazy here?!... =/

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 10:18 AM
I think that the idea of DLC is a great one to be fair. I think the main problem is the extreme variations in pricing. There is no consistency.

On one hand you get DLC content in Fallout 3 fantastic and well worth the money. But on the other you get sub-par DLC for the same price in other games.

I think people will accept the idea of game DLC once the market aligns and prices are placed in more appropriate context with the nature of the actual content. Until then it is a bit of a minefield in terms of value-for-money. Which is why I usually wait for a few user reviews first. :)

I totally agree with you there... Fallout DLC was well worthwhile...Purchased every bit and 100%'d it...

I dunno if i'm explaining this wrong or something...My problem isn't with DLC as a whole...I love DLC to expand games...

My problem falls with games that have DLC released within a week or so of the game being release and increase the GS...It just feels like the content could have just been put into the game, and is intentionally held back to increase profit margins on the product...

Does that make more sense?!... =/

Chaosx721
10-07-2010, 10:25 AM
A lot of the DLC are ideas that come after a game is finished. Although it may seemed like it was held from the final game, most of the time its not. If you feel as if its a scam, then just don't buy it. I love DLC, but I wont buy it if I think its a waste of money, even if it has achievements.

Yaymez
10-07-2010, 10:33 AM
My problem falls with games that have DLC released within a week or so of the game being release and increase the GS...It just feels like the content could have just been put into the game, and is intentionally held back to increase profit margins on the product...=/

You are right of course; i'm pretty sure that any DLC released a week after the retail game is released smells very strongly of 'speedy fast cash in'. I hadn't thought of it in those terms :woop:

A week after release should by all rights mean it was ready when the game was shipped. Which definitely feels a bit like kickng my wallet firmly in the crotch. After all 7 days prior to this new content we shelled out god-knows how much for the main game right?

I'd personally like to see a staggered schedule; long enough for us to get through the game and enjoy the sights it has to show us. Then bring content out when the majority of players are ready to see something new.

Dragon83uk
10-07-2010, 10:34 AM
I agree with your sentiments exactly. Some games (like fallout) have excellent pieces of dlc that really feel like they're adding something new and interesting to a game which couldn't possibly of been on the disc. But by the same token there's other studios that just seem to add stuff that really should of been there when the game was released. Like Assassins creed 2 and the "missing" missions. Just seems like a cheap move. Also there's been a few companies recently that have come under fire because the "content" you download is nothing more than a key to unlock things that are already on the disc. The best thing to do if you want to show these game studios where their going wrong is to simply not buy naff add-ons. A pain if your bothered about your achievement percentage but at the end of the day it's the only way they'll learn. We're in the growing stages of digital content at the moment so unfortunately we (as the consumers) are just going to have to put up with developers testing the waters and seeing what they can justify selling us.

jamie1000013
10-07-2010, 10:35 AM
I don't mind them releasing DLC after the game has been out for a while but when they release it as a Pre order incentive or an unlock code I think that's wrong. Bioshocks infamous DLC that was an unlock code is an utter joke.

DLC for Mafia 2 that Joe one which came with the game that should be free end of.

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 10:37 AM
A lot of the DLC are ideas that come after a game is finished. Although it may seemed like it was held from the final game, most of the time its not. If you feel as if its a scam, then just don't buy it. I love DLC, but I wont buy it if I think its a waste of money, even if it has achievements.

Yeah, I know what you mean...And obviously if i don't want it, i won't buy it...I'm just trying to see if anyone else feels it's a bum deal...

And i know alot of DLC is after release ideas etc....I have no problem with games that have DLC that come out months after the game...Just seems that some is coming too fast to be post-release...

As for the achievement side of things...I won't buy the content just for the sake of getting the achievements...What i'm saying tho...Is it seems unfair auto-updating the GS, so i can't 100% the game unless i purchase the DLC...They should just do it like Fallout 3 and have the GS update only when the DLC is installed...Then it gives gamers the choice of getting the 100% with our without the DLC...You know?!... =/

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 10:39 AM
You are right of course; i'm pretty sure that any DLC released a week after the retail game is released smells very strongly of 'speedy fast cash in'. I hadn't thought of it in those terms :woop:

A week after release should by all rights mean it was ready when the game was shipped. Which definitely feels a bit like kickng my wallet firmly in the crotch. After all 7 days prior to this new content we shelled out god-knows how much for the main game right?

I'd personally like to see a staggered schedule; long enough for us to get through the game and enjoy the sights it has to show us. Then bring content out when the majority of players are ready to see something new.

I got my point across to someone!!!!! =D happy days... lol

I was having trouble explaining it right lol...But yeah this is what i was saying...DLC is great...But should be released when games have run their course and gamers want more to do...Not just for a quick cash in... :)

ChromiumDragon
10-07-2010, 10:41 AM
Take a look at Assassin's creed 2 and Dragon Age: Origins.

AC2 had chapters missing, that eventually got released as DLC. DA:O had DLC available from day 1. That reeks of gouging. And yes, I do believe that some companies are intentionally holding content back in order to make more money later releasing it as DLC. And I do expect this trend to continue.

Now don't get me wrong: Some companies are doing it correctly. GTA IV and Fallout 3 are examples -- the DLC available for those games were clearly not part of the main game, but expansions of it. I have no problems with those.

It's one of the many downfalls of today's gaming technology; Games today can be released with more bugs than previous generations, since the companies can now issue a patch later. This is incentive for companies to do so in order to meet deadlines even if the game is effectively "unfinished". We have games with more crippling bugs than in previous generations, games with achievements that simply don't work, etc. And they also have the ability to hold back content that normally would have been a part of the game only to release it as DLC later.

Another reason I expect this trend to continue: The developers' crusade against the used game market. We're already seeing them start to issue one-time-use codes to play multiplayer games (If you buy the game used and want to play online, you have to pay an extra fee). Not only do I expect that trend to continue (within 5 years, I expect all games to require a one-time-use code), but I expect developers to start withholding more and more content from the disc itself, releasing it as release-day DLC. New players will be able to download the content for free (at least at first), while players who buy it used will have to pay. And no, the initial price of the game won't go down as a result.

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 10:42 AM
I agree with your sentiments exactly. Some games (like fallout) have excellent pieces of dlc that really feel like they're adding something new and interesting to a game which couldn't possibly of been on the disc. But by the same token there's other studios that just seem to add stuff that really should of been there when the game was released. Like Assassins creed 2 and the "missing" missions. Just seems like a cheap move. Also there's been a few companies recently that have come under fire because the "content" you download is nothing more than a key to unlock things that are already on the disc. The best thing to do if you want to show these game studios where their going wrong is to simply not buy naff add-ons. A pain if your bothered about your achievement percentage but at the end of the day it's the only way they'll learn. We're in the growing stages of digital content at the moment so unfortunately we (as the consumers) are just going to have to put up with developers testing the waters and seeing what they can justify selling us.


Precisely... ;)



I don't mind them releasing DLC after the game has been out for a while but when they release it as a Pre order incentive or an unlock code I think that's wrong. Bioshocks infamous DLC that was an unlock code is an utter joke.

DLC for Mafia 2 that Joe one which came with the game that should be free end of.

Yup...This is my point exactly...It just seems some game studios are taking DLC to the wrong extremes...

DLC should add-on to a game when it's run it's course and gamers are still wanting to play more...not just for tha sakes of it...

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 10:46 AM
Take a look at Assassin's creed 2 and Dragon Age: Origins.

AC2 had chapters missing, that eventually got released as DLC. DA:O had DLC available from day 1. That reeks of gouging. And yes, I do believe that some companies are intentionally holding content back in order to make more money later releasing it as DLC. And I do expect this trend to continue.

Now don't get me wrong: Some companies are doing it correctly. GTA IV and Fallout 3 are examples -- the DLC available for those games were clearly not part of the main game, but expansions of it. I have no problems with those.

It's one of the many downfalls of today's gaming technology; Games today can be released with more bugs than previous generations, since the companies can now issue a patch later. This is incentive for companies to do so in order to meet deadlines even if the game is effectively "unfinished". We have games with more crippling bugs than in previous generations, games with achievements that simply don't work, etc. And they also have the ability to hold back content that normally would have been a part of the game only to release it as DLC later.

Another reason I expect this trend to continue: The developers' crusade against the used game market. We're already seeing them start to issue one-time-use codes to play multiplayer games (If you buy the game used and want to play online, you have to pay an extra fee). Not only do I expect that trend to continue (within 5 years, I expect all games to require a one-time-use code), but I expect developers to start withholding more and more content from the disc itself, releasing it as release-day DLC. New players will be able to download the content for free (at least at first), while players who buy it used will have to pay. And no, the initial price of the game won't go down as a result.


This is exactly my worry...I mean i totally believe game studio's are holding back on content just to screw a few extra chips outta us...BUM DEAL....

As for the future...ahhhhh don't get me started man...We're heading in a terrible direction with gaming...don't get me wrong, not in all ways and with all studios...But some certain games and studios are leading the way to a world of gaming that i don't think i'm gonna enjoy... :(

RuYi
10-07-2010, 11:30 AM
As long as the game is long enough, I have nothing against DLC. But it shouldn't be the case of buying a really, really short game and later pay for DLC that should be in the game itself.

KAG1092
10-07-2010, 11:31 AM
Capitalism really is beautiful, eh?

Greedy bastards.

Qonok
10-07-2010, 11:41 AM
In a normal development cycle, once a game is completed there needs to be time to do a final bug check, imprint this game on a disc, print the gaming manual and packaging, and then prepare to ship these games around the world for a certain release date which may get pushed because of another game that is being put out at the same time (kind of like Christmas last year where several games were pushed to early 2010).

This does give the developer plenty of time to start working on and finishing additional DLC that may come out at the same time since the framework for the game is already complete and this DLC is for digital download. This DLC wasn't ready when they started the process of making the game discs but it was ready when the game actually hit the street date.

Not saying some companies didn't try to gouge or hold something back (like that Bioshock 2 DLC unlock code) but saying sometimes it is a matter of the DLC being smaller and quicker to build-up and release which makes it come out approximately at the same time as the main game itself.

Stone Prisoner (from DA:O) was basically just one small area and a new character (with all of the voice-overs which could have probably taken a day to get a voice actor to do) that was added. Not really all that much content I must say.

luffy
10-07-2010, 11:51 AM
like what you guys think about the legends and killers pack for Red Dead Redemption?
8 multiplayer maps
8 characters
1 new weapon
new achievements
for 800MP

now what do you think?
does it deserve it?
no it doesn't in my opinion.
the only two DLC's that deserves to be payed is
GTAIV The Ballad Of The Gay Tony & The Lost And Damned.

should we compare it now?
GTAIV TLAD:
Brand New Characters.
Brand New Multiplayer Challenges.
Brand New Story.
New Achievements.
New Minor Stuff like three more radio channels.
New Bikes And Cars
and that's all are just for 1200MP
that's really funny of how companies trick people by getting their Downloadable contents
for a high price, it's just lame.

ChromiumDragon
10-07-2010, 12:25 PM
In a normal development cycle, once a game is completed there needs to be time to do a final bug check, imprint this game on a disc, print the gaming manual and packaging, and then prepare to ship these games around the world for a certain release date which may get pushed because of another game that is being put out at the same time (kind of like Christmas last year where several games were pushed to early 2010).

This does give the developer plenty of time to start working on and finishing additional DLC that may come out at the same time since the framework for the game is already complete and this DLC is for digital download. This DLC wasn't ready when they started the process of making the game discs but it was ready when the game actually hit the street date.

Not saying some companies didn't try to gouge or hold something back (like that Bioshock 2 DLC unlock code) but saying sometimes it is a matter of the DLC being smaller and quicker to build-up and release which makes it come out approximately at the same time as the main game itself.

Stone Prisoner (from DA:O) was basically just one small area and a new character (with all of the voice-overs which could have probably taken a day to get a voice actor to do) that was added. Not really all that much content I must say.

There's a saying: "Perception is Reality".

In cases of smaller DLC like Stone Prisoner, the reality might be that it was DLC that was simply produced in that window of time between the game being finished and the release date. But by releasing it on day one, it gives the perception that the content was intentionally held back to be released as DLC so the developers could gouge more money from the players. And once that perception is in players' minds, it's very hard, or even impossible, to erase that perception. To those players, the "reality" is that the DLC was content that should have been on the disc and was held back to gouge players.

And it doesn't help matters when games like AC2 and Bioshock 2 pull stunts that they did which were clearly gouging. It just fuels the perception that other companies -- some of which may not be intentionally trying to gouge -- are doing the same thing.

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 12:31 PM
And it doesn't help matters when games like AC2 and Bioshock 2 pull stunts that they did which were clearly gouging. It just fuels the perception that other companies -- some of which may not be intentionally trying to gouge -- are doing the same thing.


AC2 is a prime example of my point by the way...

Arenazombie
10-07-2010, 01:19 PM
Alot of good points on this thread and I totally agree with
Chromium Dragon
Guess one should just wait for GOTY Editions or don't even get the games at all. Sometimes I also get the feeling of companies releasing games with a low amount of content in order to force people even more into wanting more content. If you're enjoying a game really much but there are only 5 maps you want a mappack more than if its shipping with 20 maps.
Also I think most developers are doing DLC just for the sake of doing it without there being a need or logical way to add content.
Whats the real point of going back to for example "The Force unleashed" for about 30 minutes to play through a new level?
I think expansions should either way tweak the game itself like for example "The Conquerors" did that with "Age of Empires 2" where the new tweaks and technologies and new units gave you a new gameplay feeling while playing through the already existing campaigns once again.
I would pretty much prefer real expansions like in the old days where you got about 40-70% of the original games content+stuff that made you want to go through the original game again.
This short DLCs are no real going back into the game especially since they come out so soon that often you haven't even finished the main game and don't even have checked out all of its content yet.
Its always the same "+Maps" for multiplayer or "+levels" for SP-games.
I want something to be longer lasting and something that really feels like "this is what the game needed".
Since there is this DLC developers don't do real expansion packs anymore.
Imagine if Starcraft had just map-Packs instead of Broad War or Diablo 2 had Costume Packs instead of Lord of Destruction. One would have never seen the games full potential, they wouldn't have been that amount of fun they are.

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 02:10 PM
Alot of good points on this thread and I totally agree with
Chromium Dragon
Guess one should just wait for GOTY Editions or don't even get the games at all. Sometimes I also get the feeling of companies releasing games with a low amount of content in order to force people even more into wanting more content. If you're enjoying a game really much but there are only 5 maps you want a mappack more than if its shipping with 20 maps.
Also I think most developers are doing DLC just for the sake of doing it without there being a need or logical way to add content.
Whats the real point of going back to for example "The Force unleashed" for about 30 minutes to play through a new level?
I think expansions should either way tweak the game itself like for example "The Conquerors" did that with "Age of Empires 2" where the new tweaks and technologies and new units gave you a new gameplay feeling while playing through the already existing campaigns once again.
I would pretty much prefer real expansions like in the old days where you got about 40-70% of the original games content+stuff that made you want to go through the original game again.
This short DLCs are no real going back into the game especially since they come out so soon that often you haven't even finished the main game and don't even have checked out all of its content yet.
Its always the same "+Maps" for multiplayer or "+levels" for SP-games.
I want something to be longer lasting and something that really feels like "this is what the game needed".
Since there is this DLC developers don't do real expansion packs anymore.
Imagine if Starcraft had just map-Packs instead of Broad War or Diablo 2 had Costume Packs instead of Lord of Destruction. One would have never seen the games full potential, they wouldn't have been that amount of fun they are.

You totally took my point and explained it much better!!! :) lol

This is part of what i was trying to say...Hit the nail on the head mate...cheers for your input!! :)

guillermo316
10-07-2010, 02:19 PM
achievements in DLC = must buy for me, but only for the games i love.

Evo Kazz
10-07-2010, 02:42 PM
I'm with Renf on this one, 100% I think DLC was amazing when first released but as time has gone on, I think they are getting greedy, and the DLC is getting worse and worse, and glitchier and glitchier (is that even a word?)

People on this forum are hit worse by this, I bet most of us buy DLC just to 100% the games achievements, the amount of DLC I have bought that I dont even want, but the OCD in me made me buy it!!

Dragon83uk
10-07-2010, 02:56 PM
I'm quite lucky in that respect. There's been a few bits of dlc of the past year or so that I've avoided. Most recently was Red Deads. The liars and cheats pack should of been part of the original game IMO.

KIDDRAGON67
10-07-2010, 02:58 PM
DLC = Disc Locked Content (Joking)

Some games which do release DLC within the first 30 days of the games official release, is basically DLC taken out the game to squeeze a couple extra bucks out of the consumer. But if it is free it's not that much of an issue.

But one thing I really thought was a good way to say thanks to the consumer was what EA recently done with FIFA 11, since it generated so much they are releasing the Ultimate Team for free (Instead of charging 400 MS Points).

bigbear2face
10-07-2010, 03:17 PM
In cases of smaller DLC like Stone Prisoner, the reality might be that it was DLC that was simply produced in that window of time between the game being finished and the release date. But by releasing it on day one, it gives the perception that the content was intentionally held back to be released as DLC so the developers could gouge more money from the players. And once that perception is in players' minds, it's very hard, or even impossible, to erase that perception. To those players, the "reality" is that the DLC was content that should have been on the disc and was held back to gouge players.



Stone Prisoner was originally planned to be part of the game when it was released but the programmers ran into some scaling issues with some of the characters/backgrounds and realized they weren't going to be able to finish it and still get the game out by its promised release date.

They then were able to finish it between the time that they sent the other content to the presses and the time that the games were actually shipped to retailers. So as a result many consumers (including myself) got a product code allowing them to download the content for free.

However, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that they charge some customers for this content when they originally planned for it to be part of the game and provided a free code to other consumers. In fact EA and Bioware caught a lot of hell at the time sparking the whole debate about DLC which is now well over a year old for people that have been paying attention.

I personally love some DLC content but feel that it is absolutely ridiculous that companies charge for other content that several years ago would have been free as part of regular patches for the game. Take Multiplayer FPS games for example: Modern Warfare 2's Stimulus pack and subsequent DLCs are ridiculous. You should never have to pay for maps. People who used to play the Quake games, RtCW, CounterStrike and other FPS games on the PC will remember that they never had to pay for map packs. This type of content used to come free with the regular updates and patches for the game.

In addition to the content that should be free there are plenty of companies out there way overcharging for minor content updates. For instance, Transformers: War for Cybertron. Combined their two DLC add something like 10 maps and 6 characters available in only one game play mode. Their combined cost? 1600MS. Seriously? That kind of content is worth no more then 600-800MS. Even the Mass Effect 2 DLCs are a little overpriced (though the Mass Effect 1 DLCs were perfect).

Another great example of companies taking advantage of the consumer are the NHL 10 and Fifa 10 DLCs that charge you for short term boosts to your created Be A Pro players. Then again, anyone stupid enough to pay for these deserves to have their money taken.

There are a few games/companies that get it right. Fallout 3 and Star Wars TFU are two that immediately come to mind. But overall I do agree, a lot of DLC are overpriced trash that reek of a company trying to gouge its customers.

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 03:36 PM
I'm with Renf on this one, 100% I think DLC was amazing when first released but as time has gone on, I think they are getting greedy, and the DLC is getting worse and worse, and glitchier and glitchier (is that even a word?)

People on this forum are hit worse by this, I bet most of us buy DLC just to 100% the games achievements, the amount of DLC I have bought that I dont even want, but the OCD in me made me buy it!!

So i'm not the only one with an Achievement OCD?!...I've only had my account for 2-3 months and have 7 completes and an overall of 70% (with Red Dead Redemption and it's ever increasing DLC that i don't want) being my main drag-down...Also...Fable II...I like the game...Not as much as i liked the 1st one mind, but i still like the game...However, I don't really wanna the DLC...But now that my achievement list has 16 added to it from DLC...I guess i'm gunna have to get it...

You've completely understood where i'm coming from with this post mate...Nice to know i'm not 100% insane...yet... ;)

ChromiumDragon
10-07-2010, 03:36 PM
However, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that they charge some customers for this content when they originally planned for it to be part of the game and provided a free code to other consumers. In fact EA and Bioware caught a lot of hell at the time sparking the whole debate about DLC which is now well over a year old for people that have been paying attention.

As I said in my other post, this is a trend that I expect to not only continue, but to get worse. DLC like Stone Prisoner is stuff players who buy new get for free now, but I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing them eventually start charging for it.

"Players may use the code found in new copies of the game to download the new content for the discounted price of $4.99. If you do not have a code available to you, you may still purchase the content for $14.99."

"<insert game company here> will maintain servers for <game> for one year from the game's release date. There is a $19.99 subscription fee for players who wish to play <game> online, which gives players access to the online servers until the server's shutdown date. Players who purchase new copies of the game will receive a discount activation code and will be charged $9.99"

"Thank you for purchasing your copy of <game>. Please register your game by entering your one-use activation code. Please note that if you install this game on another console, you will need to purchase a new activation code. You may also purcase a multi-use activation code now for $5.99, good for up to three installations."

I expect some or all of the above to happen within the next five years.

Tricka21
10-07-2010, 03:43 PM
The only thing that really annoys me with DLC (as of late) is how glitchy the achievements are, i'm not too fussed with price although cheaper is always welcome but seriously within 2010 there has been endless DLC problems & too tell you the truth i'm sick of it which is why I think the DLC novelty is wearing off quite rapidly!

I think we can all admit without achievements i'd say around 75% of certain DLC would be avoided. I just want it back to how DLC used to be when you knew if you was forking out money you'd get what you paid for & not have to wait endless weeks for a patch, not too much to ask really is it M$/Developers.

Evo Kazz
10-07-2010, 04:56 PM
So i'm not the only one with an Achievement OCD?!...I've only had my account for 2-3 months and have 7 completes and an overall of 70% (with Red Dead Redemption and it's ever increasing DLC that i don't want) being my main drag-down...Also...Fable II...I like the game...Not as much as i liked the 1st one mind, but i still like the game...However, I don't really wanna the DLC...But now that my achievement list has 16 added to it from DLC...I guess i'm gunna have to get it...

You've completely understood where i'm coming from with this post mate...Nice to know i'm not 100% insane...yet... ;)

Nah, I think many people on this forum have achievement OCD, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, until game developers start exploiting us. I genuinely do like some DLC, I was really excited over the Fallout 3 DLC and I really enjoyed the Midnight Club DLC / Splinter Cell Conviciton / Bioshock 2 Trials etc, but some....I am looking right at you Dante's Inferno!!! Is just plain garbage!! I am pretty bad case though, I have bought DLC for games I don't even own! :- Rented / Borrowed etc, that's how bad I am!

Opiate42
10-07-2010, 06:14 PM
Capitalism really is beautiful, eh?

Greedy bastards.

HAHA!!! Makes me want to drink. Heavily.

subpwn
10-07-2010, 07:06 PM
Welcome to the present!

On a more serious note, think about GameStop with all the bullshit exclusives in pre-orders. all that crap can be either bought on the marketpalce, or achieved later in-game. Like Halo reach helmet, Bioshock2 characters.

DLC is free money for them.

Raider
10-07-2010, 07:22 PM
I can't believe left 4 dead, releasing the same content for both the games... unbelievable.

ITD Soldierboy
10-07-2010, 07:28 PM
Don't get me wrong....I'm not saying it's evil at work...I actually purchase and totally enjoy the DLC of some games...What i'm getting at is...It seems that some games are being released with certain content, that could just as easily have been put in the game, being held back...Just to release it a couple of weeks later to earn another small payday...Which again, i understand from their pov...I just think it's unfair...If i pay 40 for a game then have to shell out another 10 a fortnight later just to get the extra 6 'cheevos worth 150G then i feel it's abit of a side-swipe at my original sacrifice...

And i hear what you're saying about "not being forced"...But as i like to 100% games, including their achievements...When DLC is released, with an update that increases the GS automatically...Then it does feel that i'm bein made to purchase it in a way...'Cos otherwise, it's a game i'm never putting in my 100% Club...


Am i just being crazy here?!... =/

Yes you are just crazy. Many people think that a game is still being made up until the day of release. That is not the case. Games are finished usually 3-4 months(sometimes 5-6 months) before the release date. This is because games still need to be checked for any game breaking bugs in the coding, and allows for the discs to be made and distributed. Because checking for bugs in the coding and play testing are small(not simple) jobs, this leaves a lot of the designers and programmers free to do other things. This might be to work on a sequel or develop DLC for users to buy after they've finished the game. Since it's a smaller piece and not a full game, DLC rarely takes 4-5 months to complete, so it's safe to assume that any DLC that begins it's development after a game is finished to be 'ready' at the release of the full game. Of course, not many developer's like to release full DLC content at release, so they take a little bit longer to check through and make sure it's good. Then it's off to Microsoft or Sony, or wherever it's gonna be sold (honestly) for certification. This can take up to a month depending on how big the content is and if there is anything wrong or doesn't meet standards.

So no, DLC is not content that is removed from the game. Only certain games I've heard of have cases of this(Assassin's Creed 2)(and another example isFinal Fantasy XIII had a lot of content removed, but it's not DLC), most of the DLC you see a few months after release is stuff that was being worked on after the game was finished but before it was released to the public.

I understand that this isn't really general knowledge, but unless you know for a fact that a piece of DLC was removed from a game in order to release in a certain time, don't state that game developers are just being greedy for more money. Also, this is not a bashing post, I just want to point out the obvious in Game Design.

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Yes you are just crazy. Many people think that a game is still being made up until the day of release. That is not the case. Games are finished usually 3-4 months(sometimes 5-6 months) before the release date. This is because games still need to be checked for any game breaking bugs in the coding, and allows for the discs to be made and distributed. Because checking for bugs in the coding and play testing are small(not simple) jobs, this leaves a lot of the designers and programmers free to do other things. This might be to work on a sequel or develop DLC for users to buy after they've finished the game. Since it's a smaller piece and not a full game, DLC rarely takes 4-5 months to complete, so it's safe to assume that any DLC that begins it's development after a game is finished to be 'ready' at the release of the full game. Of course, not many developer's like to release full DLC content at release, so they take a little bit longer to check through and make sure it's good. Then it's off to Microsoft or Sony, or wherever it's gonna be sold (honestly) for certification. This can take up to a month depending on how big the content is and if there is anything wrong or doesn't meet standards.

So no, DLC is not content that is removed from the game. Only certain games I've heard of have cases of this(Assassin's Creed 2)(and another example isFinal Fantasy XIII had a lot of content removed, but it's not DLC), most of the DLC you see a few months after release is stuff that was being worked on after the game was finished but before it was released to the public.

I understand that this isn't really general knowledge, but unless you know for a fact that a piece of DLC was removed from a game in order to release in a certain time, don't state that game developers are just being greedy for more money. Also, this is not a bashing post, I just want to point out the obvious in Game Design.

I would assume no-one truely believes a game is being made right up until it's release date...And i'm not saying that all games/studios are guilty of it...But there are some doing it...And it's with those i have a problem...DLC should not be released until the public have had a fair amount of time to complete the main content and wish to see more...And even then...Achievement and GS updates should still be optional...

Anyway...If i'm crazy, then so are a few other people on this one my friend... ;)

oO Renf Oo
10-07-2010, 08:17 PM
Nah, I think many people on this forum have achievement OCD, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, until game developers start exploiting us. I genuinely do like some DLC, I was really excited over the Fallout 3 DLC and I really enjoyed the Midnight Club DLC / Splinter Cell Conviciton / Bioshock 2 Trials etc, but some....I am looking right at you Dante's Inferno!!! Is just plain garbage!! I am pretty bad case though, I have bought DLC for games I don't even own! :- Rented / Borrowed etc, that's how bad I am!

hahahah...Wow man...That [b]is[b] bad...I'm not quite at that point yet, but wouldn't be surprised if i catch myself at it in the near future mind... =P

I loved the Fallout 3 DLC...The Borderlands DLC...Oblivion (Shivering Isles mainly as it had 'cheevs)....But other than that i haven't been way into DLC...

jumpinjonny
10-07-2010, 08:44 PM
im a big fan of DLC and i absolutely loved the fallout, mass effect 2 and borderlands DLC- i feel they really add and extend the game that i really enjoy playing.

i only have 2 problems with DLC- i agree with the people saying that day 1 or week 1 DLC should be on the disc or it should be released later, cause i feel its unnecessary- for example dragon age: origins there's enough content and playthrough's in that game to keep me more than occupied for a long while so i don't need more DLC to extend the game that i haven't finished or completed the original.

the second problem is broken DLC- the sacrifice for left for dead 1 where the cheevs dont unlock unless on local server or left 4 dead 2 where its really buggy and glitchy rendering it unplayable- i know retail games gets tested and played for bugs and glitches before release- does DLC go through the same process?

A Moldy Stump
10-07-2010, 09:14 PM
Wow. I never really thought of this before, I've mostly bought DLC for my arcade games which dont really feel like a ripoff. Of the retail games I do have DLC for Halo 3 it was essential to keep playing certain game types, that I didn't like but was sort of necessary I suppose. Nazi Zombies was worth it, I'll never buy MW2 content simply becuase the new maps aren't that good and if I wanted to play old COD 4 maps I'd just play that.

The one thing I regret most is Fable 2, it was purchasable in episodes for while with the first one being free. I bought two more episodes for 800 ms points each I think... Somewhere along the line it ended up going into Games On Demand as a single piece download and now I'm stuck with half the game unable to complete it.

Evo Kazz
10-07-2010, 09:57 PM
Yes you are just crazy. Many people think that a game is still being made up until the day of release. That is not the case. Games are finished usually 3-4 months(sometimes 5-6 months) before the release date. This is because games still need to be checked for any game breaking bugs in the coding, and allows for the discs to be made and distributed. Because checking for bugs in the coding and play testing are small(not simple) jobs, this leaves a lot of the designers and programmers free to do other things. This might be to work on a sequel or develop DLC for users to buy after they've finished the game. Since it's a smaller piece and not a full game, DLC rarely takes 4-5 months to complete, so it's safe to assume that any DLC that begins it's development after a game is finished to be 'ready' at the release of the full game. Of course, not many developer's like to release full DLC content at release, so they take a little bit longer to check through and make sure it's good. Then it's off to Microsoft or Sony, or wherever it's gonna be sold (honestly) for certification. This can take up to a month depending on how big the content is and if there is anything wrong or doesn't meet standards.

So no, DLC is not content that is removed from the game. Only certain games I've heard of have cases of this(Assassin's Creed 2)(and another example isFinal Fantasy XIII had a lot of content removed, but it's not DLC), most of the DLC you see a few months after release is stuff that was being worked on after the game was finished but before it was released to the public.

I understand that this isn't really general knowledge, but unless you know for a fact that a piece of DLC was removed from a game in order to release in a certain time, don't state that game developers are just being greedy for more money. Also, this is not a bashing post, I just want to point out the obvious in Game Design.

Until your on a dev team sat in their board meetings discussing this from the inside, with the insiders, you, me, or anyone here knows what they plan with DLC, the OP isn't crazy, it's actually a very viable argument, and if the OP is crazy, then I must be well and truly bonkers! I will no doubt meet Renf in the loony bin sometime down the road. :woop:

MachineZed
10-07-2010, 10:28 PM
Until your on a dev team sat in their board meetings discussing this from the inside, with the insiders, you, me, or anyone here knows what they plan with DLC, the OP isn't crazy, it's actually a very viable argument, and if the OP is crazy, then I must be well and truly bonkers! I will no doubt meet Renf in the loony bin sometime down the road. :woop:
There is still a difference between planning on doing DLC, and working on DLC while the main game isn't finished. Which unless you are in the production meetings on every game you can't say they are working on them at the same time. Which is different than removing things from games, that are either buggy, or unbalanced, from the game before it ships.

I am not saying it doesn't happen, but you also can't say it happens for every game. Like the fact that the OP likes Borderlands, FO3 DLC, it is a case by case basis. Everyone needs to take into account what the game is, and what the DLC is. But no instead everyone makes the broad generalizations, and yes every DLC is about making money, the money from them go directly to MS and to them. Which is unlike the retail games when you can buy them used, and money goes to the distributors, and shipping companies, etc.

Qonok
10-07-2010, 10:42 PM
My biggest complaint about DLC is price to play value as well as achievement value. We all here play for fun and it is fun to also get achievements. Why some DLC is put out without achievements is just strange to me (i.e. Hoth mission for Star Wars: TFU and the missing chapters for AC2).
The biggest problem to me is the DLC's where they charge 800 points for a 20 minute interlude and 10 achievement points. Really?

Starstrukk X360A
10-07-2010, 10:58 PM
It only bugs me when the developers straight out say that the DLC is already in the game and you just need to pay to unlock it.

oO Renf Oo
10-08-2010, 12:23 AM
Until your on a dev team sat in their board meetings discussing this from the inside, with the insiders, you, me, or anyone here knows what they plan with DLC, the OP isn't crazy, it's actually a very viable argument, and if the OP is crazy, then I must be well and truly bonkers! I will no doubt meet Renf in the loony bin sometime down the road. :woop:

Haha...Damn right...I'll cya there buddy... ;)

There is still a difference between planning on doing DLC, and working on DLC while the main game isn't finished. Which unless you are in the production meetings on every game you can't say they are working on them at the same time. Which is different than removing things from games, that are either buggy, or unbalanced, from the game before it ships.

I am not saying it doesn't happen, but you also can't say it happens for every game. Like the fact that the OP likes Borderlands, FO3 DLC, it is a case by case basis. Everyone needs to take into account what the game is, and what the DLC is. But no instead everyone makes the broad generalizations, and yes every DLC is about making money, the money from them go directly to MS and to them. Which is unlike the retail games when you can buy them used, and money goes to the distributors, and shipping companies, etc.

Check back through my posts...Never did i state it was the case with every game...Just that it does happen...And increasingly...Yet you post a statement of a broad generalization of a thread you say is full of people making broad generalizations...Well sir...Read back...I stand by my thoughts that some games from some studios do release content far too early and it should either be on disc or held back until the gamer has sufficient time to complete said game...If it's not a point of view we share, fair enough then, i respect that...Please extend the same courtesies same to me... ;)

Japanese Table
10-08-2010, 01:40 AM
It really matters with what games get the DLC and their quality to be straight.


Take Oblivion for example. They offered a vast map full of new quests and adventures and is well worth the money for the dlc now that its going very cheap nowadays. Same thing goes for Borderlands and Fallout 3. They offer great experiences and allow you to continue your character's growth and add new weapons in the game for him to use.

Now, when its mostly dumb DLC, like how Red Dead Redemption's mostly is, is really just a waste. Same thing goes for Mafia 2. You dont need so much DLC that fast for the game, as most people are aggravated by it and think that you are just trying to suck the money out of its pockets.

DLC's need to be great and vast and have great replayability for me to buy them. I want DLC's that I will enjoy not just for percentage. So if developers make great DLC then I will buy for ENJOYMENT.

ITD Soldierboy
10-08-2010, 03:25 AM
I would assume no-one truely believes a game is being made right up until it's release date...And i'm not saying that all games/studios are guilty of it...But there are some doing it...And it's with those i have a problem...DLC should not be released until the public have had a fair amount of time to complete the main content and wish to see more...And even then...Achievement and GS updates should still be optional...

Anyway...If i'm crazy, then so are a few other people on this one my friend... ;)

Well first off, it would be impossible to have it where gamerscore updates are optional. Not only would this cause a huge overload on the systems because of the extra coding needed, but those that would have chosen not to receive the update would NOT be able to play with those that did. It's while many games put in updates in the full game itself for future DLC(Bioshock 2) so that those that didn't get the new pack would still be able to play with those that did. This is also not as simple as that because it wasn't thought of by Microsoft and therefore not in the coding as of now. Many issues would occur and could temporarily make Live inaccessible if this was to ever take place.

On to your second point(technically your first), why should a company not release some extra content for a while after it's been finished and ready to launch? I'm sorry to sound frank with you, but there are people out there who complete the game much more faster that most of us and want more content more so than you or others that think like you. Would it be fair to NOT release extra content for those that are already waiting oppose to those that take their time? I'm not saying that slowly progressing through a game is bad, but unless it's an RPG and unless you've had some sort of real life emergency, 3 weeks to a month is plenty of time for a person to complete a game and be willing for additional content. If it's such a bother, don't buy the content until you feel willing to continue with the game.(Not meaning to sound harsh, but come on, complaining because content is released early that shows that the company supports their game unlike many other companies out there that won't even patch glitched achievements. Those companies are the ones you should be complaining about, not companies that release more content for a game that you're playing.)

Until your on a dev team sat in their board meetings discussing this from the inside, with the insiders, you, me, or anyone here knows what they plan with DLC, the OP isn't crazy, it's actually a very viable argument, and if the OP is crazy, then I must be well and truly bonkers! I will no doubt meet Renf in the loony bin sometime down the road. :woop:

Well it's not rocket science to know that if a company wants to release extra content, they would start thinking about it before the full game was released(or even finished for that matter). Anybody who is in Game Design or is taking a Game Design course(me) would and should know this. But to feel that the content is taken from the full game and to be felt cheated of is crazy. Thinking this is not understanding how game creation actually works. Sure I might not be a designer for a full fledged game company, but learning how to become one as I'm doing right now has taught me that you can't feel cheated because a DLC pack was released a few weeks after the main game.

darkarchon433
10-08-2010, 04:29 AM
There are some valid points here, I will start with that. But I will go out on a limb and say that I love DLC even if it is part of the problem stated before.

It only bugs me when the developers straight out say that the DLC is already in the game and you just need to pay to unlock it.

I like this idea, but only if it was a nonessential part of the game. By purchasing DLC, more money goes to the developers that produce the games,then they then have more money to make more games and the glorious cycle continues.

If the DLC doesn't matter, vote with your wallet, don't buy. They are getting slick by making achievements getting us OCD people to get it for our completionist tendencies.

Now I am not whole-heartedly supporting them, if they are going to do such a thing as mentioned above then the overall price of the game should be reduced at retail.

I am going to assume we are all guilty of at least once purchasing something used from (insert favorite used game seller here), and all the money we pay for used games, none of it goes to the developers, so any way they can make money to produce games that I love to play, then let them. I am sure there is a better way to do it and not make it seem like they are money-grubbing, soulless bastards.

And with that, I thank you for actually reading this. (If you did) ;)

Evo Kazz
10-08-2010, 07:39 AM
Well first off, it would be impossible to have it where gamerscore updates are optional. Not only would this cause a huge overload on the systems because of the extra coding needed, but those that would have chosen not to receive the update would NOT be able to play with those that did. It's while many games put in updates in the full game itself for future DLC(Bioshock 2) so that those that didn't get the new pack would still be able to play with those that did. This is also not as simple as that because it wasn't thought of by Microsoft and therefore not in the coding as of now. Many issues would occur and could temporarily make Live inaccessible if this was to ever take place.

On to your second point(technically your first), why should a company not release some extra content for a while after it's been finished and ready to launch? I'm sorry to sound frank with you, but there are people out there who complete the game much more faster that most of us and want more content more so than you or others that think like you. Would it be fair to NOT release extra content for those that are already waiting oppose to those that take their time? I'm not saying that slowly progressing through a game is bad, but unless it's an RPG and unless you've had some sort of real life emergency, 3 weeks to a month is plenty of time for a person to complete a game and be willing for additional content. If it's such a bother, don't buy the content until you feel willing to continue with the game.(Not meaning to sound harsh, but come on, complaining because content is released early that shows that the company supports their game unlike many other companies out there that won't even patch glitched achievements. Those companies are the ones you should be complaining about, not companies that release more content for a game that you're playing.)



Well it's not rocket science to know that if a company wants to release extra content, they would start thinking about it before the full game was released(or even finished for that matter). Anybody who is in Game Design or is taking a Game Design course(me) would and should know this. But to feel that the content is taken from the full game and to be felt cheated of is crazy. Thinking this is not understanding how game creation actually works. Sure I might not be a designer for a full fledged game company, but learning how to become one as I'm doing right now has taught me that you can't feel cheated because a DLC pack was released a few weeks after the main game.

I kinda agree to a degree, I think it would be stupid for devs to pull from the final retail. But the proof is in the pudding in some cases, not for every game at all, just a select few, but how much DLC have people downloaded, expecting a big file of new content, for the download progress immediately go ping! download complete....unlock keys anyone?

What riles me is this...back in the old PC days, I used to make maps for quake 3 arena, and unreal tournament 2004, nothing major, just personal projects, teaching myself the steps using the help of forums, many mappers took the textures from the game and just jumbled them about, but most guys like me were importing new textures, new music, new characters, and in some extreme cases by the elites...new mechanics. If this was going on back in the late 90s, why can't the professionals do it now?? Much DLC these days is worse than rejumbled textures, most DLC is using the same damn levels, and just changing the game rules!! For me DLC should be new levels, new characters, new weapons, new audio. While some devs adhere to this wishlist of mine, MANY don't!

There also needs to be more single player DLC, devs are milking the online experience and giving gamers rehashed overpriced map packs, how many modern warfare 2 gamers would have loved more spec ops missions over the insanely priced map packs?