Downloadable Content

[hatok 6,413]

Let's talk about DLC, shall we?

Namely, the fact that everybody under the sun is complaining about it.

Everywhere you look, you'll probably find 'Overpriced map pack' this, and 'unfinished game' that.

Stop acting like you are owed anything.

Paying sixty dollars (Or however much) doesn't 'entitle' you to anything. It doesn't mean you deserve a good game, it doesn't mean you deserve a complete game.

The only rights you get when you buy something, are the right to criticize (Both positively and negatively) and the decision to continue to support something.

But let's narrow this down to DLC.

When somebody makes a game, they own the game. They can do what they want. They can charge a million bucks for it. They can give it away. They can sell you bits and pieces of it. They can do what they want. You are not owed anything for the sublime act of purchasing their product, they already gave you something; a product. So if you don't like the product, complain about it, and more important, don't spend any more money on it (And try to stop other from spending money on it if you think they won't enjoy it for the same reasons as you)

The same thing applies to DLC. You're not OWED the DLC. It's not 'meant to be in the game already', and there's no reason why it can't be on disk. Similarly, the only way you can complain about overpriced DLC is to not pay for it. That's the balancing point; do you LIKE the thing you have enough to pay fifteen bucks for a few new maps? Or a buck for anew weapon? Or a costume? That's all that matters.

So everybody shut up about how DLC is wrong,

And stop acting so entitled.

[Hyperion 144]

I'm fine with buying DLC for costumes in games and stuff, but just don't like how in some games they end the game horribly, then if you want a better ending you gotta buy it, when they should of made it free. But since everything in this world is about money, not happiness that wont happen.

[Hei 3,233]

As long as it doesn't involve having the DLC on the disc already(Capcom) then I am fine with it.

 

Besides, adding DLC increases the longevity of the game and makes you want to play it even more.

[hatok 6,413]

I'm fine with buying DLC for costumes in games and stuff, but just don't like how in some games they end the game horribly, then if you want a better ending you gotta buy it, when they should of made it free. But since everything in this world is about money, not happiness that wont happen.

 

WHY should it be free? Sure, it'd be nice if it were free, but the company still has to make it, and it's not like they didn't give you ANYTHING.

 

As long as it doesn't involve having the DLC on the disc already(Capcom) then I am fine with it.

 

Besides, adding DLC increases the longevity of the game and makes you want to play it even more.

 

But there's no reason they shouldn't be able to sell stuff they already won

[Rob 5,571]

Take that people who think DLC is wrong.

[Hyperion 144]

WHY should it be free? Sure, it'd be nice if it were free, but the company still has to make it, and it's not like they didn't give you ANYTHING.

 

But there's no reason they shouldn't be able to sell stuff they already won

 

So by that logic you could buy a car without wheels? The tires should be free but they aren't. But ofcourse you would be an idiot to do such a thing, but I'm just using this as an example. I guess it should be free because it's not exactly fair to the buyer. Making you buy another part of the game if you want to play it instead of being nice and just releasing it as free. Costumes and extra guns (Or keyblades?) are different becuase they don't exactly impact the story, only the gameplay.

[Number XV 490]

Word.

[hatok 6,413]

So by that logic you could buy a car without wheels? The tires should be free but they aren't. But ofcourse you would be an idiot to do such a thing, but I'm just using this as an example. I guess it should be free because it's not exactly fair to the buyer. Making you buy another part of the game if you want to play it instead of being nice and just releasing it as free. Costumes and extra guns (Or keyblades?) are different becuase they don't exactly impact the story, only the gameplay.

 

A car dealer has the right to sell me a car without wheels, and charge extra to get them, DLC style, but it's up to me whether I actually buy the car. And if I and others don't, they won't be sold like that.

[Imoore4 687]

I see nothing wrong with having DLC!~

But I wish Disney wasn't so uptight about it...

[CrownKeeper13 688]

I love DLC, it just costs too much and isn't used very much as far as maps in Halo Reach go.

[Hyperion 144]

A car dealer has the right to sell me a car without wheels, and charge extra to get them, DLC style, but it's up to me whether I actually buy the car. And if I and others don't, they won't be sold like that.

 

Just casue they have the right to doesn't mean they should. But you know beforhand that the car has no wheels, people don't know if a game will have a bad ending before they buy it (Usually) so they don't know if they will be buying DLC, and when or if it does the company might release a DLC becuase of the uproar and still charge you for it. Like I said, it's all about money. If the company had tons of money they'd be more willing to trelease it for free.

[hatok 6,413]

I see nothing wrong with having DLC!~

But I wish Disney wasn't so uptight about it...

 

Disney has DLC for their Disney Heroes game (Or whatever it's called)

So I don't think that's the case.

 

I love DLC, it just costs too much and isn't used very much as far as maps in Halo Reach go.

 

If you think it's overpriced, don't buy it. Otherwise the company sees you are willing to pay that much, and keeps it there (Or maybe even charges more)

[Imoore4 687]

Disney has DLC for their Disney Heroes game (Or whatever it's called)

So I don't think that's the case.

 

 

Hmm maybe i'm thinking about DLC on PSN....??

[hatok 6,413]

Just casue they have the right to doesn't mean they should. But you know beforhand that the car has no wheels, people don't know if a game will have a bad ending before they buy it (Usually) so they don't know if they will be buying DLC, and when or if it does the company might release a DLC becuase of the uproar and still charge you for it. Like I said, it's all about money. If the company had tons of money they'd be more willing to trelease it for free.

 

Why shouldn't they? What if the unfinished car is still great? (By the way, the analogy of wheels doesn't really work for DLC, it'd be more like a missing radio or glove compartment, not something required to actually use the car. That's like saying you need DLC to START the game)

Or what if it were cheaper than the competition? Or what if the wheels are really good?

 

Hmm maybe i'm thinking about DLC on PSN....??

 

Nope, it's on the PSN

[Hyperion 144]

Why shouldn't they? What if the unfinished car is still great? (By the way, the analogy of wheels doesn't really work for DLC, it'd be more like a missing radio or glove compartment, not something required to actually use the car. That's like saying you need DLC to START the game)

Or what if it were cheaper than the competition? Or what if the wheels are really good?

 

Nope, it's on the PSN

 

Because you've already spent enough on the game? 60$ is enough, then you gotta pay 15$ for even more of it? And how can an uninished car be great? Maybe if it's made of gold haha. And I didn't think that through, I guess let's change it from wheels to a glove compartment then. ANd I guess in that case it would be smarter to but it. If the game was released, new, for 30$ then if they had a DLC ending (Not a random one, an important one) and the DLC was for 15$, then yeah, I'd buy it, but I can't remember the last time a game was released for under 50$.

EDIT: Also when I get a notification form you about how you quoted my post, there's 2 that say the same thing. Do you know why this is?

Edited August 4, 2012 by Stigma

[Setrex 1,031]

I like dlc in some instances. Like the free dlc Valve offer up for Portal, they are just cool like that. MM handle LittleBig Planet's great as well.

 

Or the dlc that was for Dragon Age: Origins, I love the lore to Dragon Age so I had no problem with how they did dlc for that game. (Dragon Age II 's dlc sucked though).

 

Theatrhythm is another example I never had any problem with them offering up new songs to buy, it helps the game have some replay value.

 

Capcom's on disc dlc was definitely a bit of a stir up among gamers but at the end of the day nobody forces dlc on you. It's a choice. I have heard though SE's handling of FF13-2's dlc was not great but I don't own the game any ways so I can't judge.

 

I would only buy dlc for games I really love though or if the dlc is free then I'll get it. I don't think dlc is evil in any way.

Edited August 4, 2012 by KHSoraKeyBlade

[hatok 6,413]

Because you've already spent enough on the game? 60$ is enough, then you gotta pay 15$ for even more of it? And how can an uninished car be great? Maybe if it's made of gold haha. And I didn't think that through, I guess let's change it from wheels to a glove compartment then. ANd I guess in that case it would be smarter to but it. If the game was released, new, for 30$ then if they had a DLC ending (Not a random one, an important one) and the DLC was for 15$, then yeah, I'd buy it, but I can't remember the last time a game was released for under 50$.

EDIT: Also when I get a notification form you about how you quoted my post, there's 2 that say the same thing. Do you know why this is?

 

If you want more content, enough to pay for it, then you can pay for it. When you pay sixty dollars for a game, you are already being ripped off, the extra money spent is going towards you get the game right away. You COULD wait for the game to cost twenty bucks, and then your DLC plan could become a reality.

The key thing to take home here is that the business will do whatever works, and they have the right to do it, because they own the products.

 

EDIT: Oh, and about the double notification thing; when a person double posts, their posts merge, and the notification gets sent again.

Edited August 4, 2012 by hatok

[Hyperion 144]

If you want more content, enough to pay for it, then you can pay for it. When you pay sixty dollars for a game, you are already being ripped off, the extra money spent is going towards you get the game right away. You COULD wait for the game to cost twenty bucks, and then your DLC plan could become a reality.

The key thing to take home here is that the business will do whatever works, and they have the right to do it, because they own the products.

 

EDIT: Oh, and about the double notification thing; when a person double posts, their posts merge, and the notification gets sent again.

 

Alright, I guess you're right. It just annoys me that companies do that, even if they can."Hey I have an idea, let's make a game that's really good, but screw up the ending, then we release DLC for a better ending and get more money!"

 

EDIT: And thanks, wasn't sure about that.