Here's the thing. DLC means [B]Downloadable Content[/B]. If it's already on the disc, it's not a downloadable content anymore because it is available but locked. But the thing is, you have already paid for the game, therefore, you own everything you see on the disc and on their agreement, whatever is on the disc is yours, licensed copy.
If they had wanted to make the object a DLC, it should have been removed from the disc in the first place so the DLC will sound legitimate.
Charging for on-disc DLC isn't an inherently bad idea. But to charge me $60 for the game first and [i]then[/i] charge me for on-disc DLC on day 1 is just a slap in the face. Capcom is essentially making F2P games and charging me up front for them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
[quote]"As this process has only just commenced in the past month or so, there will be some titles, where development began some time ago and that are scheduled for release in the coming months, for which we are unable to make changes to the way some of their post release content is delivered."[/quote]
Also this is bullshit. Capcom is well within their power to just release a patch to unlock all the DLC but they won't because they and Microsoft want to make a quick buck.
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;35966391]Charging for on-disc DLC isn't an inherently bad idea. But to charge me $60 for the game first and [I]then[/I] charge me for on-disc DLC on day 1 is just a slap in the face. Capcom is essentially making F2P games and charging me up front for them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE]
On-disc DLC is as stupid as Day 1 dlc. Won't it make more sense to sell the game at higher price with everything inside instead of separating them through DLC on day one?
If it can be sold as a part of day one, why bother making it a DLC?
Imagine this.
Main game on launch day : $60
Day one DLC" :$10
But if you were to just sell the game with everything inside, it will be $70, people won't mind.
It is understandable that new games tend to cost $60 to $80 per copy. Why waste the trouble of making customer paying again when you could just sell it all if it is already available.
[QUOTE=BCell;35966440]On-disc DLC is as stupid as Day 1 dlc. Won't it make more sense to sell the game at higher price with everything inside instead of separating them through DLC on day one?
If it can be sold as a part of day one, why bother making it a DLC?
Imagine this.
Main game on launch day : $60
Day one DLC" :$10
But if you were to just sell the game with everything inside, it will be $70, people won't mind.
It is understandable that new games tend to cost $60 to $80 per copy. Why waste the trouble of making customer paying again when you could just sell it all if it is already available.[/QUOTE]
Well that's what I'm saying. $60 is already a big chunk of money, especially compared to the sort of games I can get for far cheaper. I already consider that to be the extra cash on top of the $40 max they should've really charged for it.
I'm not a huge fan of On-disk DLC or Day 1 DLC, but I seem to remember someone explaining that with big titles, often the bulk of the game is finished months before release, so these days dev's sometimes decide to use that "spare" time to make extra content such as DLC, which would then become Day 1 DLC or they could put it on the disk and it becomes on-disk DLC. In my opinion on-disk is just day-1 DLC without the bandwidth usage, and if it exists because the company decided to make more content in spare time rather than sitting on their asses waiting for release day, then I'm fine with that.
[QUOTE=Regorc's Chest;35966686]I'm not a huge fan of On-disk DLC or Day 1 DLC, but I seem to remember someone explaining that with big titles, often the bulk of the game is finished months before release, so these days dev's sometimes decide to use that "spare" time to make extra content such as DLC, which would then become Day 1 DLC or they could put it on the disk and it becomes on-disk DLC. In my opinion on-disk is just day-1 DLC without the bandwidth usage, and if it exists because the company decided to make more content in spare time rather than sitting on their asses waiting for release day, then I'm fine with that.[/QUOTE]
If they can put it on the disc then what excuse do they have for locking it? Post-production or no, if it can be put on the disc and it's still being resold as DLC, you're basically going out of your way to charge people.
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;35966982]If they can put it on the disc then what excuse do they have for locking it? Post-production or no, if it can be put on the disc and it's still being resold as DLC, you're basically going out of your way to charge people.[/QUOTE]
This. If you keep making things after the game goes gold that's understandable
[QUOTE=Regorc's Chest;35966686]I'm not a huge fan of On-disk DLC or Day 1 DLC, but I seem to remember someone explaining that with big titles, often the bulk of the game is finished months before release, so these days dev's sometimes decide to use that "spare" time to make extra content such as DLC, which would then become Day 1 DLC or they could put it on the disk and it becomes on-disk DLC. In my opinion on-disk is just day-1 DLC without the bandwidth usage, and if it exists because the company decided to make more content in spare time rather than sitting on their asses waiting for release day, then I'm fine with that.[/QUOTE]
It's less that and more the fact that the data is sitting there on the disc that I just paid for. I just paid for this data and I have it in my hand, but they are not allowing me to access it unless I give them even more money. I don't care when or why it was developed; it's finished content that is in my possession but held for ransom. It's entirely a money-grubbing scheme and it's a very bad trend.
I'm also highly against day-one DLC as well. More often than not, it's finished content that was done before the game went gold and is thus content withheld solely for the purpose of charging consumers more than the $60 retail price for the complete game. I get that sometimes day-one DLC is content developed after the game went gold, but after having seen so many devs and publishers get busted for lying about it, I just don't trust the dev's word anymore.
I understand that making money is how you run a business, but game companies are getting away with more and more, abusing all these closed systems to sap tons of cash out of consumers. I can honestly only see this kind of thing getting worse in the next generation; I can see consoles moving to digital-only and publishers charging even more than they do now to serve games that don't even have manufacturing costs. As if video games weren't already expensive...
I want a developer to at least be frank about this sort of stuff instead of dancing around the issues. Only one I've seen is David Jaffe, possibly the frankest person in the industry, who's only defense for day-one DLC (or online passes in the case of Twisted Metal, but it's all the same really) is that it's basically the only way they're allowed to go due to their publisher. I haven't seen one indipendant developer release a game (other than an F2P game of course) with online passes or day-one DLC because they know the value of keeping long-term customers.
They had a good idea, to keep a little bit of work they had done on stuff they planned to do to save space. The problem is, we ended up finding completed work that was planned for DLC. I hate how the defenders are just like "Well they weren't finished yet", when we did see that they were.
But anyone who uses SFxT as their reason to hate capcom for this missed the last few years of gaming. I remember this dating back as far as to at least Resident Evil 5 in capcom games. Remember the versus multiplayer they sold us, which was apparently only a couple kb's big?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
