So what is wrong with DLC, again?

[Clockwork Knight]

In these instances, piracy of the game or at least the DLC is not only deserved, but completely moral.

Not really, since when you buy the game you agree on not reverse engineering it, messing with it, etc, no? If it's hidden, that was their choice and it's tough shit for us because we bought the game as is. Or not? I dunno.

Rest of the point was pretty good, though.

 

[Grunker]

This is a good thread, but OP is still a faggot.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

In these instances, piracy of the game or at least the DLC is not only deserved, but completely moral.

Not really, since when you buy the game you agree on not reverse engineering it, messing with it, etc, no? If it's hidden, that was their choice and it's tough shit for us because we bought the game as is. Or not? I dunno.

moral != legal

 

[DraQ]

The key to understanding this thread.

 

[Hobo Elf]

So what is wrong with DLC, again?

Dunno lol

 

[LazyD]

 

[zeitgeist]

So what is wrong with DLC, again?

<snipped image>
Dunno lol

From what I've gathered, this game very specifically and maliciously preys on the OCDish nature of the stereotypical model train enthusiast's mindset and their obsessiveness about the hobby. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the game's fanbase bought a substantial amount (if not all) of this DLC.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS I AM AN ENTHUSIASTR OF ANOTHER NICHE HOBBY AND I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT FUCK THE BIG COMPANIES ARE OUT TO FUCK YOU SO FUCK THE RETARDS WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO BUYT TEHER SHIT I SOMETIMES GET PISSED AT THE SMALLER COMPANCIES WHO RELY ON COMMUNITY SUPPORT WHEN THEY DO THE SAME THING

SO AGAIN IF YOU ARE PISSED ABOUT FAGGOT AGE DLC MAYBE YOU ARE THE DUMBASS FOR BEING THE ONE WHO WANTS TO PLAY IT I MEAN I BOUGHT FAG EFFECT 2 YET I COULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY OF THE DLC

 

[Clockwork Knight]

moral != legal

Sticking to what you willingly agreed to is usually considered the moral thing to do.

 

[Forest Dweller]

But like I said, I consider it fraud if it's obvious that something was removed from the game. So it's on them too.

 

[Achilles]

In these instances, piracy of the game or at least the DLC is not only deserved, but completely moral.

Not really, since when you buy the game you agree on not reverse engineering it, messing with it, etc, no? If it's hidden, that was their choice and it's tough shit for us because we bought the game as is. Or not? I dunno.

moral != legal

Maybe it would be better to just wait for the inevitable Game of the Year Edition instead of pirating it, but I can understand why people might pirate the DLC in such a case. Noone likes to be ripped off. Well, maybe consolites do, but I'm talking about normal people.

 

[Zeus]

Fine, $20. Let's pick Bloodmoon, since you gave its price. How much content did it have? another 20h maybe? 2 quest lines and a dozen sidequests or so? Now let's see how much content you get for $20 in DAO DLCs:

Yeah, I in no way endorse $5 for an added hour of gameplay. I'm just sick of seeing the, "When I was a lad, I'd pay $10 for fifty hours of gameplay!" thing thrown about. Bare minimum, it was twenty.

Expansions sometimes even cost as much as the original game, which is a total ripoff, considering it couldn't possibly cost as much to develop (same engine, reused art, etc.)

 

[Lumpy]

blah blah

This isn't quite true. A DLC can be well integrated into the main game without it being a necessary addition. For instance, a new plane that you would visit as part of the PS:T storyline - it could be written into the plot, without having been missing all along.

But I don't think the first case is unethical either - developers are free to cut whatever they want out of their project. If the game feels incomplete, won't this become apparent in reviews? Otherwise, if the game stands on its own, why shouldn't the company make extra money on features that are, well, extra?

And as for price/content - I never argued DLC is reasonably priced - clearly, horse armor and the Oblivion houses were grossly overpriced. But keep in mind that those DLCs are not for you, they're for people for whom 30 dollars, the price for all the minor DLCs, is minor in itself - people who would've been willing to pay $80 instead of $50 for the game in the first place.

Also, would you make the same arguments against the versions of Windows? Clearly, they have all content available at the start - so why do they cut some in the Home Edition, and is the difference in price between Home and Premium fair for the difference in content?

 

[The Village Loon]

I used to play WoW still a while ago. There was this ultra hardcore geek in my hardcore guild who bought every little fucking shitty thing Blizzard could churn out. He bought Star Control 2 CE just for the pet, he has bought almost all the stupid mounts there are, all the Blizzcon pets, etc. He told me that outside monthly fees + normal game fees he has spent roughly 900€ on the various crap, likely even more as he just made a quick calculation in his head. I got no problem with Blizzard charging retards for retarded things. Make money. Knock yourself out.

But let us take a game like the upcoming Civilization 5. AFAIK they are releasing bonus civilizations as Day1 DLC. This pisses me off and I'll just pirate Civ5 + all the DLC out of spite. Even though Civilization has been most likely my most beloved game series ever. They spent development time on the civs they could've included in the launch, but instead they rip them out and charge extra. They could've spent that time polishing the game instead if not making the bonus content.

So I'm not against DLC in general. I'm strongly against Day1 DLC content that could've and in the pre-DLC age would've shipped with the original product. For releasing pro-grade good bonus content or retarded shit I don't care about after launch? I support it fully as long as it doesn't feel like it should've been included on release.

I guess if they just withhold the DLC releases for a few months after launch and give an illusion that it is actually bonus content they made after the game launched, I'd be totally okay with it. But I just don't like them saying to my face "Hey! Now that you bought our game, here are some extras you would like.. for a price" the moment I install or start the game.

 

[JarlFrank]

Yeah, that's the worst part of DLCs. I don't mind DLCs that are made a month after the game, additional content that adds to the game like an expansion, or just some items for your character to use (which I always torrent and never buy, but if some people pay money for a few additional armors it's a good way to earn money without much effort for the company). In fact, I even support reasonably sized and reasonably priced DLC, and I think that it would be a perfect way for indie games to get more (much-needed) income.

Combine DLC that lasts about 5 or more hours with some free goodies (like additional items), and you got the perfect business model for indies: the fanbase will readily pay a few bucks for a high-quality quest DLC, and they'll also love you for giving out trivial additions for free.

 

[Archibald]

But I don't think the first case is unethical either - developers are free to cut whatever they want out of their project. If the game feels incomplete, won't this become apparent in reviews? Otherwise, if the game stands on its own, why shouldn't the company make extra money on features that are, well, extra?

Nobody writes honest reviews ffs.

Anyway, imo in theory there is nothing wrong with DLC, like how there is nothing wrong with games having good graphics and easy controls. But look where those ideas are taking us.

 

[Forest Dweller]

But I don't think the first case is unethical either - developers are free to cut whatever they want out of their project.

So in other words, you're saying that it's okay for games to be released in an incomplete state. There's really nothing to say to that.

I won't bother responding to anything else you wrote since I addressed it all more or less in my original post. I have to wonder though: why are you being such an apologist in this?

 

[Grunker]

So basically your point is what, Lumpy, that if companies have a legal right to do something we as consumers should not be critical?