Elysian Shadows

First Resident Evil 5 and now Bioshock 2 is being accused of having Unlockable DLC that you have to pay for sine the really low filesizes. What do you think about it? They unlock the contents already on the disc, but were currently unavailable. Some gamers have like this linux lovers, you don't own it if you can't use it type of mentality. Do you think the devs are cheating gamers by putting contents on the game that the gamer can't access until after unlocking by money?

Well, back in the day I thought it was really cool. There are lots of Dreamcast games (Samba De Amigo, Sonic Adventures, Skies of Arcadia) with unlockable "content" that required you to log online with your Dreamcast to unlock.

But in this day and age, that's kind of complete bullshit. With the Dreamcast, it was a matter of having no hard drive and no bandwidth to download any truly new content. But today, with consoles that have hard drives as big as our PCs, and internet connections just as fast, I would definitely consider it cheating. I mean seriously, they're making double the profit off of a game that they already sold.

It's unfortunate, though, because there's probably never going to be anything we can do about this. But yeah, I do consider it bullshit.

Yeah, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to get at it if its on the CD we bought... Its not DLC if its already on the disc... So the question is, how long until someone cracks it, then the developers try to shut them down, but can't because its on the CD we paid for and it is owned by the crackers? :D

GyroVorbis wrote:Well, back in the day I thought it was really cool. There are lots of Dreamcast games (Samba De Amigo, Sonic Adventures, Skies of Arcadia) with unlockable "content" that required you to log online with your Dreamcast to unlock.

But in this day and age, that's kind of complete bullshit. With the Dreamcast, it was a matter of having no hard drive and no bandwidth to download any truly new content. But today, with consoles that have hard drives as big as our PCs, and internet connections just as fast, I would definitely consider it cheating. I mean seriously, they're making double the profit off of a game that they already sold.

It's unfortunate, though, because there's probably never going to be anything we can do about this. But yeah, I do consider it bullshit.

Agreed, it kinda feels like it's so close but yet so far, you can almost play it but not quite. Pretty unfair in my opinion, I just cant see the need for it.

It's all about making a profit... I think a lot more companies are going to plan to do this. They're make a game that's 100% complete, then scale it back to like 95% of the content and try to make more money with no further work required. It's the same shit mentality on why we get such buggy games anymore. Why spend the time and money on rushing the QA when you can release an ok product and patch it up if the sales meet the demand later, the gen of consoles enables a whole new way of thinking and laziness if you ask me.

Exactly Trask!

I buy games when they are at least half-price unless its something i really want. It's cheaper, there's usually far less bugs and if I'm lucky some decent mods. I get a better product for cheaper by waiting. I have more then enough games (and not enough time to even try to play them) To last me for a long time.

Oh, it's bullshit, 100%. The problem with the current DLC model for most companies is that they don't use it as an extension of their game, they rely on it to complete their game. Between bug fixes and extra content, the amount that developers are willing to scale back their standards for the disc release is increasing. The reason for this is simple - because they've realized they can get away with it. But why can they get away with it?

Well, there's basic psychology here. Let's say you buy a new game for $60, and you beat it fairly quickly. You're a little disappointed, because there's already nothing left to do with it, aside from possible online play, but that could easily get old with the lack of content. But now there's DLC for this game, and for $10, you can get even more content. You've already spent $60 for somewhere around 8 hours; that's about $7.50/hour. The DLC would only have to extend the game by less than an hour and a half to make it the same value - and chances are, it'll really be more than that. So now you're actually getting more for your money than you were originally!

The lesson here is that a game needs to stand on its own worth before DLC should be a consideration. If you don't think a game is worth full retail (even if that's not what you paid), then it's probably best to not buy the DLC. You're telling developers that it's okay for you to spend more and get less. That their GM doesn't have to be a full game, as long as you are able to pay for the rest of it later.

Okay, stepping off the soapbox. With any luck, this problem will be less frequent once downloads become the main platform for purchasing games.

aamesxdavid wrote:With any luck, this problem will be less frequent once downloads become the main platform for purchasing games.

It wont just 'go away' though. It's only going to get worse, which is sad. Some companies won't do DLC, but most mainstream companies will. Even some "indie" companies. It sucks but it sells.

Part of the problem is that DLC doesn't actually buy you anything. Oh well, a few more skins and a few more levels. You've already played the core of the game, and generally a few extra goodies isn't going to change diddley squat. It's not worth my time to make the money, spend, download and install said content. Not only that, but DLC is also hugely overpriced compared to the content/price ratio of the rest of the game. I wonder whatever happened to expansion packs. Too expensive? You tend to get a whole lot more value out of them then you do with DLC, that's for sure!

Well the company's excuse was that the game engine requires them to be identical games for the online gaming to work...