I can safely say that the majority of informed gamers hate whatever we call DLC. Why do we hate DLC? To begin, we must distinguish between the two types of DLC. There is Downloadable content that is made after a game release. Then there is disc locked content that is deliberately taken from the game, usually unlocked with a code.
We shouldn’t pretend as if these practices are anything new. We all remember Horse Armor in The Elder Scrolls IV. Bethesda made the mistake of releasing an expensive item without any real value whatsoever. Did they actually expect people to pay for it? While Horse Armor was a significant gaffe of this generation, most have forgiven Bethesda. The entire idea of it was more absurd and curious, rather than exploitative. In no way was it required at all for your experience. Bethesda learned from their mistakes by then releasing infrequent but large pieces of DLC. That type of DLC was more in line with an expansion pack. Good DLC adds dozens of new hours to the game for a fair price. It set the standard for the amazing Grand Theft Auto IV Episodes or free substantial content from CDProjekt’s The Witcher 2.
Although they tried to force gamers to buy the integral character, they didn’t do a great job of hiding it.
You can’t argue that Electronic Arts and Capcom are doing the same. They are not learning from their mistakes. Mass Effect 3 features a fully functional character that is locked from the standard edition of the game. This character is not only important to the gameplay aspect, but is crucial in tying up loose ends in the lore of Mass Effect. This was not content that was developed at a later date at fan request. This is content that should have been standard for every copy of the game. Instead, it is removed for the sake of quick profit. This locked content has made fans bitter, with many wondering why it wasn’t included in standard game. Some argued that you aren’t a real fan of Mass Effect if you aren’t buying the limited editions. Ironic, since Bioware sought a larger audience for their final Mass Effect game.
My same points apply for Street Fighter X Tekken. Not only is this “competitive” game restricting characters across each platform, it appears that all version of the game have six or more locked characters. These characters for the most part are finished, but you cannot use them without modifying game files. Capcom is once again testing the limits of post-release monetization.
It is an unfortunate thing when people argue why developers are required to do this in order to support their games. Everything that they release can be done as an update. Like Marvel vs. Capcom 3, there have been games that have been released with lack of content or poor netcode. Gears of War 2 and Mortal Kombat 9 come to mind. Both of these games received massive post-release support. They both received it for free. Both added free content as a thank you to their fans that have already purchased the game, and they improved the online experience on top of it.
Battlefield 3 allowing late participants to purchase items from the convoluted unlock system.
Capcom seems to be unaware that they will never generate the Call of Duty sales numbers that they so desperately desire. So they make up for it by releasing several versions of games yearly. Capcom has gotten away with this tactic for many years. The constant new updates and editions may be a new thing to home gamers, but arcade owners have had to deal with this for the past decade. For them, that model of business was unsustainable, killing the arcades that we knew and loved. It is still unsustainable here. As grievances that gamers have against major publishers increase, we will reach a threshold of dissatisfaction among gamers. I can see a very near future where many people just refuse to purchase anything published by Capcom or Electronic Arts at all.
You think that it isn’t already happening? Try looking again. Game sales haven’t decreased for the past four months because of piracy, used games, development costs, or whatever extraneous variables that get tossed around. It took a while, but game sales are finally going down because the games suck. Before constant patching and DLC, a console developer had one shot at selling a lot of copies. Release the game in its entirety, and make damn sure that it is the best game that the studio could have created. Developers and publishers have gotten equally lazy. Even worse, they lie to us about it. The importance of the DLC is downplayed. Recently, there have been lies suggesting that the DLC isn’t even on disc at all. How shameful is it to get caught when it takes a mere moment of browsing game files to see restricted content?
Entitled is an awful word to describe the people that enjoy your games, but I suppose we are entitled. We are entitled to a complete game on release day. We’re entitled to seeing the ending of a trilogy that doesn’t end on a cliffhanger. We’re entitled to not getting gouged for content that we already own. Stop compromising the integrity of games for a quick buck. Your stockholders and board-members may understand how to generate a quick profit from ignorant consumers. But these consumers are gradually becoming less ignorant. Boycotting a fun game for economic principle is always a sad thing for gamers, but we can certainly do it. These modern games aren’t that interesting anyway. Get this problem of disc-locked content solved. Set some standards for your consumers, and set them soon. Gamers won’t wait forever.
Bookmarked.
Most of this is true, but I think we need to admit how ignorant we are to a degree about how content works and the validity of their excuses.
Gamers on large are ignorant about game design and the work that goes into it. There’s no real defense about on disc DLC. The idea that “we needed to put it on the disc for it to work with the game easier” is ridiculous. While it may be entirely true, why do they feel the need to charge us even more for finished content? Why not just finalize it for free? Of course the answer is money and all people can do is choose to not purchase the content. The bottom line will pay out more than respecting the consumer.
Which comes to another point. The choice for someone to purchase the content is theirs to make. We don’t need to be insulting or plain out attacking someone for their money choices. We most certainly need to inform them of our concerns and let them make their own choices. Value is a pretty subjective idea. What is valuable to one is worthless to another. Someone sees a $15 map pack and scoffs at the idea while a dedicated fan sees it as a way to add more content to their game. Yes it’s exploitative and yes we need to explain our concerns, but I would like to see more level headed discussions of these things instead of crying “STUPID IGNORANT COD KIDDY! KILL YOURSELF YOU CANCER!”.
Some companies do right by gamers and make sure their DLC is a proper addition to the game and not some nickel and dime scheme to add extra revenue to a title. Let’s make sure we vilify those who manipulate and reward those who provide. While doing it in a worthwhile manner that’s respectful of gamers and other people.
I bought the Mass Effect 3 DLC (From Ashes). I haven’t really told anyone because I don’t want to hear the ranting and raving you just mentioned. I’m fully aware that I’m supporting the exploitation of consumers, but I love the Mass Effect story so much that I wanted the “whole” experience. Having to give in to EA (being forced to get Origin, and my buying the DLC) hurt more than the small monetary loss.
I don’t really know what my point is, but that was a very unique case. In all other games, I don’t buy DLC because I don’t want to support it. I think the best solution is just for everyone to educate themselves before buying DLC. Only buy it if you really really want it, and encourage others to do the same (instead of arguing with them when they do buy DLC).
While I can understand wanting to enjoy the continuation of a story you enjoy, sometimes you have to make sacrifices to give the industry a nudge in the right direction. I love the Resident Evil games, for example, but after seeing previews of RE5, I refused to spend money on it, attempting to encourage Capcom away from the direction they were taking with the series. Unfortunately, my sacrifice wasn’t enough, and they’ve gone even further away from the Survival Horror roots of the series, as seems evident with the recent(ish) trailer from RE6. That will be yet another RE game I will refuse to buy, and I will continue to until Capcom pulls their head out of their ass in relation to the series. It’s the same thing with DLC. Sometimes you just have to not buy it, even if it means you can’t play a game in a series you love.
The issue with that kind of thinking, though, is that it allows for highway robbery. Something that is offered for a much higher price than it is worth, i.e. a 4 map pack for $20, is just straight up highway robbery. Who else offers that content? Limited supply as an excuse to price gouge is awful, and obviously the supply is limited.
Great article
I completely agree with you. I’ve been boycotting Capcom since I first heard of the DLC-on-disc situation with I believe Resident Evil 5. Haven’t bought a single one of their games since, but if I did I would certainly only buy used as it drives them no profits.
Oh and 5th paragraph and third line down, you’re missing the word (that), in between (games) & (have).
Assuming you can edit your article, so just trying to help, if not feel free to delete my comment or something.
I like that idea, “paying is voting”. It was something I had already though before. People get a game either legally or illegally and you can’t stop that. What most companies are doing is trying to give you a reason to “not pirate it”. What some companies like CDProjekt are doing is give you a reason to “actually buy it”. I remember buying minecraft. It was the first game ever I felt bad about pirating after I read Notch stand on piracy, and the work he was doing when it was just him.