-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Paying for content already on the disc, the EVIL side of the Xbox Live Marketplace
- Thread starter a Master Ninja
- Start date
inpHilltr8r
Member
So it's greedy to charge for goods now?
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
the LBP dlc is always pretty fishy to me. the files are too small to even bother with putting in the download queue, they finish before i can even hit the option. the level packs and stuff maybe, but costumes are something like 46kb.
the folklore dlc was always pretty big though i think. just costumes and "levels", but the levels i think were just additional quests through the levels and places already in the game, and the costumes were pretty nice i suppose.
i guess it's hard to draw a line between dlc and EXPANSIONS like the good ole' days. a lot of smoke and mirrors with pricing and what all you're getting for the dollar. i still don't like that there is stuff ON MY DISC and im paying to unlock it. if i paid for the physical disc i should have access to all content contained on it. i better be quiet though, im sure some publisher will decide to sell an "unlocked" version of the game for more than the standard $60.
the folklore dlc was always pretty big though i think. just costumes and "levels", but the levels i think were just additional quests through the levels and places already in the game, and the costumes were pretty nice i suppose.
i guess it's hard to draw a line between dlc and EXPANSIONS like the good ole' days. a lot of smoke and mirrors with pricing and what all you're getting for the dollar. i still don't like that there is stuff ON MY DISC and im paying to unlock it. if i paid for the physical disc i should have access to all content contained on it. i better be quiet though, im sure some publisher will decide to sell an "unlocked" version of the game for more than the standard $60.
gutter_trash
Banned
what gen have you starting gaming?inpHilltr8r said:
BobJustBob
Member
Commanche Raisin Toast said:
What? Every LBP costume is like 1MB or more.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
BobJustBob said:
hmm maybe i wasn't looking right. they were always insane tiny when i would download. my dsl connection is so slow that even 1 or 2mb would be queue-worthy. in any case, lbp stuff really isn't a bother to me as far as being on the disc or not, but really about price. i've never stopped to count up how much money i've spent on a single game w/dlc yet.
Woo-Fu
Banned
There is plenty of business software where when you buy the core bit of software you'll get a media kit, that media kit contains not only the bits you licensed but usually the bits you didn't license. Purchase a license for extended features and you just install them/activate them from the same media you already had.
Again, not a big deal.
If part of my business model is planned DLC for my titles, why shouldn't I pre-stage that DLC content on the disk so that I don't have to incur bandwidth charges as well?
Only issue I see is that they shouldn't have called it DLC in the first place, since this seems like an argument of semantics more than anything else. They could have called it Extended Features or Extended Content without specifying how you were to obtain it.
Lastly, it isn't like you *know* exactly what is on the media you purchase anyways. Unless they're selling you the ending of the game, I don't understand why the *location* of the extra content matters one bit.
Again, not a big deal.
If part of my business model is planned DLC for my titles, why shouldn't I pre-stage that DLC content on the disk so that I don't have to incur bandwidth charges as well?
Only issue I see is that they shouldn't have called it DLC in the first place, since this seems like an argument of semantics more than anything else. They could have called it Extended Features or Extended Content without specifying how you were to obtain it.
Lastly, it isn't like you *know* exactly what is on the media you purchase anyways. Unless they're selling you the ending of the game, I don't understand why the *location* of the extra content matters one bit.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I just don't like the idea of $60.00 games requiring additional payments. On top of that, MS' online play is $50.00, but they put ads in as well.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
DMeisterJ said:
you're right. i think im just used to seeing file sizes represented in mb's AS SOON AS they hit the 1mb mark, instead of showing kb all the way up to nearly 3mb. was always an annoyance with my ps3.
so i see the kb and assume it's <1mb.
The Faceless Master
Member
kinda hard to offer a free version of nothing!a Master Ninja said:
I'm in two minds about this.
When I hear of Namco games like Katamari being half a game in size, and most of it being DLC, then obviously something has gone wrong.
However, I think for the most part people are being a bit naive about how games are developed. They have a budget, and DLC stuff isn't free to make. Let's say it takes three guys an extra month to work on DLC, that's still an investment of money. They've made the decision to make that content for download, and that's why it exists. They aren't just pulling content out of the game in order to charge extra for it.
Woo-Fu has the right idea on this. Would you feel better if the download was padded to be 5mb or 20mb? Some services are known to do this because their users feeling like they got 'more for their money', whereas other services just reserve a chunk of HDD space for download content (like Home).
I think DLC is really important and it's a shame to see press taking a short sighted to this topic. It should be judged upon how much extra it adds, and whether or not it was 'missing' from the main game. The download size should have nothing to do with this.
Was Pixeljunk Monsters DLC a 'real' DLC or 'just an unlock' DLC? I wasn't paying attention, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I might have passed up on Pixeljunk Monsters if it was £2-3 more in cost, but having completed it I was keen to pay the money for the extra content.
When I hear of Namco games like Katamari being half a game in size, and most of it being DLC, then obviously something has gone wrong.
However, I think for the most part people are being a bit naive about how games are developed. They have a budget, and DLC stuff isn't free to make. Let's say it takes three guys an extra month to work on DLC, that's still an investment of money. They've made the decision to make that content for download, and that's why it exists. They aren't just pulling content out of the game in order to charge extra for it.
Woo-Fu has the right idea on this. Would you feel better if the download was padded to be 5mb or 20mb? Some services are known to do this because their users feeling like they got 'more for their money', whereas other services just reserve a chunk of HDD space for download content (like Home).
I think DLC is really important and it's a shame to see press taking a short sighted to this topic. It should be judged upon how much extra it adds, and whether or not it was 'missing' from the main game. The download size should have nothing to do with this.
Was Pixeljunk Monsters DLC a 'real' DLC or 'just an unlock' DLC? I wasn't paying attention, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I might have passed up on Pixeljunk Monsters if it was £2-3 more in cost, but having completed it I was keen to pay the money for the extra content.
MomoPufflet
Member
inpHilltr8r said:
I hate when people use the canned "that's capitalism" argument, as though that somehow absolves businesses of any ethical scrutiny. If your idea of running a business is "get as much money out of people as possible by whatever legal means necessary, no matter how sleezy or dishonest" then you have really fucking shitty ethical standards. If you enjoy/accept being lied to and blatantly deceived by the people you buy things from that's awesome, but don't be shocked when companies get called out on it. Just as they have a "right" to double charge, consumers have a right to fully understand what they're buying, which is exactly what the point of this thread is.
Woo-Fu said:
That's not an apples to apples comparison. Usually you're getting a trial version upgrading w/ a license anyway. Plus, the difference is that gaming transactions are taking a well-established model--ie, paying $50-60 gets you everything accessible on the disc--and changing it so that you're getting only part of all the features on the disc.
So what changed is not the features, it's essentially asking consumers to pay more for the same content. At least that what it is on the perception end.
I hate DLC I have paid for on disc and do not support it. However, the wording from the Behemoth guys is that they did want it to be free, but Microsoft takes care of the how much they need to charge part.
"All pricing for this and future downloadable content is entirely decided on by Microsoft. All we can do is throw in our input (free!!!!!) but at the end of the day its their decision.
Thanks.
-Emil-"
(didn't see this already posted, maybe it was, sorry if it was)
"All pricing for this and future downloadable content is entirely decided on by Microsoft. All we can do is throw in our input (free!!!!!) but at the end of the day its their decision.
Thanks.
-Emil-"
(didn't see this already posted, maybe it was, sorry if it was)
MomoPufflet
Member
Ptaaty said:
I think people are more disturbed and angered by the implications of micro-transactions than the current state of them. Sure, $2.00 isn't much. Well, neither is $3.00. Hmm, I guess $4.00 isn't bad. People will pay $4.00, why not $5.00? It's very much a slippery slope, and it's not "inflation" as I'm sure some fuckwit is going to try and argue. We're already starting to see it adversely affect the amount of content that's expected in a $60.00 game. Free 'extras' in games are becoming increasingly rare, and it's just going to get worse. I understand that increasing visual fidelity in games costs money, but the balance is becoming more and more skewed.
Personally I'm just tired of having to make a moral or ethical judgment call every time I open my fucking wallet. I'm not asking to be put on a pedestal as a consumer, but at least have the decency to not treat me like a pocket-pussy filled with cash money.
MomoPufflet said:
Explain to me how how expansion content on the disk is dishonest if the advertising and back-of-box for the base product is accurate?
Surely, if the advertising and box description are accurate, then as a consumer you have been informed about the experience you are purchasing.
Lets even assume that you purchase some game. You enjoy it thoroughly. You consider it good value for money. It was what it was advertised. Then you find out an expansion is coming out. Are you happy that you get the opportunity to play more for some additional amount?
If you then find out that that expansion is already on the disk, does that then mean you no longer enjoyed the base game and/or no longer feel you got value for money?
Really, again, this whole argument comes down to whether you perceive the developer/publisher has intentions of "screwing" you or not, and you are making an assumption about those intentions based on the delivery mechanism and when content may have been created.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Space Invaders, so I've been playing video games for over 30 years now, and I'm used to paying for gaming in any number of different ways.gutter_trash said:
So what's the difference between the two? The content is just a large number. The encryption key is another large number. Without each other, they're meaningless noise. Is your argument really that the exact date that the content was completed is somehow important?sugaki said:
a Master Ninja
Member
I updated the OP with everything you guys mentioned.
Holy shit, you can spend $74 on leveling up you party and acquiring gold, skills, and support items before you even touch the game!Mamesj said:
Has anyone asked Major Nelson or anyone else over at Microsoft about this? It's horrible that Microsoft even lets developers and publishers do this, their policy should be that any keys to unlock content on the disk should be free.
The idea of keys isn't a bad one, having a few locked multiplayer maps on the disk that are unlocked for free between the release date and the first post release DLC is a good way to keep people playing the game.
The idea of keys isn't a bad one, having a few locked multiplayer maps on the disk that are unlocked for free between the release date and the first post release DLC is a good way to keep people playing the game.
Burger
Member
Mario said:
I think it's more to do with the perception of ownership of a physical entity (the disc).
If I brought a music CD, and enjoyed it, then a special 2 track extra was released, for $2.99, but all it did was unlock 2 tracks on the disc I brought, then yes, my perception is that I've been screwed.
It doesn't work in a legal sense, the EULA does not entitle me to ownership of the content, only a licence to use the content available to me. That doesn't stop the perception of intent to screw the user.
Mario said:
That's a very weak argument. If developers only had to match what was advertised, we wouldn't be getting much.
It's a reasonable assumption to make that upon purchase of a disk, the consumer will have access to all the content on that disk, unless explicity stated otherwise.
WordAssassin
Member
People defending this bullshit, look at it this way:
You go to the store, and you buy a set of knives. The box says that there are 6 different knives in the set. So you go home and you take the knives out and you use them. But then you find out that one of the knives is actually able to split into two blades and make scissors. In order to split the knives, though, you have to go buy a special key to turn a dial and unlock the blades.
Now, would you seriously be OK with having to go back to the store to pay more money to use the knives you've already purchased? This is not going to the store to buy a 7th, new knife, that was not made until after you bought your set. This is going to the store to buy the use of a knife that is already sitting in your kitchen.
If you are ok with buying the use of a knife you already own, you are a fool.
You go to the store, and you buy a set of knives. The box says that there are 6 different knives in the set. So you go home and you take the knives out and you use them. But then you find out that one of the knives is actually able to split into two blades and make scissors. In order to split the knives, though, you have to go buy a special key to turn a dial and unlock the blades.
Now, would you seriously be OK with having to go back to the store to pay more money to use the knives you've already purchased? This is not going to the store to buy a 7th, new knife, that was not made until after you bought your set. This is going to the store to buy the use of a knife that is already sitting in your kitchen.
If you are ok with buying the use of a knife you already own, you are a fool.
Here's the way I look at it- mostly in economics:
For the Consumer:
Am I getting $60 worth of content from that $60 game I bought gimped. Yes/No? That will determine if I purchase.
On the DLC- am I getting my money's worth? On costumes and stuff- yes. I did buy a couple of gamerpics from SNK, but that's because I got so much enjoyment out of emulation back in the day I felt I owed them a little something extra. On other stuff- like characters, no. I hate Star Wars- so no reason to buy Vader, and SC4 isn't a legit tourney game.
Namco is by far the worst offender- and it makes me think twice about Tekken 6 when that comes out, but I don't think that will be DLC'ed up as bad for some reason.
For the Producer:
I understand entirely why they do this, it makes perfect economic sense.
Dev costs have gone up a good amount this gen, from six to seven figures.
That said, console software is an elastic market. If Namco charged $80 for SCIV, it would hurt sales.
However, to ensure a decent profit margin, why not get more out of the people who are getting $80-$120 worth of enjoyment out of the game? DLC for a game is rarely bought by people who weren't into the game.
Also, I completely don't mind being able to buy things that you can earn in-game, as long as such things don't give an advantage in MP. I mean, you can spend the time, or spend the money. It's no different then people buying WoW characters- it's the same principle.
Yeah, I don't like the way things are going, but it's not something that is going to make me cry out "wights and fweedoms" and storm Mt.Fuji leading a squadron of Akihabara Lucky Star Cosplayers dressed to kill while yelling out "Maggots!"
For the Consumer:
Am I getting $60 worth of content from that $60 game I bought gimped. Yes/No? That will determine if I purchase.
On the DLC- am I getting my money's worth? On costumes and stuff- yes. I did buy a couple of gamerpics from SNK, but that's because I got so much enjoyment out of emulation back in the day I felt I owed them a little something extra. On other stuff- like characters, no. I hate Star Wars- so no reason to buy Vader, and SC4 isn't a legit tourney game.
Namco is by far the worst offender- and it makes me think twice about Tekken 6 when that comes out, but I don't think that will be DLC'ed up as bad for some reason.
For the Producer:
I understand entirely why they do this, it makes perfect economic sense.
Dev costs have gone up a good amount this gen, from six to seven figures.
That said, console software is an elastic market. If Namco charged $80 for SCIV, it would hurt sales.
However, to ensure a decent profit margin, why not get more out of the people who are getting $80-$120 worth of enjoyment out of the game? DLC for a game is rarely bought by people who weren't into the game.
Also, I completely don't mind being able to buy things that you can earn in-game, as long as such things don't give an advantage in MP. I mean, you can spend the time, or spend the money. It's no different then people buying WoW characters- it's the same principle.
Yeah, I don't like the way things are going, but it's not something that is going to make me cry out "wights and fweedoms" and storm Mt.Fuji leading a squadron of Akihabara Lucky Star Cosplayers dressed to kill while yelling out "Maggots!"
inpHilltr8r
Member
FixedWordAssassin said:
Your analogy is broken.WordAssassin said:
Here's a better analogy. I recently paid about $1000 to upgrade some development software called Unity from 'Unity Indie' to 'Unity Pro'. The software initially cost me $200. This gave me some more features, such as being able to make Windows EXEs and use shaders and such. There was no download, it was just a different serial code, which gave me this feature (and was verified by their online account server).
Does everyone in this thread think that I should have been stamping my feet furiously because the features were 'locked out'? I'm astonished that people are so hung up on things being 'on the disc'.
Here's another example. Imagine Sega made a PS3 blu-ray filled with 100 Sega CD games, but sold it as a collection of 40 games for $60. They then give the option of buying any of the other 60 Sega CD games for $5.00 each, and each one was an 'unlock code'. Would this make you furious? If so, why?
What gets me about this whole thing is the notion that it's evil simply because it's on the disc. Isn't anyone making a value judgment on the game itself?
If you get 100% of a game, and there's another 20% locked away that you can buy, you've got your value for money. You have no grounds to be discontent.
If you get 50% of a game, and the other 50% (or less!) is locked away, then yeah, you're right to be dissatisfied, but not because that other 50% is on the disc.
Blaming whether it's on the disc or not is just muddying the issue.
A good "is my DLC rage reasonable" test: if you got the unlocked content on disc, and were given the chance to buy and download the extra content in its entirety, would it still be a problem? Even better: if said content arrived after some time had passed since you got the disc?
Locking content for sale vs. the alternatives is an advantage. You're saving download time and you can get it right away, rather than waiting for it to be released.
If you get 100% of a game, and there's another 20% locked away that you can buy, you've got your value for money. You have no grounds to be discontent.
If you get 50% of a game, and the other 50% (or less!) is locked away, then yeah, you're right to be dissatisfied, but not because that other 50% is on the disc.
Blaming whether it's on the disc or not is just muddying the issue.
A good "is my DLC rage reasonable" test: if you got the unlocked content on disc, and were given the chance to buy and download the extra content in its entirety, would it still be a problem? Even better: if said content arrived after some time had passed since you got the disc?
Locking content for sale vs. the alternatives is an advantage. You're saving download time and you can get it right away, rather than waiting for it to be released.
I think of it this way.. In the past before this was common practice the developer might try to fit whatever they could in the game before they ran out of development time. Now that they know they can do this, they develop the content like they normally would and then take some away before the release and decide that you have to pay for it later.
I suppose it isn't immoral because you can just choose not to pay for it but the fact remains that this was a fucking horrible "feature" to add to video games.
I suppose it isn't immoral because you can just choose not to pay for it but the fact remains that this was a fucking horrible "feature" to add to video games.
dock said:
The Why is because we would feel we actually got our money's worth. I am sure you feel that the software you paid for was worth the $1200 in the end. The actual value you get out of microtransactions is negligible...not it's not simply a matter of not paying for it out of protest(because in the case of lets say new maps it splits the player base and actually gives you less of an experience by locking you out of games).
And also, if we have to look torwards the PC world, alot of those microtransactions: free maps, player models, etc are free, alot of the time for the same exact title. Team Fortress 2 has had a solid year of free updates for the PC, it will be a hard pill to swallow to have to pay for those same upgrades for the Xbox version.
jibblypop said:
There are a lot of forces that influence what does and doesn't get in a game in the industry today, and sure, DLC is one of them.
But that scenario is one where one is getting less than 100% of a game for the price you paid, and one should be dissatisfied about that, not where the missing parts of the game are coming from if paid-for after-the-fact.
MomoPufflet
Member
Mario said:
So basically you're using the "you didn't ask so I didn't tell you" rationale. Not disclosing something ethically questionable that relates to your product is the same as lying about it. I'm not going to load the argument and site the most obvious examples of this in modern business, but use your imagination. And if you don't consider the practice of making consumers pay extra money to "unlock" content on a disc that they own to be a remotely questionable business practice, I really don't know what to tell you.
And even if you don't think it's ethically questionable, you would at least agree that it is pretty fucking important information, yes? Worthy of being printed on the box, perhaps? I know I'm talking crazy talk here.
Mario said:
I would lose my enjoyment knowing the publisher and developer took me for a patsy. The content is on the disc, ready to go no extra work needed. It's no longer DLC but is now something you intentionally locked off to charge more for. You are no longer looking to make your game better and increase replay value but instead are willfully trying to milk your consumer. I gather though like most developers you yourself won't listen to us consumers and just tell us were wrong.
inpHilltr8r
Member
No.MomoPufflet said:
Why is it important information? Why does it matter that an otherwise unused part of the disc contains part of the content that is destined for later release? Why does it matter when that content was developed?
Do you actually have a specific example of actual dishonesty here?
inpHilltr8r
Member
Intentionally developed to charge more for. If it wasn't going to be paid for, then it wasn't going to get funded, and it wouldn't get made in the first place. Sure some companies give this stuff away, but I don't think you can project their business model onto everyone else.Ponn01 said:
Now OK, I think here it starts to get a bit more complicated, because you get situations like the whole Yoda / Vader thing. But even then, it's not like it those characters were advertised as being in both versions. You got what was advertised. What difference would knowing that an encrypted version of the other character was on your disc, have made? It was pretty obvious that both characters were complete at launch. They must have been, otherwise how was the other version made?
Now sure the encrypted version of the other character is taking up space on the disc, but it's not like it was being used for anything else. You're not being charged for it. It's not displacing anything. There's also a ton of blank space there? Do you want a refund for the unused metal?
After reading this thread I pose a question:
Since people have gripes with DLC being on disc and then downloading a "key" to unlock a game.
How about if something is done before the game is shipped and is not put onto the disc, then the publishers release the content as DLC thats not a key. Would you feel better?
Since people have gripes with DLC being on disc and then downloading a "key" to unlock a game.
How about if something is done before the game is shipped and is not put onto the disc, then the publishers release the content as DLC thats not a key. Would you feel better?
The Faceless Master
Member
if they said they finished it and held it back? yes.Returners said:
if they didn't say so and we didn't know? well, i can't feel bad if i don't know, but it's still terrible.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Mario said:
Because we are your consumers and we are telling you that we don't take kindly on-disc paid DLC.
I'm not sure why you persistently participate in consumer-rights oriented threads. We get it, your stance is that developers need to do what developers need to do to survive. You're a developer. You don't want to lose your job. You want your products do well. Everyone gets it.
But you consistently and flippantly dismiss any sort of consumer-oriented argument. It doesn't matter what thread, it doesn't matter who is making them. If it's something that tips the consumer-producer relationship in favour of consumers, you oppose it. We know.
You have to recognize, a priori to any discussion here, that consumers do not like getting less when they used to get more and they do not like paying more when they used to pay less and that consumers not liking these two things are important mechanisms by which capitalism continues to operate.
Great, you don't find it dishonest that you are able to charge for content that's on the disc. Consumers are telling you, live and in person, that they do find it dishonest.
No, the evil side of XBLM, is there's no fucking confirm puchase button when looking at DLC, or any content. You click the item to look at description and check price, and then if you accidently hit A, it fucking buys the shit for you without another "Are you sure"? It's fucking bullshit there should be one more question, where 'no' is highlighted.
Fuck you Microsoft, now I have some stupid Fable 2 DLC. Fuck.
Fuck you Microsoft, now I have some stupid Fable 2 DLC. Fuck.