Kasz216 said: Hawk said: Kasz216 said: Hawk said: Hmmm, I may be missing something.  But that 'extra' is not a cost to the person that bought the game new.  Whether or not it was on the disk, or had to be downloaded later, it is not extra cost to the person who bought it new.  And if it's free DLC content for the life of the game, the person who bought it new, will, over time, get extra content for no cost. You are missing quite a lot. For one looking towars the future as well as the present. As in... other games in the future. Please explain some more.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  Future games doing this same thing? BFBC 1 updates were free. BFBC 2 updates are free for new users and 15 dollars for used players.  Who cares it's only for used players. BFBC3 updates are 15 dollars.  Who cares it was an extra.   It goes from given feature to everyone having to pay for it in 2 games.  This move devalues content because it makes it easier to devalue the content more later on.

See, now you are making stuff up about what WILL happen.  If that does happen, I will have a problem with it.  About the matter at hand, I am all for it.  Even if no extra value will be added to the new game buyer.  I am all for the publisher/developers getting a bit of money off of used game sales in some way.  I certainly am unhappy about games that come out with day 1 DLC that you must pay for that could've been part of the retail game, yeah.  But that's not what we are talking about here.  I see no negative to the person who bought the game new, and then doesn't have to pay for any more 'extra' content.   Whether it's extra or not.  Though as we can see, we already know that more content that does not exist yet, will be available to the person who bought the game new at no charge.  Hence, there will be 'extra' content over time.

KungKras said: Kasz216 said: Akvod said: KungKras said: I don't mind them giving extras to people buying the game. THANK YOU! FUCKING THANK-YOU!   Somebody has some basic common sense in this thread *hugs* If only it were you... since you don't seem to understand that the term "extra" is fairly meaningless in this case.  Once again... you see it as a big difference that content is available online day 1 then the disc? If I were to say release Uncharted 3... with the online mode as an "extra download" day 1... am i really giving people an extra? Online mode is something that is a part of the game as a whole and therefore should be on the disc no matter what. I think companies complaining about used game sales is pathetic since good games are kept.  But if this map pack would be DLC anyway and DICE decides to give it to me for free if I buy the game new, I see it as a win-win situation. It's not like I really miss out on something important if I buy the game used.

DICE gave away DLC for free in BF1.  It's the same difference.

For another example.

It'd be like Team Fortress 3 came out... and instead of the free class updates... Valve made you buy the Class updates if you didn't buy the game through steam or something.

It IS taking away value because it is charging for something that was once free in the series.

Kasz216 said: Akvod said: KungKras said: I don't mind them giving extras to people buying the game. THANK YOU! FUCKING THANK-YOU!   Somebody has some basic common sense in this thread *hugs* If only it were you... since you don't seem to understand that the term "extra" is fairly meaningless in this case.  Once again... you see it as a big difference that content is available online day 1 then the disc? If I were to say release Uncharted 3... with the online mode as an "extra download" day 1... am i really giving people an extra?

But it's totally cool if Resident Evil 5 does it later than day 1, and asks money for it right?

You guys and your weird psychology. You guys will be totally fine if the people who bought it new didn't get it for free, but everyone had to pay for it.

Kasz216 said: KungKras said: Kasz216 said: Akvod said: KungKras said: I don't mind them giving extras to people buying the game. THANK YOU! FUCKING THANK-YOU!   Somebody has some basic common sense in this thread *hugs* If only it were you... since you don't seem to understand that the term "extra" is fairly meaningless in this case.  Once again... you see it as a big difference that content is available online day 1 then the disc? If I were to say release Uncharted 3... with the online mode as an "extra download" day 1... am i really giving people an extra? Online mode is something that is a part of the game as a whole and therefore should be on the disc no matter what. I think companies complaining about used game sales is pathetic since good games are kept.  But if this map pack would be DLC anyway and DICE decides to give it to me for free if I buy the game new, I see it as a win-win situation. It's not like I really miss out on something important if I buy the game used. DICE gave away DLC for free in BF1.  It's the same difference. For another example. It'd be like Team Fortress 3 came out... and instead of the free class updates... Valve made you buy the Class updates if you didn't buy the game through steam or something. It IS taking away value because it is charging for something that was once free in the series.

I'm generally against all forms of paid DLC, but I fiured that all HD console games already have paid DLC, so that's why I don't mind this method. That's the basis of my opinion. But you're right, paid DLC sucks in all forms.

KungKras said: Kasz216 said: KungKras said: Kasz216 said: Akvod said: KungKras said: I don't mind them giving extras to people buying the game. THANK YOU! FUCKING THANK-YOU!   Somebody has some basic common sense in this thread *hugs* If only it were you... since you don't seem to understand that the term "extra" is fairly meaningless in this case.  Once again... you see it as a big difference that content is available online day 1 then the disc? If I were to say release Uncharted 3... with the online mode as an "extra download" day 1... am i really giving people an extra? Online mode is something that is a part of the game as a whole and therefore should be on the disc no matter what. I think companies complaining about used game sales is pathetic since good games are kept.  But if this map pack would be DLC anyway and DICE decides to give it to me for free if I buy the game new, I see it as a win-win situation. It's not like I really miss out on something important if I buy the game used. DICE gave away DLC for free in BF1.  It's the same difference. For another example. It'd be like Team Fortress 3 came out... and instead of the free class updates... Valve made you buy the Class updates if you didn't buy the game through steam or something. It IS taking away value because it is charging for something that was once free in the series. I'm generally against all forms of paid DLC, but I fiured that all HD console games already have paid DLC, so that's why I don't mind this method. That's the basis of my opinion. But you're right, paid DLC sucks in all forms.

I never bought DLC in my life, but what's wrong with them? Are you against the expansion packs that PC has?

Akvod said: KungKras said: Kasz216 said: KungKras said: Kasz216 said: Akvod said: KungKras said: I don't mind them giving extras to people buying the game. THANK YOU! FUCKING THANK-YOU!   Somebody has some basic common sense in this thread *hugs* If only it were you... since you don't seem to understand that the term "extra" is fairly meaningless in this case.  Once again... you see it as a big difference that content is available online day 1 then the disc? If I were to say release Uncharted 3... with the online mode as an "extra download" day 1... am i really giving people an extra? Online mode is something that is a part of the game as a whole and therefore should be on the disc no matter what. I think companies complaining about used game sales is pathetic since good games are kept.  But if this map pack would be DLC anyway and DICE decides to give it to me for free if I buy the game new, I see it as a win-win situation. It's not like I really miss out on something important if I buy the game used. DICE gave away DLC for free in BF1.  It's the same difference. For another example. It'd be like Team Fortress 3 came out... and instead of the free class updates... Valve made you buy the Class updates if you didn't buy the game through steam or something. It IS taking away value because it is charging for something that was once free in the series. I'm generally against all forms of paid DLC, but I fiured that all HD console games already have paid DLC, so that's why I don't mind this method. That's the basis of my opinion. But you're right, paid DLC sucks in all forms. I never bought DLC in my life, but what's wrong with them? Are you against the expansion packs that PC has?

Expansion packs usually have tons of content in them. Most paid DLC doesn't have enough content to justify paying for it. Giving it away for free would be better long term to give the companies a good image.

sapient said: As long as it is OPTIONAL content I see no problem with this strategy.

all online content is optional.  content that isn't optional would be content that is required to play the game at all.  I don't recall any game that was released and then required an additional online purchase to play the game on the disc which is all you purchased -- the game on the disc.  any content beyond that that simply adds more to the game is optional. 

there is no "should" to this situation.  developers can reduce the released game to whatever they would like from the original concept and then release the rest as DLC, that is up to them, but the consumer isn't entitled to any of it.  if you don't feel the purchase is worth it, don't buy it, and maybe developers will change their practices, but no consumer has a right to any content that isn't on the disc or adevrtised on the package with the purchase of the disc. 

developers tell you exactly what yu are getting content wise with a package.  either choose to buy it or not.  if you choose to buy it, you have no grounds to complain about anything.

strunge said: sapient said: As long as it is OPTIONAL content I see no problem with this strategy. all online content is optional.  content that isn't optional would be content that is required to play the game at all.  I don't recall any game that was released and then required an additional online purchase to play the game on the disc which is all you purchased -- the game on the disc.  any content beyond that that simply adds more to the game is optional.  there is no "should" to this situation.  developers can reduce the released game to whatever they would like from the original concept and then release the rest as DLC, that is up to them, but the consumer isn't entitled to any of it.  if you don't feel the purchase is worth it, don't buy it, and maybe developers will change their practices, but no consumer has a right to any content that isn't on the disc or adevrtised on the package with the purchase of the disc.  developers tell you exactly what yu are getting content wise with a package.  either choose to buy it or not.  if you choose to buy it, you have no grounds to complain about anything.

However. What if game compaies did this with all their 'must have' games?

I think the fans of certain franchises feels really screwed over by the companies if they do this to games with a solid following. It's exploiting one's userbase.

KungKras said: strunge said: sapient said: As long as it is OPTIONAL content I see no problem with this strategy. all online content is optional.  content that isn't optional would be content that is required to play the game at all.  I don't recall any game that was released and then required an additional online purchase to play the game on the disc which is all you purchased -- the game on the disc.  any content beyond that that simply adds more to the game is optional.  there is no "should" to this situation.  developers can reduce the released game to whatever they would like from the original concept and then release the rest as DLC, that is up to them, but the consumer isn't entitled to any of it.  if you don't feel the purchase is worth it, don't buy it, and maybe developers will change their practices, but no consumer has a right to any content that isn't on the disc or adevrtised on the package with the purchase of the disc.  developers tell you exactly what yu are getting content wise with a package.  either choose to buy it or not.  if you choose to buy it, you have no grounds to complain about anything. However. What if game compaies did this with all their 'must have' games? I think the fans of certain franchises feels really screwed over by the companies if they do this to games with a solid following. It's exploiting one's userbase.

they shouldn't feel screwed over, just disappointed, because they would still know before hand before they make the purchase to determine whether they want to or not.  being disappointed in something doesn't mean that they have been screwed over, and feeling so reveals an inherent immaturity in anyone who does. 

developers push as far as they believe the market will take.  you want developers to change their practices, stop buying the games.  if fans don't have the maturity to not play a game and have the compulsion that they have to play it because it exists, than they are voluntarily participating in this practice and they only have themselves to blame.  thus they aren't victims, or at least are victims to themselves but not the developers.  of course this would require gamers to actually take responsibility fo rtheir own feelings and actions instead of behaving like imbeciles with the emotional maturity of infants. 

Akvod said: Kasz216 said: Akvod said: KungKras said: I don't mind them giving extras to people buying the game. THANK YOU! FUCKING THANK-YOU!   Somebody has some basic common sense in this thread *hugs* If only it were you... since you don't seem to understand that the term "extra" is fairly meaningless in this case.  Once again... you see it as a big difference that content is available online day 1 then the disc? If I were to say release Uncharted 3... with the online mode as an "extra download" day 1... am i really giving people an extra? But it's totally cool if Resident Evil 5 does it later than day 1, and asks money for it right? You guys and your weird psychology. You guys will be totally fine if the people who bought it new didn't get it for free, but everyone had to pay for it.

Nope. If it's 1 day later it's still wrong. Basically it's wrong if A) it's obvious it could of been included with as much as a minor delay or... B) it's a feature that was previously standard. With this game BOTH qualfies. I'd say about 3 months is what i'd consider copastetic. Pay or not... it's wrong. Which you know... has been mentioned many many times but you keep ignoring it to keep up your bullshit strawman arguments to avoid the point that your arguement makes no sense.