By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - All Day 1 DLC is a BIG F*** You To Us Gamers, Agree or Disagree? (Releasing A Game Thats Incomplete for Extra $$)

Akiran on 22 April 2014
naruball said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the prices of video games remained the same over the years? Weren't people charged $60 for Castlevania and Super Mario Bros2 or 3? In terms of contentand effort put behind games to play well and look great, game developers need to put much more effort, yet they charge the same price.

I'm fine with DLC. You don't have to buy it whether it's day one, on disc or released the next year. It's optional. If you're happy with what they offer in the first place, you can't keep asking for free stuff. If you think what they do offer is not enough, don't buy the game, wait for a price cut or wait for a game of the year edition with all the dlc.

The content they offer in a game keeps getting more and more and breaking even harder and harder. They can't charge more than $60, so they have to find another way and DLC seems to be the way.

Or what is it that you suggest that they do to make the difference? And I'm not just talking about games like Mario or Zelda that are guaranteed to make a profit, but games between AAA and indie titles that sell around 500k and don't make a profit. DLC is a necessary "evil".

"Necessary evil" is BS =.= Day one and on disc can mean they literally removed content from the original game to sell.

Also if they couldn't make a profit off millions of copies then it's their fault for spending such a large amount of money on it. You don't need to make a new engine for a game, you don't need crazy hair physics.

Examples of profits, Tomb Raider was considered a "failure" after selling 5 million copies, but Dark Souls was a major success after selling 2 million

edit: also I'm sure indies would be more than happy to sell 500k



Squeezol's Fanclub Member? is that how it works?

Why can't I hold all these no gaemz?

Always looking to improve my awful drawings ;_; 

Around the Network
sabastian on 22 April 2014

100% agree.................

I say wait till at least a week after release to mention DLC.

And I know, yes if you speak of DLC before the game is released, gamer's might just hold on to the game and wait for the DLC, but something inside me just hates to purchase a game on PSN day 1 and right alongside it is day 1 DLC.....arrrrrggghhhhhhhh............. F'you developers.



tbone51 on 22 April 2014
st0pnsw0p said:
tbone51 said:
kitler53 said:

But how do you know that those three characters would have been in the game at all if DLC didn't exist? It's possible that they wouldn't have even been made, and if that was the case, would you rather not get those three characters at all or have to pay a bit extra to get them? (Although $10 is too steep for just 3 characters, I certainly wouldn't buy that DLC unless it was at a discount)


But if its day 1 wats the excuse of not being in the original game??? Also i agree 3 characters for $10 O.o  I just did an example from PSASBR (2 characters and a stage $10), with no unlockables in the main game -_-



sabastian on 22 April 2014
tbone51 said:
outlawauron said:
On disc DLC is worse. I don't mind Day 1 DLC where it gives you things that are unlockable (like cars in a racer or a uniforms in a sports game).


Can you elaborate on wat? Cuz i only can think of NSLU and that was one of the best DLC! * Does MH4G count?


SFIV had palet swap, alternate costues and custom button combos that were all extra paid DLC that was revealed to be all on disk................ SHAME.



Talal on 22 April 2014
tbone51 said:

But if its day 1 wats the excuse of not being in the original game??? Also i agree 3 characters for $10 O.o  I just did an example from PSASBR (2 characters and a stage $10), with no unlockables in the main game -_-


It had costume unlockables I think, but yeah the DLC is very overpriced. 4 characters and 2 stages would have been alright I think.



Around the Network
naruball on 22 April 2014
Akiran said:
naruball said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the prices of video games remained the same over the years? Weren't people charged $60 for Castlevania and Super Mario Bros2 or 3? In terms of contentand effort put behind games to play well and look great, game developers need to put much more effort, yet they charge the same price.

I'm fine with DLC. You don't have to buy it whether it's day one, on disc or released the next year. It's optional. If you're happy with what they offer in the first place, you can't keep asking for free stuff. If you think what they do offer is not enough, don't buy the game, wait for a price cut or wait for a game of the year edition with all the dlc.

The content they offer in a game keeps getting more and more and breaking even harder and harder. They can't charge more than $60, so they have to find another way and DLC seems to be the way.

Or what is it that you suggest that they do to make the difference? And I'm not just talking about games like Mario or Zelda that are guaranteed to make a profit, but games between AAA and indie titles that sell around 500k and don't make a profit. DLC is a necessary "evil".

"Necessary evil" is BS =.= Day one and on disc can mean they literally removed content from the original game to sell.

Also if they couldn't make a profit off millions of copies then it's their fault for spending such a large amount of money on it. You don't need to make a new engine for a game, you don't need crazy hair physics.

Not all games sell millions. There are tons, especially Japanese games that sell less than 100k. They don't spend much money making them, but they still sometimes don't make a profit. They put a lot of effort, make good games, but it is not enough. Now they can make the dlc, not put it on disc and wait months before releasing it. At the end of the day, it doens't make a difference. They believe that what they offer unlocked on the disc is worth $60. It's up to the individual to decide based on reviews and comments on the game's length whether that's enough for them to buy it at launch.



Fusioncode on 22 April 2014
superchunk said:
The only time I feel its bad is the same with all DLC. When its clearly part of the original game and you are basically receiving a game that is less than previous iteration in the series.

MG is the perfect example of how to do it right. You first build the same game (content wise) that you've always provided. Then you work on purely extra content to provide at a reasonable price.

You're getting more, not less.

COD/BF are example of crap. They take out guns and other items that were normally part of the regular rank up system. But now you pay extra to get it. Kinda like micro-transactions.

Mario Golf has day one DLC. Why isn't Nintendo just patching that in for free? Suckerpunch had a day one patch for Infamous Second Son which added 6 hours of gameplay for free because they understood that day one DLC is bullshit. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

tbone51 on 22 April 2014
Talal said:
tbone51 said:

But if its day 1 wats the excuse of not being in the original game??? Also i agree 3 characters for $10 O.o  I just did an example from PSASBR (2 characters and a stage $10), with no unlockables in the main game -_-


It had costume unlockables I think, but yeah the DLC is very overpriced. 4 characters and 2 stages would have been alright I think.



that was a good bonus i guess, imagine if the game didnt drop in price so fast? You have to pay (for ps3 version) $80 for total experience (4 characters extra/2 stages, released seperate times)



superchunk on 22 April 2014
Fusioncode said:
superchunk said:
The only time I feel its bad is the same with all DLC. When its clearly part of the original game and you are basically receiving a game that is less than previous iteration in the series.

MG is the perfect example of how to do it right. You first build the same game (content wise) that you've always provided. Then you work on purely extra content to provide at a reasonable price.

You're getting more, not less.

COD/BF are example of crap. They take out guns and other items that were normally part of the regular rank up system. But now you pay extra to get it. Kinda like micro-transactions.

Mario Golf has day one DLC. Why isn't Nintendo just patching that in for free? Suckerpunch had a day one patch for Infamous Second Son which added 6 hours of gameplay for free because they understood that day one DLC is bullshit. 

MG is day one at a lower price point than normal 3DS games while offering the content amount as previous iterations. THen its also offering optional content that when purchased still keeps the price below the normal 3DS game cost...

MG is how it should be done.



naruball on 22 April 2014
tbone51 said:
st0pnsw0p said:
tbone51 said:
kitler53 said:

But how do you know that those three characters would have been in the game at all if DLC didn't exist? It's possible that they wouldn't have even been made, and if that was the case, would you rather not get those three characters at all or have to pay a bit extra to get them? (Although $10 is too steep for just 3 characters, I certainly wouldn't buy that DLC unless it was at a discount)


But if its day 1 wats the excuse of not being in the original game??? Also i agree 3 characters for $10 O.o  I just did an example from PSASBR (2 characters and a stage $10), with no unlockables in the main game -_-

You also seem to forget all the free dlc that we got with PSASBR. I definitely remember getting Kat and Emmet (?) for free and Zeus and someone else were free if you bought the latest God of War game. That should count for something. I waited and bought Zeus and the other guy for £1 last week.