BioShock 2's First DLC Already On Disc

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up: "Trouble is brewing in Rapture. The recently released Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack for BioShock 2 is facing upset players over the revelation that the content is already on the disc, and the $5 premium is an unlock code. It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small: 24KB on the PC, 103KB on the PlayStation 3, and 108KB on the Xbox 360. 2K Games responded with a post explaining that the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact, without splitting it between the haves and have-nots."

Comments

5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Double dipping.

If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!

That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory.

When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release. Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.

Essentially, they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game; access to the existing content was broken. They have the right to choose to do business this way, but that doesn't make it any less bullshit and this practice isn't going to impress customers.

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

Re:5 dollar patch

[precariousgray]

Yo, dawg! I heard you like DLC, so we put DLC on your DVD in case you can't access it via TCP/IP!

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Dude, sweet! Can you even put DLC in my DLC so I can get boned while I'm getting boned?

Re:5 dollar patch

[FooAtWFU]

It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.

I was following Cities XL when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people, and laughed when they pulled their "planet offer" for not attracting enough interest. Yeah, $5/mo for something like that's a little steep, guys, especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present (like mass transit: buses, trains, and such...) All in all, that was rather sad. (I found Societies to be more fun, and that's saying something.) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.

It really is shocking that anyone can appreciate when someone resorts to duplicity.

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money at all for me to take that lock off so you have a place to conveniently set your drink, would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Richard_at_work]

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

So much for being allowed a difference of opinion...

I don't see this as being ethical or unethical - its simply another sales method. Were you promised the extra content and features in the original sale? No? Then whats the problem? Your purchase isn't faulty.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publisher will fund them that way'

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

There was some game recently where a fair number of users on one of the forums were complaining that there wasn't add-on DLC available on the game's release day. In essence, they were practically begging to pay extra for something that many of us feel should be included in the final game if it's ready to be released at the same time.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Genevish]

"I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical" Dramatic much? Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will. Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business. Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

It's not about a promise. What 2K is doing is testing the boundaries by seeing what in addition they can charge you for, where it becomes less physical and more abstract, where the demarcation is between the consumer and the producer.

This is a matter of ethics because it tests the concept of what is right and wrong ("Ethics are for Everyone, Morals are for Me").

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publisher will fund them that way'

And that's cool, if that's what it takes to get the job done. This is different; the job was already done. They didn't even try to disguise it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[RonnyJ]

What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.

The fact that its on the game disk is irrelevant though. For example, when I buy Windows 7 Home Premium, that disk also contains Windows 7 Ultimate. I'm not given a key to unlock Ultimate, but I can buy a key from Microsoft to upgrade to it if I want to.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Ed Peepers]

If this content was already on the disc, didn't they fail at the new EA model? It should have been "DLC" that was free to owners of purchased versions of the game (via an unlock code) and $5 to owners of used copies of the game (via $5 unlock code). To charge everybody for something already on the disc is greedy and lazy. What's amusing is that people would apparently be less outraged if only greed were involved -- that is, if the content were withheld and you had to download it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Dramatic much?

It's more fun that way.

Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will.

Don't be so presumptuous, I've already taken economics. I know very well they'll resort to most anything they can to make money; what that involves makes all the difference when it comes to PR.

Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business.

I assure you it has very much to do with ethics, and business is a realm that even in it's most primitive form surpasses anything describable as "basic".

Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.

Justified, hardly, but a little less arrogant.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Dramatic much?

It's more fun that way.

Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will.

Don't be so presumptuous, I've already taken economics. I know very well they'll resort to most anything they can to make money; what that involves makes all the difference when it comes to PR.

Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business.

I assure you it has very much to do with ethics, and business is a realm that even in it's most primitive form surpasses anything describable as "basic".

Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.

Justified, hardly, but a little less arrogant.

I wish I could remove the checkbox for "post anonymously".

Re:5 dollar patch

[kungfugleek]

+1 car analogy

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

It wouldn't be so bad if I had any suspicion that it wasn't entirely their intent to, well, rip people off.

"I noticed there was a bit of confusion about our Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack file size, and I wanted to clear things up for you. The way our engine and game structure works is that people need to have the exact same content for people to play together. One of the challenges with post launch content for MP is that it can split the player base, and we want to avoid that whenever possible. For this content, creating the DLC package the way we did allowed for us to not split the player base – so whether you purchase the new content or not, you can still play with your friends."

No one was concerned about POST LAUNCH CONTENT. The whole reply made perfect sense if it were not for the context.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Dishevel]

Dose not matter at all. As long as the game I was told I was paying for is the same as the game I received I can have no complaint. It scares me that I live in a world where people are pissed of that they are not getting something that they were never told they were going to get.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Pojut]

Great idea, Princess! Diving into a pile of garbage! Hey, maybe when we get out of here, you can show us around your home planet of Alderaan-Ohhhhhhhhh, too soon???

Re:5 dollar patch

[steve buttgereit]

Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay. If I use it and then not pay, that's stealing and it is illegal.

Some other industries do this sort of thing, too. I'm working with a client right now that makes big machines that make stuff; they keep spare parts on the premises of their customers that pay for them as they use them. Some larger servers have things like unused disk or CPU capacity installed in them that sits idle; when you need to expand capacity all you do is call the vendor and they turn on the existing hardware... it's all there but you don't get to use it until you pay for it.

Referring to your original post, I don't think any of this is unethical... including what the game maker did (and, no, I haven't played the game, nor will I). Now is it consumer friendly? Different question and I probably wouldn't have made the same decision the game maker did if I were in their place; maybe sold the game as standard and premium editions or something like that. But there is no moral imperative that's being violated unless they said you bought everything on the disk and then failed to honor that.

Regards,
SCB

Re:5 dollar patch

[Dishevel]

You were never promised that content and all the content that they promised you when you decided to buy the game is intact. You got everything you thought you were getting. Where you get the extra content from makes absolutely no difference. It should not matter to you whether the content is on the disk, on a server in a basement or hand delivered by gnome. You were given what you agreed to pay for. End of story. You can have a dull butter knife if you want.

Re:5 dollar patch

[elrous0]

Except you're renting the room and those machines, not buying them. When I buy something, it's mine to do whatever I want with it. All the content on that disc is mine--I bought it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[dunezone]

That fact its on the disc puts us at the assumption that this content was already ready at release but was put in the DLC category to make a quick buck.

Seems like a cheap way to nickel and dime us which is becoming the defining definition of this generation of gaming development and consoles.

DLC is a great concept but has turned into such a cash cow that companies are now developing the game and DLC at the same time so to increase their revenue pipeline in a shorter span of time. Its smart from a revenue perspective but the $5 here and the $5 there is starting to add up and to a customer perspective we feel like were getting screwed.

On a side note though:

What I am worried about is Blizzard who is taking it to a whole new level. They will release the first part of SC2 which is the Terran campaign. So far they say its going to contain all the content need for Multiplayer. I guarantee when they release the second campaign (lets say Protoss) which right now is going to cost the same prices as the Terran ($60), so now were up to ($120) for both and without the Protoss campaign installed you can only play multiplayer with those that only own the Terran campaign thus eliminating a huge portion of the multiplayer population cause you cant play with those that own both the Terran and Protoss. Same concept as with regular SC and Broodwar, except this is will cost more than a $30 expansion. By the end of the series you are out $180. Pure speculation but it seems like a good revenue pipeline.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ethical because they're capitalists. 'Nuff said.

Where do you want that straw?

Re:5 dollar patch

[improfane]

A hotel room is a service - not a product.

Re:5 dollar patch

[jollyreaper]

It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.

Games seemed to have longer shelf lives back in the day. The add-ons to the first two Wing Commander games really felt right. More content, more gameplay, not that much more money. It was honest. The GTAIV add-ons are like getting new games added to the original. That's honest. But I hate paying for stuff that should already be there, that was already developed beforehand.

We're going to keep seeing more of this nickel and dime crap. I never play sports games so the EA thing of putting in a new roster and rereleasing the same sports game the following year didn't affect me. But DLC means we're going to keep seeing more and more of this crap.

Re:5 dollar patch

[sammy baby]

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

Sure, I'll bite.

I have an XBL membership. Every once in a while, I download a demo of an XBL Arcade game. The other day I decided I liked the game enough to pay for it, and did so. Imagine my surprise when I realized that the only thing that was actually being downloaded was the activation key - all the code and resources needed to play were already on my hard drive!

So which is worse - me paying top dollar for a game, then another five bucks for a small amount of extra content already on my HD, or paying a few bucks for a smaller game, the entirety of which was already on my HD?

When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release. Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.

Well... I hate to tell you this, but that sounds like your mistake, not theirs.

Re:5 dollar patch

[jollyreaper]

What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.

Feeling cheated is kind of subjective. The whole thing with the new Starcraft games sounds like a cheat. It's not just Starcraft 2 but a trilogy of games, one game per race rather than one game with three races and three campaigns. And each game will go for $50 or $60. That feels like a cheat. It's supposed to be three full games worth of material but it doesn't feel right.

Lord of the Rings was shot like one big movie and released in installments. It didn't feel like such a cheat since the second one was in no way complete when the first hit theaters, likewise for the third when the second was released. And when released on DVD we knew the schedule in advance, movie versions first with expanded editions later. The whole set was expensive but well worth the money. But technically this is no different from Starcraft 2. Feels different, though.

It seems like the only way to handle this for games is to just get the game of the year or collected edition a year or three after release when all the DLC is shipped on CD. God knows nobody has enough hard drive space on the consoles to keep all the DLC handy.

Re:5 dollar patch

[twistedsymphony]

It's no the first game to do this. Dance Dance Revolution Underground had a song expansion pack for 800MP ($10) I downloaded it and discovered that amazingly 10 audio tracks with associated gameplay information was somehow less than 100KB I haven't bought another DDR game since out of protest. I believe the DDRU2 and 3 used similar "DLC" schemes, as did a few other games, Katamari comes to mind.

Of course games like DDR and Katamari aren't as popular, or get nearly as much press as BioShock... so everyone acts surprised when this shit happens again YEARS later.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

The massive difference between Bioshock 2 and your article is that your demo was free, and you paid to unlock the data. This is spending $60, and then $5 for something that should have been covered under the $60.

DLC is still relatively new, and publishers are still figuring out how to use it. Shit like this isn't going to fly with consumers, and will go the way of the Oblivion Horse Armor.

Re:5 dollar patch

[shutdown -p now]

It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.

My thoughts exactly. I can actually understand and accept the "pay for what you get" model with several tiers, regardless of whether the "extra" content is contained in the box or not (so long as you can still complete the game on the most basic tier) - so that people can have N hours of playing experience for $X, or M extra hours for an extra $Y. That is fine. Among other things, it lets you go for the cheapest option to try it out, and buy the rest of the content if you really enjoy it.

The problem is that, for such model to be reasonable, either the "basic tier" needs to be cheaper than what the full game usually costs, or the "extra tier" should offer noticeably more than we normally expect to get in the box - not some minor add-ons.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aqualung812]

You're under the mistaken impression that you own data. You don't own the data on that disc, you own a license to some of the data on that disc. If you owned the data, it wouldn't be illegal for you to copy it or reverse engineer it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Ephemeriis]

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

They were just thinking about all the folks stuck behind a crappy dial-up connection who wanted to be able to get the DLC too...

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay.

So... installing a game on my computer installs a hotel room on my computer?

Re:5 dollar patch

[steve buttgereit]

Is it? Aren't you really licensing the software and it's content?

Consider these two examples: Windows & Linux.

I buy a copy of Windows server on CD/DVD/whatever. The disc is mine, with all it's content as the same sense as your game... but I bet I don't have the legal right to do with it as I please. That was the term of sale that I agreed to when I purchased it.

And it's not just Microsoft products... if I buy an Ubuntu disk, I still don't have the right to do with it as I please. For instance if I want to make a closed source derivative of the Linux Kernel... I bought the disk, it's mine... but I don't have the legal right to do with the content as I please. That was a term of its being released to me that I agreed to when I took the software.

Trust me: like it or not the hotel room analogy is much closer to the game than is the car analogy. Only fair use gives you any flexibility to use the content outside of the licensing terms.

As for my other examples. You're making a bad assumption. You buy the machines of my client and you buy the servers that I'm talking about. They simply store extra parts and such in a more convenient location for when you need them: at your location or in the chassis. When you need them, you buy them. And in truth the customers like it as much (and more, since the vendors are at risk) as the vendors since it's more convenient.

Re:5 dollar patch

[mister_playboy]

RE5's Versus mode was also DLC already on the game disc... buy the DLC and you get a ~100KB download to unlock what's already there.

I think it's bullshit.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, okay. I scratched my DVD, can I have a new one for the cost of the media? Can I play it on my PC? Can I put it on my iPod? Or do you want a separate supposed "license to the data" whatever copy of whatever format is involved?

If you want to claim I'm buying a license, give me the option to buy only a license, with no media bundled.

Re:5 dollar patch

[ArundelCastle]

The fact that its on the game disk is irrelevant though. For example, when I buy Windows 7 Home Premium, that disk also contains Windows 7 Ultimate. I'm not given a key to unlock Ultimate, but I can buy a key from Microsoft to upgrade to it if I want to.

And you are okay with the fact that they have 3 SKUs and 3 feature sets for one operating system?
Let's try to ignore the ethics of forking an OS, and tell me: what if Starcraft 2 had all three campaigns on one disc (size of the disc being irrelevant), and you had to buy a $60 key to unlock each one? Let's assume it's actually $60 worth of content. Doesn't that feel just a bit dirty? And if so, why does it feel less dirty if it's just $5?

Re:5 dollar patch

[steve buttgereit]

I suppose no more so than it installs a cup holder with a lock on it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Carrot007]

I think no one was under that impression and neither do you if you took a minute to think about it.

We are just upset at the change of license from a one off payment for a complete product license to a pay for x now and pay for y later (and don't even get me started on z).

It just appeals to today's I want it now idiots though. In the old days you had to play the game and be good to unlock additional content. Now you just pay for it.

I would be kinda ok with it if it was just an idiot fee and was unlockable via normal play (and I mean normal play, not the it's near impossible so you will pay for it method).

Re:5 dollar patch

[steve buttgereit]

See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583644&cid=31487918
for response.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Hognoxious]

How is that fundamentally different to a) having the stuff already developed but keeping it sitting on a server and b) the 97 different versions of Vista?

Re:5 dollar patch

[Planesdragon]

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money at all for me to take that lock off so you have a place to conveniently set your drink, would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

If it was in the contract, and that was how most car companies sold cup holders, and drilling off that lock would magically cause the car company to deliver a second, third, and fourth car right to your driveway...

Yeah, I totally see how your analogy is completely appropriate. Cars and software are exactly the same thing.

The fanboys are right. You paid for a physical copy and the right to make such copies as needed to play Bioshock 2, a specific game. I don't see any problems at all with the manufacturers of the game deciding to put something useful in the otherwise wasted space on the read-only DVD that your game came on.

So, to continue your analogy... this is a magical trailer that sits in your trunk, not taking up any space or adding to your car's mass or lowering your fuel efficiency in any way, that you can pay a dealership to unlock and then have the ability to manifest this trailer at will.

(Is it a dick move to cut off a bit of your $70 game and charge someone an additional $5 for? Sure. But the move is no more or less dickish if they put the bits for said DLC on their servers or on the disk.)

Re:5 dollar patch

[AndrewNeo]

I really need to start buying less complicated games..

Re:5 dollar patch

[sammy baby]

The massive difference between Bioshock 2 and your article is that your demo was free, and you paid to unlock the data. This is spending $60, and then $5 for something that should have been covered under the $60.

You're calling this difference massive, but it's not obvious to me that it is. You think that the expansion should have been covered, but obviously enough people paid money for it that they weren't worried about it. In both of my example cases, I had something sitting on my hard drive, but my access to it was limited until I shelled out an extra five dollars.

Put another way - most people were perfectly fine paying five bucks for this until they found out where it was physically stored. Why the hell should that make a difference? There's plenty of software out there which has "extra functionality" that requires an extra license key to unlock. Or are we going to talk about the immorality of, say, VMware now?

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

there was some other game where the exact opposite thing happened and i didnt even make it up either but i lost the link, forgot the game, and dont care enough about the quality of my post to do anything more about it. thank you!

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

I suppose no more so than it installs a cup holder with a lock on it.

Ouch. I got served.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aqualung812]

I take it as an option to pay more for more of what you already like. You paid for a game & thought it was a good enough deal based on the advertised features and reviews of the game. So, you part with your money and pay for the game. Later, you find out that there is MORE to the game that you didn't even expect. However, if you want MORE, you have to pay MORE. So, if the game wasn't as good as you thought, or isn't worth $5 more, fine, you're not out any money. However, if you really love the game, then you get to pay the game company more for creating such a good game.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Well, now that I know that I'm pissed about that too!

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm giving a Microsoft analogy for terrible software release policies? Not so bright eh?

Re:5 dollar patch

[steve buttgereit]

Your complaint is valid. Like I said in an earlier post up the chain, this probably wasn't a consumer friendly decision. Regardless of legal realities, there is the visceral feeling that you've bought some 'thing' and that it's yours to do with as you please, in its entirety and regardless of what you really were buying: a software license in which no actual ownership of anything changes hands. The company, by treating the game as what it is, a license agreement, broke trust with it's customers by failing to recognize their perception of what they were buying: a product. They also built up bad will by appearing to nickel and dime their customers, as one poster commented.

My original point though is that a violation of trust isn't necessarily an ethical violation. When people get pissed off rightfully/wrongfully they like to throw around statements like, 'it is unethical' or 'a violation of rights'.... ethics and natural rights are very important concepts and I don't like to see them treated casually.

Re:5 dollar patch

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You're wrong. They've confirmed that you only have to buy one of the games to have all 3 races for multiplayer.

The Terran Legacy pack contains the same units, upgrades, and whatever else you need for multiplay. The only thing that it won't have is the campaign for Protoss and Zerg.

The rumor is that each game will have a campaign the length of the original SC, and if that's true, I'll be willing to pay for it.

Also, your assumption of a $60 price is insane. PC games aren't $60 when they come out, they're closer to $49.

Re:5 dollar patch

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But this is different... it was already on the disk!

You might as well come to terms with it: price is not set by production costs, it's set by demand. Why can't 2K charge for DLC? They worked to create it, they advertised their game without it, you bought the game without it, playing the game with it is completely optional. I'm failing to see how distributing it on the disc is unethical.

It's only really unethical if you somehow believe you have some kind of entitlement to the "DLC", but I really can't see how that would fly. You were given the game you paid for. Pure and simple.

Re:5 dollar patch

[PIBM]

I think I'd go with this for a car analogy.

Lets say you buy a nice sporty car, lets say a BMW at around 350HP. You've been using it for a while, and then your dealer tells you you can get an extra 50HP by applying a software patch, but it will cost you 2000$.

Well, they've been doing such a thing for a while, and people are actually quite happy with this .. because they got the car as it was advertised in the first case, and those extra HP are well worth the price of the patch and the engine warranty reduction (or whatever..)

Re:5 dollar patch

[ConceptJunkie]

The key here is that you got three movies' worth of material (and more if you bought the extended editions when they came out).
Each year, they delivered a "movie's worth" of content, which was certainly worth the price of the movie even though you weren't getting the whole thing.

Frankly, I don't see what the uproar is all about, _unless_ you weren't getting something you were led to believe, or it would be reasonable to expect you would get. Or if the game cannot be said to be complete without the extra content.

What different does it make if this extra content was done when the rest of the game was done, which seems to be a sticking point with some people? They obviously felt the extra content added value to the game and could be charged for, and that the whole shmear was worth $5 more than the original package. I don't see how any promises were broken, even implied ones. This kind of thing is done in the software industry all the time. And in fact, if you aren't talking about consumer software, it's probably more common than not.

Re:5 dollar patch

[kestasjk]

If you didn't think BioShock 2 by itself was a good deal why did you pay for it?

If you did think it was a good deal then, why don't you think so now that it turns out they made some locked feature before shipping rather than after?

Most shareware comes with the full version bundled, you need to pay to unlock functionality that's present, and it's just as stupid to call that a "bug" as it is to call this a "bug".

They didn't trick or cheat anyone, so this isn't something to get angry about: If you don't want to unlock the extra stuff then don't.

Re:5 dollar patch

[AtomicOrange]

But that cup holder is content, why would deny the car manufacturer from charging for additional content? What are you, some sort of Commie?

Very good analogy.

Re:5 dollar patch

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

What DLC claims to be--and isn't in cases like this--is a justification for the people who made the game to spend more time making extra content for it, after the original game has shipped--the programmers are doing extra work month after month, improving the game in a way that has nothing to do (ostensibly) with patches/fixing errors. In other words, "As long as you are willing to pay for more, we can justify paying our programmers and content creators to keep working on it after the game has officially shipped, when otherwise, we would have a bugfix team and nothing more."

In a way, that's completely betrayed by any kind of day-1 DLC. In another, it isn't, because in theory, you're judging whether or not they'll pay to come back for more. I think I subscribe to the first camp, though. If you aren't paying additional month-over-month expenses (that have nothing to do with your mistakes / bugs), then don't charge the players.

Is this point of view naive? Yes, and fuck any company that points that out. If you tread on naive consumers as a matter of policy, expect some heated feedback from them.

Re:5 dollar patch

[BobMcD]

Also, your assumption of a $60 price is insane. PC games aren't $60 when they come out, they're closer to $49.

Oh dear lord, he's off by $11! Someone call Arkham, we have a madman on the loose!

Re:5 dollar patch

[aafiske]

There's a remarkable new way of dealing with things like this.

Don't buy it. $180 too much for starcraft 2? Don't spend it. Problem solved! $5 dlc a rip off? You know what to do!

Or just wait 6 months until it drops in price, that works too. (not so much on DLC because they don't seem to put that on sale, but really. Either it's worth a piddling $5 or not.)

Re:5 dollar patch

[malloc]

Also, your assumption of a $60 price is insane. PC games aren't $60 when they come out, they're closer to $49.

Exactly, because those $11 dollars just absolutely push you over the line of sanity into the pricing realms of the crazies.

And don't get me started on sales tax.

/sarcasm off

:)

Re:5 dollar patch

[BobMcD]

Frankly, I don't see what the uproar is all about, _unless_ you weren't getting something you were led to believe, or it would be reasonable to expect you would get. Or if the game cannot be said to be complete without the extra content.

I look at it like this... and I'm going to use large concepts with handles on them. Please don't bicker about the tools available, please try and look at the larger point.

SC2 - Terran box - $50. (Contains: Multiplayer game $30, Terran Campaign $20)

SC2 - Protoss/Zerg boxes - $50 (Contains Protoss/Zerg Campaign only each - $20)

Where's the extra $30 per box going? That total $60 of lost value should net me two more entire online games of equal quality.

If the Protoss/Zerg/Terran campaigns are all equivalent development effort and equivalent value, they should carry the same price, should they not? If they don't carry the same price, how are you going to communicate the change in value from box to box?

This would be where your 'led to believe' part comes into play. Same price promises same value. Price is SUPPOSED to drive value, remember? When it does not, people complain.

Now it could well be that the two 'extra' campaigns are going to have much lower price tags when they actually exist and are released. Perhaps even $10 each. That would track with my little value estimates above. Everyone who is guessing, today anyway, isn't betting on this being the case.

Re:5 dollar patch

[GasparGMSwordsman]

You got everything you thought you were getting.

*I* thought I was getting access to all content on the disc. I assume this every time I purchase a package. So I guess *I* did not get everything I thought I was getting after all.

The next logical question is, *why* do I assume this? Because when you purchase something you then OWN IT. I bought a package that contained a disc. I *theoretically* now have a license to run all software on that disc. Oh, wait! You say that is not what the license is for?! You say I only have a license for HALF the stuff in the box I just purchased?! Where exactly on the box does it say I am only getting a partial license for the contents of the box?!

There simply is not another situation where you can purchase a product then not be able to use part of what came in the box. If anyone tried doing this with any other type of product, everyone would just laugh at them and use the product anyways. The law also is very clear that if you purchase a box you own all contents inside that box, not half. But because this is software, 2K can get away with this.

Disclaimer, I write software for a living.

Re:5 dollar patch

[GrumblyStuff]

Lord of the Rings was shot like one big movie and released in installments. It didn't feel like such a cheat since the second one was in no way complete when the first hit theaters, likewise for the third when the second was released. And when released on DVD we knew the schedule in advance, movie versions first with expanded editions later. The whole set was expensive but well worth the money. But technically this is no different from Starcraft 2. Feels different, though.

It is different though. Imagine if one movie followed... Frodo. Just everything that happened to Frodo and he was in every scene. The other two movies would focus only on Gandalf and Sauron. Ok, with the amount of characters they'd probably have an elf one, Aragorn and his role and everything that happens at Rohan and... yeah, now it's starting to grate, huh?

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

The minibar analogy falls apart because it's a separate type/kind of content (food/drink) compared to what was paid for (housing). It's an "above and beyond", like costume packs. Nobody has ever complained about having to pay extra for spectravision or PPV movies. On the other hand I'd be a tad miffed if the TV was inactive unless I dropped quarters into it.

A more apropos analogy would be if you paid for a room, and found that while the shower works, in order to take a bath you have to pay $10 extra for a drain plug (and were liable for criminal damages if you brought your own). It may not SEEM like a big deal, and taking a shower is perfectly adequate. But at some point you have to start wondering how much of the hotel room is going to start being carved off to be sold to you as "extra" after you've paid for the room.

i.e. "I'm sorry, sir, but it's $5 to be able to adjust the thermostat", "It will be $5 to have fresh towels brought to the room.", "Yes, you paid for a room, but the optional mattress add-on will be $5"

The danger is game developers finishing a game, then carving as much of it off for DLC as they feel they can get away with (and then selling it to you in sections).

Re:5 dollar patch

[jadin]

Interesting post. All 3 of your cases make the point of (hopefully) charging less for stuff you aren't going to use.

- How much would it suck if a hotel charged you for eating everything out of the mini-bar, whether you did or not?

- If the company gave you a 4 core CPU with 4 disabled, and simply unlocked the other 4 when you decided to upgrade, no problem, makes upgrading a breeze. But, only if their price was for a 4 core, and not equivalent to an 8 core.

So I think the same should apply for DLC, if they are reducing the core cost of the game for everything they lock out, good to go. If they are charging us for what we might eat from the mini-bar, AND charging to unlock the mini-bar, we have a problem.

Re:5 dollar patch

[ivan256]

If you didn't think BioShock 2 by itself was a good deal why did you pay for it?

I didn't. But why are other people getting so upset by this? Easy answer. It's usually suspected that the developers of a game held bits back to sell them to you as add-ons later, but there was always plausible deniability. Buy putting the add-on right on the disc ahead of time, then selling it later as "post-release" content is a tacit admission of what could only be assumed before.

It's the difference between having a little bit of power, and rubbing your face in it.

Additionally, it means that you never know how much a whole game will cost. It says $59.99 on the package, but how much will they charge for the bits they decided to leave out? How many little pieces would they break them up into. I'll happily just not buy games like that. There are plenty of games on the market. None of them are good enough to put up with this stuff. (Nor are any of them good enough to 'pre-order'. If it's good enough to play, it'll be good enough to play a couple weeks after the release.)

Re:5 dollar patch

[mrmeval]

It's a common practice with some industrial software. They develop modules and each one adds a feature to a device or software package. If you want it you pay for the license and get a key. Some of those keys cost 10 grand at one place I worked.

I don't see a problem with it in a game other than lying about how it works.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of the hotel, that's their room, I'm only renting it. In the case of the spare parts warehouse on customer premises, that's no different than a soft-drink vending machine: their space, their stuff, the customer is accommodating it in order to have a certain level of convenience. The server hardware is different, unless I'm paying for remote hosting. If it's a server I bought, you better believe I expect to have its total capabilities. So that's different, and I think it's a dick move on the part of the company that sells a crippled product. I wouldn't buy it.

It is, I believe, unethical to sell something that is locked up, with the mere intention of selling the key to unlock it. The cup-holder example is perfect. I wouldn't buy a safe without the key, if I didn't have the right to what's inside.

You must make the argument, therefore, that the extra disk space on that DVD does not belong to the customer, or that the data therein does not belong to the customer. And that's where your defense breaks down, because the sale of the disk carries the implicit assertion that one is gaining access to the data ON the disk. Not some of it, but ALL of it.

Let's look at the Windows example again. Sure, all the Windows versions are on the disk, but I'm not being told that I get all the Windows versions, I'm being told that I get the Windows version on my license key. If I own a different license, that disc will work as well. At this point, I'm not sure why Microsoft doesn't provide the discs for free, and free downloads at their site, except for similar money-grab purposes. But you can usually get the version you need off of bittorrent.

I'll bet it's not too long before someone with a gameshark or similar apparatus has this content for free.

Re:5 dollar patch

[im_thatoneguy]

You know know the job was done.

If your publisher gives you 10,000 hours for level design. And you're going over budget they're going to say to cut back. If you then tell them that you also want to release some $5 a copy DLC. Then they will tell you to bring people on for extra hours to get it done or bring in some more freelancers.

Just because it shipped simultaneously doesn't mean the dev resources existed to justify finishing it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

How on earth is this "unethical"??

They abuse the trust of the consumer by misrepresenting the nature of "downloadable content".

The copyright owner is free to license its creation however it wants.

This is not a licensing issue.

How is the physical location of the content relevant at all?

It is extremely relevant; the data should be considered in my possession if it is on my storage medium of choice, regardless of how little work needs to go into its replication. Legal precedence has already decided that would be the case if child pornography, confidential information, "evidence" of misconduct or pretty much any other media involved.

Are you alleging false advertising?
Does it say "Sinclair Solutions included" on the package?

The packaging does not say that it is not included. It really doesn't make a difference what the packaging says here.

If so, OK that's fraud and it's unethical.
But if you know before purchasing the main game that the Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack is $5 extra, then you got exactly what you bargained for, didn't you?

So that knowledge is now the responsibility of the consumer, regardless what is given to them?

If you don't like it: don't buy it.

I would probably still buy the game despite the bullshit (in a couple years, used), and I have the freedom to comment on the situation regardless of my decision to purchase the game.

People who don't want the expansion should be happy that they can save $5.

This isn't about how much is saved or spent. This is about the arrogance of 2k games including this "Post release content" and then charging you for it. This wasn't based on how many people wouldn't want it, it was based on the expectation that people who play games usually play online and would be more likely to spend that other 5 dollars.

These days, most people who bought a new car would expect it to come with an FM radio. Providing the car with an AM radio by default and charging another 100 for an FM radio would be an easy way to make extra money, since most people who are in the position to buy a new car would listen to FM radio. Imagine further that it is only possible to install an FM radio if it comes from the manufacturer.

No one was harmed, nothing illegal was done, but it's a Dick Move because it goes against the common expectation of the consumer. Sure, it benefits the people who don't listen to FM radio or any radio at all because they "save" a hundred dollars, but the number of people who don't purchase the proprietary FM radio would be very few.

So it's just a profit deal?!?! DIABOLICAL!!

Seriously, how does this juvenile rant get +4 insightful?
Get out your drinking straw.

Do you believe then that it was acceptable that 2k games included all of the necessary information to use this content in the release, suggested this was a post-release feature, and then charged consumers for something they already technically had?

I'll ask again... at what point does the experience start to belong to the consumer? What is the exact point of demarcation?

Re:5 dollar patch

[the_fat_kid]

you are welcome to a different opinion.
you're just wrong.
illegeal? no
unethecical? yes
no, my (if I bought such things) purchase wasn't faulty. It was just shitty.
TPB here we come.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

I don't see a problem with it in a game other than lying about how it works.

The part I have a problem with is the part that they lie about how it works. Well, and the other stuff. If it's such a good feature that so many people are going to buy it anyways, why aren't they charging another $5 on the shelf price?

Because, of course, all the other games cost $60.

Oh boy! I just can't wait until every producer does this!

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Just because it shipped simultaneously doesn't mean the dev resources existed to justify finishing it.

Then, perhaps, this is more an indication to the poor state that game development is in.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Cederic]

Indeed - wait a couple of years and you'll be able to get all three campaigns and any DLC for an all-inclusive price of just £20.

The only thing you'll miss out on is the multiplayer frenzy on first release, and if multiplayer RTS is your thing then you generally don't care so much about the single player campaigns anyway.

Re:5 dollar patch

[sixsixtysix]

Frankly, I don't see what the uproar is all about, _unless_ you weren't getting something you were led to believe, or it would be reasonable to expect you would get. Or if the game cannot be said to be complete without the extra content.

>

one could say the the first game set a precedent by having all three campaigns in one product. that is what was expected with the sequel.
let's say lucas had originally released the first star wars trilogy as one super long movie, no episodes, and that what you had lived with for so long. then he announces the prequel trilogy (now, merely a sequel), which will be roughly the same scope and quality (/shudder), but then he says, "oh yeah, i am going to screen this one in 3 separate parts, each costing the same as 1 used to". you can bet people would be pissed.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure it's $60.00 USD for regular edition, and $80.00 USD for collector's edition on Blizzard games at release.

Prices fall pretty fast but you'll have to wait a couple months.

Re:5 dollar patch

[cbhacking]

Where the *HELL* do people keep getting this "$50 or $60" for each SC2 expansion from? AFAIK Blizzard expansions have never cost anywhere near that even at release ($30 for Frozen Throne, the last one I checked - not a fan of WOW and its pricing model is different anyhow), and they drop off quickly.

Assuming the campaign missions are of roughly equal length and depth to those of SC1, you're getting exactly the same amount of content - about 30 missions plus multiplayer in the first release, and another 30 missions per expansion - for what should be the same price. There are only two differences: the campaigns are re-ordered, and you know from the beginning that there will be expansions. I don't see either of those as being worth crying foul over.

That said, do *not* get me started on their elimination of LAN support. The only reason I ever play DotA anymore is because HoN doesn't support LAN (yet, not sure if it ever will though there's a grayed-out button for it in the beta). If SC2 doesn't get LAN, I might just not buy it - there are lots of other good RTS games, and I spend a lot of time in places without a reliable, fast, cheap, or low-latency Internet connection.

Re:5 dollar patch

[mrmeval]

Would you pay a dollar for a BluRay that showed 30 minutes and if you liked it you bought a key that played the rest?

I don't much care either way. I like indie games, art and music and will stick with them.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Kalriath]

Oh, okay. I scratched my DVD, can I have a new one for the cost of the media?

If it's (amusingly) a Microsoft game, yes.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called Steam, or Direct2Drive, or any of the other digital delivery services out there. You buy a license from them, and they also allow you to download the data from their servers, but you are purchasing a license, not buying media.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Kalriath]

I bet somewhere down in this story, someone uses this as justification for pirating the game.

Found it.

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583644&cid=31489624

Re:5 dollar patch

[Sancho]

What different does it make if this extra content was done when the rest of the game was done, which seems to be a sticking point with some people? They obviously felt the extra content added value to the game and could be charged for, and that the whole shmear was worth $5 more than the original package. I don't see how any promises were broken, even implied ones.

There are a lot of issues, and they largely have to do with perception.

What they're calling DLC isn't really DLC at all. The "download" part is just some code to unlock the content you already have. So at a minimum, there's some deception going on that goes beyond normal marketing. What used to be sold as expansions (based upon the popularity of the game--gamers had a real impact on whether or not the content was ever released) is now part of the normal development process but sold separately, quite probably at a considerably higher price per unit of enjoyment.

It's a feeling that they're exploiting their fan base, whether or not it's logical (I'm not going to debate that part.)

Re:5 dollar patch

[Sancho]

A long time ago, I read about a court decision (which I can't find now, but maybe someone else will have better Googling skills) regarding licensing of content. The general ruling was that no explicit license is required for using the content in its intended way. That is, you don't need a specific license to read a book that you've purchased. You don't need a specific license to watch a movie that you've purchased. By extension, you don't need a specific license to install software you've purchased if the purpose of that disc is to install the game.

Software companies made a big deal of licensing 20 or so years ago under the guise that you need a license in order to make copies, and that computing necessarily made copies into RAM. This is completely wrong, and goes against both common sense and "bench law." But it was seemingly the precursor to some of the consumer-hostile EULAs we've been seeing lately. And sadly, courts have been upholding EULAs in a general sense lately.

So the idea that you have to have a license in order to use software is crazy. And somewhat by extension, the idea that you can impose additional license terms blows my mind. I still have some old software (on 5.25" disks) which didn't have a license agreement, either in the box or on the disks. No one seriously thought that it was legal for them to copy it outside of fair use (for backups.)

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

but I m not renting the game. or am i?

Re:5 dollar patch

[exomondo]

If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!

I don't disagree with you in the whole DLC thing, personally i think it's getting a bit out of hand with things that should be patches or value-adds masquerading as new DLC. But you do realise that if, like other companies, they had made you download this then you wouldn't have had a problem with it at all? I'd wager a hell of a lot of DLC is finished before release, but that's another issue. The issue here is that you would've bought the game without that content being on the disc anyway so who really cares, they just saved u the download.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Sancho]

Real Day-1 DLC can be okay. There's a bit of lead time between the game going gold and it hitting customer's hands. There's enough time for some development to take place.

This is like Day minus-30 DLC. The content was almost (if not wholly) completed by the time it was sent to the presses. Enough that 24KB was enough to enable it. That's different.

Re:5 dollar patch

[exomondo]

That fact its on the disc puts us at the assumption that this content was already ready at release but was put in the DLC category to make a quick buck.

And how do you know this isn't the case with DLC in other games?

Re:5 dollar patch

[rtb61]

It was appear that 2K has become a bunch of dawg eaters, dawg eat dawg, why don't we all visit 2K headquarters so when can see the dawg eaters eating dawgs. There seems to be a real disconnect between the content creators and the parasites who say 'NO you can't have it' corporate asshats, I believe they are portrayed as Houdinis in the game, always disappearing when the shit hits the fan (with everyone's money of course).

Re:5 dollar patch

[petermgreen]

The problem is the big game development studios have pushed headlong towards more detailed graphics as the main way of selling each new generation of games.

As this has happened development costs have gone through the roof. That means that the number of companies that can afford to bankroll such a game and have the marketing clout to make a profit out of it is small. Those companies are of course trying to recover their investments.

Re:5 dollar patch

[bigNuns]

Tell that to Activision and Ubisoft, both have recently released games at 59.99 for the PC. I'm not saying that Blizzard will as well, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if they did.

Re:5 dollar patch

[petermgreen]

It's not just games, when you buy win 7 home premium that disk contains all the "content" of win 7 ultimate.

What MS do with windows is in some ways even worse. You can unlock the extra content for a while without paying upfront but if you do you have to either pay for it after the grace period is up or do a complete reinstall since there is no way to downgrade editions.

Re:5 dollar patch

[exomondo]

We are just upset at the change of license from a one off payment for a complete product license to a pay for x now and pay for y later (and don't even get me started on z).

But that's exactly it, you paid for - and received - a complete product, gees you didn't even know that additional content existed, and you wouldn't have even had an issue at all if they hadve made you download the content.

Quite clearly the only issue you have is with the delivery method. Do you have the same issue with Windows Anytime Upgrade as well?

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially considering that they're both part of Activision Blizzard.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting post. All 3 of your cases make the point of (hopefully) charging less for stuff you aren't going to use.

- How much would it suck if a hotel charged you for eating everything out of the mini-bar, whether you did or not?

- If the company gave you a 4 core CPU with 4 disabled, and simply unlocked the other 4 when you decided to upgrade, no problem, makes upgrading a breeze. But, only if their price was for a 4 core, and not equivalent to an 8 core.

So I think the same should apply for DLC, if they are reducing the core cost of the game for everything they lock out, good to go. If they are charging us for what we might eat from the mini-bar, AND charging to unlock the mini-bar, we have a problem.

So if I don't want to play that extra content, now I need to pay the $5 anyway? What?

If you imagine the game costs $5 more than you paid for it, then it's exactly what you said you didn't have a problem with. Maybe if they had offered a cut-rate version of the game, and published the fact that the full version cost $5 more ahead of time... in the end, it's the same thing.

Re:5 dollar patch

[steve buttgereit]

OK... I buy a disk containing Windows 7 Professional for my company (@$179 or whatever the price is for a single copy). The purpose of that disk is to install Windows 7 Professional on computers. I install it onto 500 computers without buying an individual license for each machine... if I read you correctly I don't need more than one since that is the intended purpose of the disk, which I now own. I don't see that holding up in court, neither in the old days or today.

I think the idea that copying a program into RAM for it to run and not needing a explicit license to do so, since there is an implicit license to do so, is a materially different idea than the central issue here. While I may have an implied license to read the book that I bought, I don't assume ownership of the content of the book. That is still held by the publishing house, author, etc. Nor can I use that content in any way that I chose. I may be able to legally read the book that I bought, but I can't make and publish a derivative work such as a screenplay adaptation or a book on tape. All of this predates consumer software and the related copyright law that has evolved over the years. In this case, you may well have the implied license to install and use the content on the disk, but even under the most liberal reading of what you are suggesting to be the case I would need an additional license for the small bit of code that is downloaded and enables the DLC to be used in the game and you do not have the legal right to bypass that mechanism.

It sounds like you are trying to mix in some of the Libertarian philosophy which basically maintains that intellectual property really isn't property at all since it's not a tangible, scarce resource. In other words, the book is property since it's made out of paper, ink and binding materials. The game (in a retail package) is property in that is is made of plastic, metallic films and the like. The content in either case is not property and there are no restrictions on your use of that. Of course, this is philosophy and not anything at all like the law.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

it scares me that some people will accept a world where were not allowed to access something we already have.

Re:5 dollar patch

[GasparGMSwordsman]

It's not just games, when you buy win 7 home premium that disk contains all the "content" of win 7 ultimate.

Correct, when you buy the Windows HOME EDITION BOX, you get the home edition. When you buy the Windows Ultimate edition box, you get the Ultimate edition. There is no false advertising. IT SAYS ON THE BOX WHAT YOU GET. The specifiably states that you do not have access to everything. That is not the case here. This is in every way contradictory to the consumer expectations of purchase. This is all covered under consumer protection and fraud laws.

Next you get to the issue of first sale doctrine verses licensing. Right now in the US most Federal Circuit courts have standing precedents that a shrink wrapped software box is a sale of the package and NOT a sale of a license. If this is true in your given jurisdiction, then when you purchase a product (including this game) you are purchase the right to use that software regardless of the EULA (your right to use happens at purchase, NOT at the "I agree" button on the EULA). This would include anything on the disc, be it Windows 7 Ultimate or Bio Shock 2 DLC. It is after all on your disc, which you own, and have a right to use it. (That is not to say you have a right to reproduction which is what copyrights are all about.)

To summarize, I think this is BS for two reasons.

1) It is unethical to advertise a product as complete but that contains portions that you are unaware you can not use.

2) If I have a disc that I have purchased from the creator, I should be able to do what ever I want (for personal use). This includes using any portion of code or software on the disc without further payment. (This was entirely legal until the DMCA by the way.)

To also state I am talking about non-commercial use. Commercial use already has its own set of requirements that seem adequate. But the recent attempts by many companies to circumvent the historic meaning and use of copyright law is absurd. The law was never meant to go after non-commercial users, it was to prevent commercial exploitation by third parties. At no point did anyone drafting legislation until the 30's-40's (more than a century after enactment) even consider it in the ball park that someone should be prosecuted for anything related to home use.

I would suggest this nifty article with some bits of commentary from Presidents Jefferson and Madison:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/23/23214/3438

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Physical goods are NEVER a good analogy to digital media. Taking something from the mini bar without paying is theft not because you're not paying for it, but because you're depriving the hotel of a tangible good that they then have to pay to replace.

The spare parts are tangible items, and I'm quite sure the contract states that the ownership of those parts still belongs to the vendor, not the customer.

As far as your partially idle CPU example, if the customer owns (as in fist sale doctrine) the CPU and all the hardware free and clear, there would be nothing illegal, immoral or in any sense wrong with hacking the machine yourself to get the full performance without paying. The only thing paying the vendor does is keep the warranty good and make things easier. Yes the CPU is a tangible item, but it's computing capacity is not. By accessing the full power of a CPU without paying for it, I deprive the vendor of nothing at all, therefore there is nothing immoral about not paying for full capacity. This is no different than when Intel released two processors that were really the same, but one version was clocked a bit lower than the other. It was fairly popular to buy the cheaper, "slower" chip and over-clock it yourself.

If we believe the law that prevents breaking DRM to be immoral (you may not, but many here do), then we have to also believe that giving someone a disk with bits on it, and only allowing them to access certain bits is also immoral. The only thing you should really be paying for in such an arrangement is to access the company's servers with that content.

Copyright law does not extent into my living room. My disk, my bits. I will access them as i wish. Digital media breaks the paradigm of purchasing tangible goods and needs to be treated as such. Mini-bars DO NOT analogize digital media properly.

Re:5 dollar patch

[MidnightBrewer]

It's not double-dipping if they deliver the DLC before the fact; it's just geography. If you were to wait a month and then download it for $5, would you consider it double-dipping? The explanation in TFA is pretty clear and makes sense, even if it's annoying. Burnout Paradise did the same thing for the same reasons. It's a practical solution to a technical problem. This actually allows "have" and "have-not" friends to play together without forcing them to upgrade as a group. That's actually more generous to the players, not more greedy.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Sancho]

Common sense would show that installing (copying) the software onto multiple computers is not the intended use. And believe it or not, courts often use common sense (it's the nonsensical decisions that get the most press.) I'm well aware of the laws regarding intellectual property, though I have other thoughts on the morality of those laws.

As to the libertarian comment...
My understanding is that the term "property" applied to ideas is relatively new (say, within the past 150 years, and only gaining a lot of traction within the past 60 or so.) It's not an awful thing to say that you own the copyright or patent to an idea, but we're entering an era where people conflate that with owning the idea itself. Intellectual property is not meant to last forever, but in practice, copyrights do.

Re:5 dollar patch

[OnePumpChump]

You win, because you actually got the goddamn meme right. It isn't rocket surgery. "Yo dawg, I heard you like so we put in your so you can (different, but related) while you !"

Re:5 dollar patch

[shird]

Bad analogy. If you don't consume the goods from the mini-bar, they can be sold to someone else. It's a tangible good. It's like a door to door salesman coming to your door offering to sell you little chocolates. If you don't take them for free he has goods that he can sell to someone else. The hotel has just effectively put a mini-shop in your room for your convenience. It is not as though the price of all the mini-bar goods is already included on your room rental.

When you buy a game DVD however, you are arguably paying for what's on the disk. The important point is that the price has been set based on the development and marketing of the data on the disk *including the data which you aren't allowed to access*. The fact they can then go and ask you to pay more for what's already been paid for is pretty rude.

Re:5 dollar patch

[psycho12345]

Actually in the case of Blizzard, all you gotta do is register your CD Key at Battle.net and then DL the installer. In effect you can make infinite DVD copies of the install disc, only costs you the bandwidth to DL it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Put another way - most people were perfectly fine paying five bucks for this until they found out where it was physically stored. Why the hell should that make a difference?

It makes a difference because the original software was sold dishonestly as the full game. All else being equal, they should have charged $5 more for the full game content. Essentially the publisher was selling partially unlicensed content.

Or are we going to talk about the immorality of, say, VMware now?

Coincidentally I use QEMU.

Re:5 dollar patch

[SCPRedMage]

Having DLC ready in time for the game's release isn't the same as having DLC ready in time to be included on the disc. The is a significant period of time between when the game is "done" and when it's "released"; would you rather they spend that time sitting on their thumbs, or working on something?

Re:5 dollar patch

[hairyfeet]

Actually I would say it being on the disc is VERY relevant, and nothing like Windows at all. To use your Windows example, I am typing this on Windows 7 Home Premium, which I got for a whole $50 on pre-release. While I'm sure that like other Windows 7 versions it has the upgrades all the way to Ultimate on it, I looked at what the machine was going to do and decided that I didn't need the extras that was on the higher licenses.

But in this case you bought a game. You were actually expecting a whole game not "Bioshock 2 Basic edition". I think it is pretty clear by having the DLC on disc (which kinda defeats the point of calling it downloadable content) that what they did was say "which part of Bioshock 2 can we cut out and charge the for later?".

And THAT my friend, is the big difference. Before MSFT even went RTM with Windows 7 they had already listed what features each license had, so you had the choice of choosing what was right for you, or choosing not to buy at all. In this case you went to buy a complete game only to find out later "Sucker! You want the "whole complete" game cough up another $5!" and with an attitude like that it really wouldn't surprise me if after making all the nickel and dimes they can on this "DLC" you'll get told "Total sucker! If you want the "really truly not kidding" complete version shell out another $20!"

It is this kind of bullshit that has me avoiding games that don't allow modding or dedicated servers like the clap. Before thanks to mods I can get more value from my games thanks to the modding community, like all the worlds I have to explore now in Freelancer. But I knew when I first heard this "DLC" buzzword bingo that it would quickly devolve into selling a $50 with chunks missing, only to have the final game in up costing you $100 or more so some PHB can "maximize their profit potential" by "creating synergy between our IP and the customers wallets". Just one more game I won't be touching until it ends up in the local bargain bin. And do the pirates have the full version up yet? Wouldn't surprise me if yet again the PHB bullshit has made the pirate version better than retail.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the 60$ price tag is no that insane. Where I live, the newest releases usually cost even more.

Re:5 dollar patch

[totally bogus dude]

What's unethical about it? Was the game without this "DLC" poor? If this content hadn't been on the disc, would that make it okay?

If the game was shitty, then fine - but your dislike of the game has nothing to do with their decision to make DLC for it.

If the game was fine, and you're just angry that something that shipped on the disc wasn't part of the original release; so what? That's a pretty arbitrary distinction to make, and completely irrelevant.

Either the game was good as-released, and this additional content is a good addition worth $5; or alternatively, it's not a worthwhile addition and you keep your $5. If the game wasn't good as-released, then it just wasn't a very good game. The DLC doesn't come into it.

Re:5 dollar patch

[totally bogus dude]

Why is it different? It's still a justification for the developers to continue working on and release new content (assuming that it sells well, of course).

The content was always intended to be a paid add-on available post-release. What does it matter if they managed to get it finished before the game was released? Game development is a large and highly parallel process, with lots of different people doing lots of different things. Maybe the new content is primarily artwork, and that was finished before the programming was done - or vice-versa. Should they have a whole bunch of people sitting around doing nothing because not everyone happened to finish their tasks at the exact same time? Even though they already know what the next project is, and don't need to wait for anything else to be completed before they can get started?

Re:5 dollar patch

[totally bogus dude]

These days, most people who bought a new car would expect it to come with an FM radio. Providing the car with an AM radio by default and charging another 100 for an FM radio would be an easy way to make extra money, since most people who are in the position to buy a new car would listen to FM radio. Imagine further that it is only possible to install an FM radio if it comes from the manufacturer.

Why would anyone who bought the game think/expect it came with this particular content? It wasn't advertised as being present in the game, and any advertising that did appear was saying it was an optional add-on that would cost you a few dollars. Your analogy is broken. The optional FM radio analogy is better, but I don't understand why you think it's a Dick Move. It's also still flawed, because if people see a radio in the car they might believe it'd be AM/FM and thus not think to check. But did anyone see this faux-DLC content advertised on the packaging or in marketing material and so think it'd be part of the game when they got it? Uhhh... no, no I don't think so. So how could they possibly have gone against anyone's expectations? Nobody expected this particular content to be in the game. It wasn't in the game they bought. It could be added to the game by paying for it later, just as advertised. What's the fucking problem?

The packaging does not say that it is not included. It really doesn't make a difference what the packaging says here.

You keep saying things like this, as if all along everyone who bought the game thought they had this Sinclair Solutions content, and now have suddenly discovered that they don't and will have to pay money to use it. But that's not the case at all, and if you would just understand that one simple point, things might suddenly look very different to you. That point is this: The "Sinclair Solutions" thing was not sold as part of the original game.

Do you believe then that it was acceptable that 2k games included all of the necessary information to use this content in the release, suggested this was a post-release feature, and then charged consumers for something they already technically had?

Absolutely. So what if they technically had it? Besides, it's clear they technically didn't, since the small amount of additional data was required to actually make the game use it. Otherwise nobody playing the game would have even suspected this content was there. Do you throw a hissy fit every time you discover some unused art asset in a game's data files because a monster didn't make it to the final cut, or a texture that was packed into the game data but is never actually referenced due to a design change? Do you complain that an AI script that gives a particular entity a different behaviour ended up not ever being used because the designers decided that behaviour didn't fit the character, and neglected to delete the script file?

I'll ask again... at what point does the experience start to belong to the consumer? What is the exact point of demarcation?

This seems a strange question. The experience you get is entirely dependent on what the development team have programmed into the game, in terms of programming, graphics, sound effects, music, dialog, script, performance optimisation, and so on. The customer always has very little say in how they experience any kind of art, whether it's a film or music or a video game. That's kind of the whole point. In this case, you had exactly the experience the developers intended you to have, and just as much opportunity to customise that experience to your liking as you'd get with any comparable game.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft also doesn't call it "downloadable content".

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but capitalism is inherently unethical.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Eivind]

Making it DLC, rather than part of the main-deal has two consequences, both of which are negative for the consumer, but good for the greedy developer.

First, offcourse, it might entice some to in essence buy a $60+5 game, whereas the same people might have balked at just calling it a $65 game to begin with.

Second, however, DLC hurts the second-hand market. If the game was $5 more, but this content was included, it'd have been included on resale too. But this way, the value of that fraction of the game that you can resell, is lower.

Dragon Age Origins had the same bullshit; codes for DLC included with the original game. That content could just as well just have been included on the disc, but if it was, you could've resold the entire game, including that content, now you can still resell the game itself, but the buyer will be missing those pieces (or will need to pay to download them)

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Would you pay a dollar for a BluRay that showed 30 minutes and if you liked it you bought a key that played the rest?

I'm afraid I can't see the analogy.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

But you do realise that if, like other companies, they had made you download this then you wouldn't have had a problem with it at all?

I am aware. It is just the sheer arrogance of 2k games that is upsetting.

I'd wager a hell of a lot of DLC is finished before release, but that's another issue. The issue here is that you would've bought the game without that content being on the disc anyway so who really cares, they just saved u the download.

I'm pretty sure a lot of DLC is done or damned near finished before release, but in most cases so far companies have actually tried to hide it by waiting until after launch.

See, a large part of the issue is that the response was this was "post release content", which is bullshit and they knew all along. They could at least have the fucking decency to admit, that yes, this is specifically to get a little more money out of the huge demographic of gamers who play multiplayer.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Yes, and that's fine, though it may be an indication of the ailing state of game development... the issue here, for me at least, is they won't just admit that.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

It's not double-dipping if they deliver the DLC before the fact; it's just geography. If you were to wait a month and then download it for $5, would you consider it double-dipping?

Nope, then they could have lied plausibly when they referred to it as "post release content".

The explanation in TFA is pretty clear and makes sense, even if it's annoying. Burnout Paradise did the same thing for the same reasons. It's a practical solution to a technical problem. This actually allows "have" and "have-not" friends to play together without forcing them to upgrade as a group. That's actually more generous to the players, not more greedy.

Yes, as a solution to multiplayer and providing the resources for everyone to use it's necessary, I never disagreed with that. The issue is the audacity to suggest this is anything other than an attempt to get more money for something that should have been included in the shelf price, since apparently it was included in the box on the shelf.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

It's important that it only makes sense when you're drunk. Having worked with the inebriated often, I have a knack for sensing what someone who is intoxicated would make of something.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon begs to differ. Clearly the list price is $59.99, currently marked down to $49.99.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

God knows nobody has enough hard drive space on the consoles to keep all the DLC handy.

It's going to be more than 174 GB?

Re:5 dollar patch

[azmodean 1]

Do you feel the same way about CPUs that are artificially limited to run at less than their capacity? Now in that case they aren't offering to sell you an unlock key to make it run at full speed, but I'm sure that's just because it's technically prohibitive to do so in a secure way. (or to be slightly less cynical, because of the bad PR it would generate)

On another but related topic, I wonder if there is a crack for the game that unlocks the DLC?

Re:5 dollar patch

[walshy007]

pc games are up to $110AUD ($100USD) here in australia.. and you people think $60USD for a game is insane...

Re:5 dollar patch

[PerfectionLost]

If any movie exec's read this post, please PLEASE do not take away that your consumers are looking to watch a 7 hour Lord of the Rings movie.

Re:5 dollar patch

[SQLGuru]

The Diablo II battle chest collection still sells for $30 around here when I would expect it to be closer to $20. I'd love to buy games on release day, but never have the time to play them enough to make it worth it. I just bought a used copy of Oblivion for my 360 for $15. It should last me at least a year (from what I understand, it could last close to a year even if you played all day every day). Games that don't drop in price fast enough never make it into my queue. Myst still sells for $20 and it's ancient.

Re:5 dollar patch

[RobertLTux]

Oh btw for both Windows Vista and Windows 7 if you look at the disc

THE DISC HAS ALL THE CONTENT FOR ULTIMATE

try this get your hands on a retail box for both Home Premium and Ultimate now do the installs but use the key from the other box (so use the Ultimate key with the Home premium disc and vise versa)
guess which box will have which version??

Re:5 dollar patch

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

If it was verifiably "managed to get it finished before the game was released" instead of "always meant to be day-one DLC", then that's different, but that's what the parent was saying. Once the game has gone to master, or whatever the proper term is, they're no longer able to edit what will go on the CD. In other words, if they had changed it anytime in that last 30 days, those changes would have to be part of that patch, and from the size of it, it couldn't be much more than a trivial bugfix or two and some activation code.

Someone said it higher in the comments (top of this thread?) pretty well. They shipped a game not capable of using all the data that they had prepared when they shipped the game, data that's already on the disk. They had it all finished, took an axe, and hewed off a portion and said, 'This will still be here, but you have to pay to get it.' Compare this to what I said in the GP post. It's no contest.

Re:5 dollar patch

[pyrr]

Actually, car dealers do almost EXACTLY this. Have you ever bought a new car? Most have a KARR alarm. The stealerships use this for security that's easy to click off with a one-fob-fits-all solution, most of the salesmen & women check out one of the master fobs which allow them to unlock any car on the lot so a prospective customer can sit in it while they run inside to check-out the ignition key and grab a stick-on plate for the test drive.

When you buy the car, the stealership will give you the option to purchase the alarm system for an extra few hundred bucks. Even if you decline to pay it, the entire KARR alarm system is almost certainly still going to be up under the dash. They just usually remove the window stickers and disable the unit; the guys who prep the cars enter a code on the back of the little LED activity indicator that's under the dash, which simply turns it off. It's generally too much trouble & risk to remove it, because they'd have to patch-up wires that were tapped (power, horn, lights, the car's keyless entry system, etc.). I'm sure there's money to be had if someone knew how to reactivate the alarm and would do it cheaper than the dealership, but as soon as word on something like that got out, they probably would actually remove or otherwise ruin the alarms.

Re:5 dollar patch

[sammy baby]

Put another way - most people were perfectly fine paying five bucks for this until they found out where it was physically stored. Why the hell should that make a difference?

It makes a difference because the original software was sold dishonestly as the full game. All else being equal, they should have charged $5 more for the full game content. Essentially the publisher was selling partially unlicensed content.

You keep asserting that it was "dishonestly sold as the full game," but the only explanation I've heard as to why is that there was a for-pay add-on stuck on the media along with it. Nobody seems to think that the game was unplayable without it - in fact, I've heard the opposite criticism, namely that the add-on was too small. And if you're stipulating the part of my post you're quoting, then you've contradicted yourself - if you think the game is broken, you're not likely to be "perfectly fine" paying an additional five bucks for it. And you still haven't answered the obvious question - why the physical location of the files matters.

If a developer creates a game with the express intention of releasing DLC for it, isn't he cheating you by not including it with the original game at the time of its initial release? They could have just pushed back the release date until the DLC was done.

Or hey, here's another version of the same question: let's say the developer had initially planned to finish some DLC after the release of the initial product, but unexpectedly finished ahead of time. The developer now has the choice of including it on the original media for free, including it on the original media for an extra fee, or making it available as DLC for an extra fee. Other than arguing that they should release it for free because it's nice when developers do that, can you explain to me why there's a difference between the second and third option without introducing other assertions about original game not being finished?

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

That's simply disgusting...

Re:5 dollar patch

[GasparGMSwordsman]

My point is that the box should be entirely clear what you are getting. The Windows 7 box states what edition you are buying. Bio Shock 2 states on the box that you are getting the entire game which you are not. There is no mention that you can only access part. On the Windows box, it explicitly states that you will not be given full access.

My second point was that the legal fiction that you are purchasing a license (for a consumer shrink-wrapped box) is absurd. Until the DMCA there was no legal issue stopping you from just activating the extra content on the Bio Shock 2 disc without RE-purchasing it. There is also no moral issue if you are like the majority of Americans, or the majority of Federal Circuit Courts, that hold the belief that you are in fact purchasing a product and NOT a license when you by a software box.

Re:5 dollar patch

[slashdotwannabe]

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money at all for me to take that lock off so you have a place to conveniently set your drink, would you feel right about it?

There is a simple explanation of this behavior. People who have, for whatever reason, paid this extra money for nothing must rationalize their justification. We all do it. For many of us, it's better to defend a stupid decision than to admit to a stupid decision.

Re:5 dollar patch

[precariousgray]

Wow, who cares about some pathetic meme structure? You're clearly not a writer.

Re:5 dollar patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Right and wrong? How 2K decided to deliver bits is an ethical dilemma?

This just seems so ridiculous to me that all other factors the same, if 2K had made you download 24 MB instead of KB people would not have any issue with this. Is this tied to some sense of physical ownership based on purchasing a disc?

Re:5 dollar patch

[totally bogus dude]

If you can provide some kind of citation that the content was originally intended to be a part of the game at release, but then they decided to change it to be a paid add-on later, then I'll believe that explanation. But I don't see any evidence to support that assumption.

It's not as if DLC is a new concept, and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that they didn't plan to release paid add-ons for the game from very early in the development of the game. So why is it so hard to believe that the content in question was always intended to be a paid add-on? As you said yourself, they must have finalised it quite some time before the game was released in order for it to have been including on the disc. The small download sizes suggest that they tested their mechanism for enabling the content and it worked as expected. Clearly, this was planned from a long time ago.

If you hate having to pay extra to get additional things in a game, then it's fair to be annoyed - I don't like it either, and I deal with that by avoiding games that have (or are likely to have) DLC for important content. I'm not sure if this could be considered "important" though.

Additionally, their technical explanation is that the game requires everyone to have the same data files when playing multiplayer, and they used this mechanism to avoid splitting the playerbase between those who had the DLC and those who didn't (since everyone has the same data, even if they haven't bought this add-on). Their alternative would have been to require everyone to download a 100 MB patch which would've added nothing for the people who hadn't bought the add-on, aside from the ability to play with people who had.

It really is surreal that people are complaining about this, as if there's some inherent right to be able to play all the data on the disc. It's exactly the same as any other paid add-on, just the delivery method is different. And personally, if I'd found out that they had the add-on completely finished but chose to make me download it when they had the ability to put it on the disc, I'd find that to be a bit obnoxious.

Re:5 dollar patch

[jadin]

Not sure how you misunderstood.

The game would cost $5 less not $5 more.

Re:5 dollar patch

[JThundley]

I bought Bioshock on sale on Steam for either $5 or $10. This patch is half or the same that I already paid for the whole game!

Not to mention the game lost all my ammo part way through the game somehow...

Re:5 dollar patch

[Aphoxema]

Explain how.

At the very, very least, I would hope that I'd have to download downloadable content before I would call it downloadable content.

There's never been a sacred blood-pact or anything between developers and consumers, but the truth is that game developers are dirtying a relatively pristine culture with the same old tricks. If this habit isn't curbed now by people just plain getting pissed off, then it will continue. I suppose, however, if the majority don't care then it won't matter then anyway.

Really? What law school did you go to?
You should get your money back.

No matter how many times you try to say it's a licensing issue it won't force it to be one. Of course, it would be wonderful if there were some kind of contract that developers had to sign before distributing to consumers requiring them to be straightforward in their methods.

Though, they were straightforward in their method, they just tried to ignore the fact it was specifically to hit people up before they even get their feet wet.

Re:5 dollar patch

[BlackHawk-666]

If that was what was explicitly stated on the box at the time I bought it, how could I not be happy. I had accepted the terms of the purchase, paid the money, and enjoyed the content.

If the box promised a feature length movie in HD with a 92 minute running time I would feel cheated and simply refund the item.

The people arguing here don't even know what that extra content is, let alone whether it was something promised to them and left out.

Sounds to me like they are getting exactly what it says on the box then whining about some extra they feel entitled to for free.

Re:5 dollar patch

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I can understand the point of it just being a new way to deliver DLC, but at the same time, don't act like it isn't sleazy. You may not expect it of company owners, and you certainly can't demand it, but there are people who will throw in freebies and extras without raising the cost, because they're loyal to their customers, or because they just enjoy the making process, or because they like the fact that their customers like them. And when you see someone making the very calculating, very self-absorbed move of saying, "We had this ready anyway, but, meh, give us another few bucks if you want it"... well, it pisses people off.

I refer you to my first post:

Is this point of view naive? Yes, and fuck any company that points that out. If you tread on naive consumers as a matter of policy, expect some heated feedback from them.

Is it within their rights? Yes, that's capitalism. Go figure. But don't be surprised because consumers continue to cry foul when you shit on them--even if only a minority see it as unfair. People are still people.

Re:5 dollar patch

[totally bogus dude]

Yep, fair enough. I think this is a good reminder that people are generally irrational, and will get a bee in their bonnet about the strangest things. I guess some people just like to think that everyone is out to screw them over.

I didn't get into the original BioShock so I don't know if the community had a reasonable expectation of being treated better with the sequel; I've never considered 2K to be a particularly nice/community-oriented publisher though. They don't seem to go out of their way to be dicks to their customers (unlike, say, Ubisoft and EA) but they're certainly no friendly indie game-lovers that just want everyone to be happy... they're definitely in it for the money. But that's just my view, and as such releasing DLC etc. doesn't surprise me at all.

Or as you put it, "making the very calculating, very self-absorbed move" of selling additional content for a game you've already bought. But again, that comes back to the irrational logic: it's okay for a company to plan to release DLC but only if it's not finished before the product is released. I don't like these tiny DLCs myself, I prefer additional content to be made available either in free patches (for minor things) or expansion packs (for more significant things). But I don't really understand why people who are okay with the DLC approach in general are upset by this.

But again... it doesn't have to make sense. People can bitch and whine about whatever they want, I suppose. Back to my cave.

Re:5 dollar patch

[AtomicOrange]

Riddle me this, I comment on the actual structure of the meme and instead take negative karma for redundant (No one else commented on the meme structure) and overrated (my -1 was overrated).

I'm sure this will take just as big of a hit, but it's at least freaking informative. /miffed rant

Fragment the player base

[FlyingBishop]

In other words, the real value here is the other people on the network, and not the game.

Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Delusion_]

industry. I work with equipment whose speed and certain other capabilities are determined by the license codes you pay for. To me, this seems dishonest.

I'm sad to see software publishers embrace this model, but not terribly surprised.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Anonymous Coward]

Working in IT, this is no different. Want to shape 'X' amount of packets? Run 'Y' amount of concurrent users? Use 'N' seats of voicemail? You already have the software and hardware, but many vendors charge your extra to use your hardware to its capability.

At least IT can choose some of it's software without restrictions, and it interoperates. Can't really say the same for gaming.

Anyone else notice game publishers locking out user generated content, while charging more and more for 'official' content?

Geez, just sell me the game engine then, and let me choose the levels. No more of this $5 add-on armour BS.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

I recently installed circulation software for a local library and discovered along the way that in order to use the printer we already had, we needed to purchase yet another license. This boiled me to no end and it wasn't exactly cheap plus based on a subscription fee which means they will need to renew this license to 'use' a printer.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I don't get why this is a problem. I work with several packages that ship feature-complete but some of the features only work if you buy a license for it. I pay less than full price for the features that I actually use and the software company doesn't have to pay to create for multiple distributions of the same software. Everybody wins.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Idiomatick]

CPUs are the same... I mean, there is often soldering needed, not just a code. But the chip is the same in many cases.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[KahabutDieDrake]

This sort of thing is typical with office machinery. Especially printers, and scanners. Kodak will sell you a scanner for almost nothing, and then charge you 10,000 a year to use the thing at full speed. Ostensibly, you could roll your own scan software, and run it as fast as the hardware will go, but Kodak stops that too with some firmware in the hardware. It's a pain to even get the scanner to work as a twain device, and even if you can, it won't run faster than 2ppm. My company found away around this thanks to some clever IT staff. (bows) It turns out you can clone a dongle pretty easily. ;)

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing in the positioning industry. You can shell out $3000 for a surveying-grade GPS receiver, then TopCon has their hand out for another $1000 to use all of the onboard storage instead of just half of it (for instance).

The only difference between the $3000 model and the $4000 model is a few bits in the "authorization" file. The hardware is absolutely the same.

Almost all of the manufacturers do this crap. Novatel makes you get an "authorization code" to upgrade the firmware on your Novatel receiver, else it becomes an expensive brick. Do they think you're going to try to install Novatel firmware, which is useless without the specific model receiver it was written for, on your toaster?

It's DRM on steroids.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[Anpheus]

With most software licensing, what you're really paying for is whether or not they support your installation. Smaller number of seats, fewer computers, etc, is always cheaper, leads to fewer support calls, questions asked. On the other hand, large enough companies will have a dedicated IT team and help desk that will filter those out even more, so once you reach a certain volume the support calls start to go down again.

I think it would be interesting to see internal data from major software vendors showing number of licenses sold on the x axis, number of support calls per license sold per year on the y axis. It'd be a lot harder to measure forum or community participation but that would be interesting too. I would imagine community forum participation would fall to zero once the volume grew enough, because the company's internal team would resolve all those minor issues.

Re:Sadly, this is not new practice in the print...

[ivan256]

And every single one of them tells you up front what the total feature set is and which you get for your money.

Would you feel the same way about it if your enterprise software vendors didn't tell you about the other features until after you paid for what you thought was the complete product? Especially if the features were explicitly shaved off to cause just the right pain-point to wring some extra dollars out of you after you thought you already knew what the full cost of the solution was? After all, it's only a few extra bucks, and you can't get the money you already spent back now that you know some key feature is missing.

If they could go subscription they would.

[Orga]

This is reflected in the massive income MMO's and recieving and shitty income pay once and you're done games. If they could charge you .10 a minute to play they'd be all over it and would happily release new content to you for free. As it is these non-subscription based games have to wring every possible cent out of you and that's going to get you as screwed as possible int he end. The end result is going to be the smallest amount of front-end content they can get away with, and seeing how gamers jumped on horrible DRM games like AC2 well there are plenty of idiots out there who are going to bitch about this but you know they're still going to pick up the games and bend over for the "expansion"

I will never pay for DLC

[Rix]

I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Drethon]

DLC done right is not held back content. Instead it is developers working right up to the final code freeze (may be weeks to months prior to release) on the content you paid for and then saving money by developing new content with the same software. I have no problem with this additional content. How many people have there been that finished a good game and wished for more?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[rxan]

I take a more value based approach.

I remember the days when you might shell out $80 for a 6 to 15 hour game. Would I pay for DLC when the core experience is only 10 hours long? I wouldn't because the DLC is likely to not be worth it.

But take a game like Mass Effect 2, where I spent upwards of 40 hours on my first play alone, and the game only cost $60. Sure, I'll buy the DLC, but because it's more likely to be worth it.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Lunix Nutcase]

The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Because you are entitled to play the game? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Gulthek]

Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Jim Hall]

The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

That statement disturbs me. Yes, having to pay for "DLC" that was already on-disc is a total sham, a ripoff. But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it.

But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense. By extension, do you pirate other software?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Bingo. I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy). If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it. However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Lunix Nutcase]

I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).

Or, you know, you could just avoid the game if you disagree with the practices of the person releasing it. You basically lose any moral or ethical high ground by then going out and pirating the game.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM. Since me pirating a game that I have no intention of buying (due to DRM) doesn't harm the company in any way, there's no reason why I shouldn't pirate it.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for."

You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

That's the shittiest logic. The ONLY reason that you have "no intention of buying it" is because you know that you can go out and obtain it illegally. Assholes like you, who feel entitled to play/listen to/watch other people creations on your own terms, are the reason we have shitty DRM shoved down our throats to begin with.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

No, if you bothered to READ my previous post, you'd see that I buy tons of games that DON'T have DRM. I only have no intention of buying it due to DRM. If all the self-punishing DRM apologists like yourself would just disappear, then DRM would die much faster. You are the cause of DRM - the people who just bend over and take it up the ass and then bitch at those of us who refuse to be punished for buying a product.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[bhima]

While I don't particularly agree with the OP's claim that "causes him to pirate games", your whopper metaphor is equally lousy because whoppers are not digital.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

I understand that you buy games, but you also go and pirate games that you don't buy. That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software. You can't just NOT buy something, no no...you feel entitled to have it so you pirate it. The only message that sends to the developer is that they need to try harder to protect their games.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

It's not lousy, you're being pedantic. It wouldn't be a metaphor if I used the same situation as an example.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[tlhIngan]

I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

So pay once. You get the product you paid for.

If the publisher offers extra content, feel free to ignore them. They're not asking for more money to play what you already have.

Whether the content is already on the disc, or downloaded is a non-issue. You knew what content you were buying when you bought it. If the publisher left extra content on the disc, that's their perogative. Sometimes it leads to trouble ("Hot Coffee" anyone? Sure it was unlockable via a mod, but the only difference here is free mods vs. paid mods), other times it's assets that just aren't used period.

Or should we also hold Microsoft to account? After all, they ship a "Home Premium" version of Windows 7, but the "Ultimate" version ("content") is unlockable if you pay Microsoft some extra $$$. The "Ultimate" content is right there on the DVD!

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software.

You must be new here, because it's well known that developers don't use DRM to stop piracy, they use DRM to stop second-hand game sales and to force games to become unplayable by turning off activation servers, thus forcing people to buy new games.

I don't feel entitled to it in the slightest. However, I'm not buying it due to the DRM - the company has already lost my sale. They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[not a serious person]

How is playing a game unethical?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[misexistentialist]

The old "two wrongs don't make a right" fallacy. Once the first wrong removes the right there is no more wrong.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[kalirion]

I just wait a few years for the GOTY edition to be on sale for $20.

Still waiting for Fallout 3.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?

I agree. Consumers should do the ethical thing and buy a law that allows them to reverse engineer the key. Wait, what, consumers cannot afford the politicians to buy laws like this? Only big money like game companies and the MMPA can?
Boy, I think it is time for consumers to learn their place and just shut up and take it.

As this is the internet and I'm not clarifying, you can make up your own mind about whether "shut up and take it" is suggesting piracy as a fair countermeasure or whether it is sarcasm suggesting that consumers learn to live like domestic abuse victims or prison b1tches.

PS: hey look this DVD I just bought has an unskippable "you're a thief" add and warnings. I'm so glad I can't return it, due to the DMCA.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[kalirion]

They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?

How about because you're getting for free what other people are paying good money for? Is it fair to them?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the hell up you half brained fat facist sack of shit.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Vohar]

I don't feel entitled to it in the slightest.

I don't think you realize what this actually means. You're saying that you should have the product whether or not you've paid for it. That you will have it is a foregone conclusion. That companies have to abide by your rules for you to pay them for what you're using. How is that not a sense of entitlement?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

No one made them buy a DRM ridden POS. They / you decided that they're ok with taking it up the ass from DRM. They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games, but they're too stupid and think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.

Your "you got it free and I paid for it" argument holds no ground. You decided that DRM was worth paying for, I decided it wasn't. You made the choice to buy it, so don't bitch about those who chose to save their hard earned money for something worth buying.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?

Yes it is.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

When did I say I "should" have it? Never. The game is there for free and the company is losing nothing because they already lost my sale. It would be illogical NOT to download it.

It's like if you wanted to charge me $5 for a cup of lemonade and I said "$5 is too much" and walked on by. Then someone else walks up and offers me a cup of lemonade for free - you already lost my sale so you're not being harmed by it and it's not costing me a thing, so why not accept it?

If all the torrents and cracks disappeared overnight, I wouldn't feel like I was missing out in the slightest. You push your own opinion on me and try to claim that I feel like I HAVE to have it - I don't. I simply realize that the company can't lost my sale twice and that there's no logical reason not to pirate a game that I'm morally opposed to paying for.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Roogna]

Because you're just proving the point that pirates will come up with any excuse to -not- pay for something. If you disagree with a product, then don't buy it, don't steal it, don't advertise it, don't use it only at your friends house, just don't. There is NO entitlement to owning/renting/licensing/whatever the hard work of others without providing what they request in exchange. The only right everyone is justifiably entitled to is to NOT use any product they don't want to use.

But there is no political statement made by using something that you feel you're too good to pay for.

If someone does work, whether they make you a car, or a house, or a game, or some food, or whatever else. They have the right to ask for payment in return for your receipt of the product. If you don't desire to pay them their price, then the -only- justifiable response is to simply not use their product. Restaurant too expensive? Don't eat there. You have no right to wander into the kitchen and just take the food. House too expensive? Don't like the HOA rules? Don't live there, but you don't get to move in anyway and just ignore the price. Game has DRM you don't like? Spend your hard earned money on another companies game that you -do- support. But you don't have the right to still play the game anyway.

As for second hand game sales, you want to see that change? Again, don't spend any money on any product you can't resell afterwords. Enough companies go under from the boycotts and they'll stop pulling that crap. But simply pirating it instead? Then you're just a statistic, someone who they will always convince themselves that if they make it annoying enough, you will eventually be forced into purchasing.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Idiomatick]

Think of it as passive activism.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Miseph]

Because they turn around and BAAWWWW to the general public, government, and anyone else who will listen, and make life harder for everyone. They can't really whine about people buying second hand, because there is a baseline assumption that you can and should be able to do so... but piracy is another story.

So basically, by pirating a game, you cause injury to a legitimate activity which the game publishers actually wish to squelch. That's the real problem.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Vohar]

This isn't a case of someone else offering lemonade. This is the same product you decided you weren't paying for but decided you would have anyway.

Do you know how much work goes into making a game? It's only because games are digital media that you believe they're free. You completely disregard the effort and expense that goes into them, and just look at the free copies that OTHER people are putting out. Just because it's an easily copied finished product you think getting it without paying is fine? Would you think that about any physical product?

I never claimed that you thought you HAVE to have these games. I just pointed to the fact that you state you WILL get the game, whether you pay for it or not. That is a textbook example of entitlement. That is you deciding that you deserve it no matter what.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[blahplusplus]

"I have no problem with this additional content. How many people have there been that finished a good game and wished for more?"

This is what expansion packs are for. DLC is nickel and diming, I really hate the fact that there are so many people stupid enough to pay for that shit.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

You don't understand the meaning of the word entitlement and there's nothing I can do about that. I'd buy you a dictionary but you wouldn't read it, so there's no point.

If you can't understand that, no matter what they do, I will never pay for DRM, then there's no reasoning with you. I've already explained that I only pirate games with DRM and I only do that because it's not harming the company at all (they already lost my sale, remember?). Take away torrents so I can't get DRM games at no cost and I still won't buy DRM. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You think if you promote DRM enough that it'll magically become just, but it's not and never will be.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Idiomatick]

You are supposed to break laws you don't agree with to move forwards and cause change. If it became illegal to gather in public. Even though you havent really done much gathering in past you should do it then. Just to show it is wrong.

OP could simply be taking the stance that giving out part of a product then selling you the rest is wrong. It is illegal to sell what is advertised as a car; when you get it is has no muffler on it. I don't personally think this case is so obvious but the position isn't completely rediculous.

Also, there is no reason this would extend to other software, thats just silly.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[JohnnyBGod]

Exactly. That is, for instance, what Hidden Path Entertainment are doing for Defense Grid: The Awakening*. They've released the game, and now a free DLC*, and they'll release a paid DLC nearly two years after the original. It's like an expansion pack, only "on the internet", so it's novel, somehow. :)

* Seriously, people, go check the demo out. It doesn't really do the game justice, but it's all one can (legally) get for free. Yes, I'm shilling for them, but that's just because I've gotten 100+ hours of entertainment for €5. :D

** Stupidly named Borderlands. What were they thinking?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Idiomatick]

In the case of a whopper you would actually be depriving them of something. In the case of a person not buying the game anyways they aren't losing fuck all.

Today I was at KFC, got some chicken they asked if i wanted gravy with my fries and i said sure. I notice 5 minutes later that they charged me $1.40 (the fries were markedly less)! This is sort of the same situation, they sneakily charge you a bunch extra or withhold part of the product. Clearly that is underhanded. In my case I bitched and got my money back. Similarly, Bioshock should be prepared to get a lot of backlash, either in the form of massive piracy or people wanting their money back (which sadly will likely not be given).

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Vohar]

I don't care if you never pay for a game. Hell, I've downloaded games. The difference is I'm not going to act like I DESERVE to have the game. That's what I've been talking about here, but for some reason you can't grasp that. You're so tied up in your little morality play that you don't even see that you're a poster child for the spoiled self-entitled brat.

I hate DRM. And I hate people like you because you refuse to admit that your actions are exactly the kind of thing that makes publishers feel DRM is necessary.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[brkello]

You are supposed to break laws you don't agree with to move forwards and cause change.

That only applies to laws that are unjust. This has nothing to do with unjust laws. This has to do with a company charging for something that is already included on the original disc. Certainly it is something that isn't popular, but it has nothing to do with any laws. A company can charge whatever they want for something and break it up however they want.

People on here use pretty much any gripe they can to not pay for something. It is illegal and unethical for them to do it. Just don't play the game. If people did that, DRM wouldn't exist.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Krahar]

Games being digital and thus allowing zero-cost copying are the essence of the whole deal, and the whole point of your metaphor is thus to ignore the essence. So your metaphor is something like the opposite of what a metaphor is. It's like saying "you should never remove items from a store even when you've bought them, because imagine if you hadn't paid, then it would be stealing." It ignores what is essential to the whole discussion.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[The End Of Days]

Pirates will latch onto any justification they can to make themselves feel like heroes. I find it wonderfully poetic that they need these justifications, it proves to me that they know they are doing the wrong thing.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[nedlohs]

Obviously the piracy part was being referred to as unethical.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[The End Of Days]

I like your logic. It makes no sense at all, but you tried really hard to make it seem like it does. It's beautiful.

Do you actually believe your own bullshit? That's the sign of a master.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[brkello]

One use of DRM is for the second hand market. There are many DRM schemes that do nothing to prevent second hand sales (like a CD key). Another use of DRM is to curb piracy. Not everyone on this site buys in to the whole groupthink here.

Some companies do lose something when you pirate, particularly the ones who have online resources that you utilize. Even if you just play the single player version and don't touch the online resources, the reason you don't is because you didn't pay for it. A lot of people spent months or years of their life creating that. Yet you feel justified to do whatever you want. I don't really care if you do it or not, but you have to realize you that it is a pretty dick thing to do.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[The End Of Days]

Entitlement

That's you, right there - your stand against DRM is a red herring designed to distract from the fact that you believe you have a right to guaranteed access to entertainment (entitlement!) despite the fact that such a right is not yours to claim, your justifications notwithstanding. You are not enjoying free entertainment as a means of protest, you are protesting as a side effect of enjoying free entertainment. You profit from an arrangement that is not yours to claim, and you behave as though doing so makes you morally superior. You then argue semantics in an attempt to dizzy those around you, but it fails because we aren't stupid here.

Go peddle your bullshit on Digg. Around here, just be proud to be a jerk. There is no point to pretending you have a justification. Don't shit on the heads of game developers and then make them thank you for the hat.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really suggesting that not supporting the monstrosities that have turned our legal system into a protection racket is unethical? Put down the remote Joe six-pack you have some thinking to do.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

The difference is I'm not going to act like I DESERVE to have the game. That's what I've been talking about here, but for some reason you can't grasp that.

I do not in any way feel like I "deserve" to play it for free, nor have I said it. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. You just refuse to accept that because you're convinced that anyone who doesn't love DRM feels entitled to have everything they want for free. You refuse to listen to what anyone says if it conflicts with your pre-determined idea of what people should think.

I hate DRM. And I hate people like you because you refuse to admit that your actions are exactly the kind of thing that makes publishers feel DRM is necessary.

If you hated DRM, you wouldn't be bashing me for NOT buying DRM'd games. You yourself admit to pirating, so your issue is not that I pirated a game, you issue is that I pirated a game because I wouldn't buy it due to the DRM. That sounds an awful lot like promoting DRM. Also, you, me, publishers, and everyone else on the planet knows that DRM has nothing to do with piracy, so your reason to "hate people like me" is void as well.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

I like your trolling. Instead of trying to make up a BS reason for 1) why I should pay to be raped by DRM or 2) how a company that has already lost my sale (due to DRM) can somehow magically lose it again if I download it, you just make childish insults.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

Really? Then how come I stopped buying games that had DRM as soon as I became aware of it's existence years ago yet never downloaded a game until last month? Whoops! Looks like your "argument" of deciding my motives for me and ignoring when I tell you the motives behind my actions massively backfired.

Go peddle your pro-DRM bullshit to the children dumb enough to listen to you. There's no point in pretending like you're doing anything but trolling and bashing people who don't like DRM (which is why people like you made the same false arguments against me BEFORE I ever downloaded a game when I criticized DRM).

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

Sorry....my point flew right over your head. The basic metaphor is about expecting more than what you agreed to receive because the extra thing is "right there!"

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Vohar]

You said you're getting it whether you pay for it or not. I don't know how else I can restate this to make it clearer. Frankly I should have known better than to even have replied in the first place: You're such a fanatic that you're completely blind to reason. You're even telling me that I love DRM. You're saying that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (it was around a lot longer than used games). I mean, I don't even know what I can say to you. You're a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Carrot007]

> That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software.

I think you mean publishers.

I know developers, they are happy to have you play their efforts.

Hey, I have known devolpers to "pirate" copies of games they (significantly) helped make because they got a new job and changed companies.

Saying the it protects developers and such just buys into the publishers warped view of the world.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

There are many DRM schemes that do nothing to prevent second hand sales (like a CD key).

No, that's copy protection, not DRM.

Another use of DRM is to curb piracy.

If DRM was to prevent piracy, then DRM would actually stop piracy. It doesn't since the vast majority of games are cracked BEFORE it's released and those that aren't are cracked shortly after. Even Ubisoft's new "unbreakable" DRM was cracked on day one.

Not everyone on this site buys in to the whole groupthink here.

If by "groupthink" you mean "reading interviews with game publishers where they openly talk about wanting to destroy second-hand sales" and the fact that DRM doesn't work, then yes, I'm well aware people like you exist.

A lot of people spent months or years of their life creating that.

A lot of people at GM spent years designing and building new cars. However, that doesn't give me an obligation to buy a Government Motors car.

Yet you feel justified to do whatever you want.

Yes, I do, because everyone is justified in not paying for a product that they are morally opposed to. People who are morally opposed to fur clothing are not required to buy fur clothing, hillbillies morally opposed to foreign cars are not required to buy foreign cars, and gamers opposed to DRM are not forced to buy games with DRM.

I don't really care if you do it or not, but you have to realize you that it is a pretty dick thing to do.

How? We've already established that due to DRM, I will not buy their game - that was their lost sale right there, not because of the option of piracy (or else I wouldn't have bought all these games I own that DON'T have DRM when I could have pirated them) AND we've also established that they are not losing anything from me copying a file (the only costs involved are bandwidth, which are paid for by me and the others on the torrent). They lose absolutely nothing, so unless you're arguing that not buying a product you don't want (regardless of if it's a game, computer, car, deodorant) is being a dick, you have no argument.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

Allow me to translate this mess of a post: an artist has no right to his creation because I want it and I don't want to compensate him. The rest of you, who understand that artists should be compensated for their work, can fuck off.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

I can find no flaw in this argument.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Jim Hall]

No, if you bothered to READ my previous post, you'd see that I buy tons of games that DON'T have DRM. I only have no intention of buying it due to DRM.

Wait, you only buy games that don't have DRM, and you pirate games that do have DRM? Your argument is cyclical: You play it, but you're not gonna buy it ... which is why the game companies feel there's a reason to add DRM. Repeat.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

You said you're getting it whether you pay for it or not. I don't know how else I can restate this to make it clearer.

No, I said that I'm not paying for it, whether I get it or not. It's the exact opposite of what you're claiming. I have no problem not playing the game because it's a fucking game, I don't lose anything by not playing it. However, I will never pay for DRM, no matter the circumstances. That's why I buy cd's and rip my own mp3's instead of buying online because despite iTunes claiming to be DRM free, I don't trust them to actually be 100% DRM free.

You're saying that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (it was around a lot longer than used games).

You're confusing copy protection with DRM.

Once again, you provide no actual argument and instead scream your ideas of what I should be saying, despite the fact that they're the opposite of what I'm saying.

Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point-- dumbass-- is that if I take a Whopper without paying, that means BK has to flame broil another fucking Whopper to sell to the next fatass customer, and that they lose the 3 dollars I would have paid for the thing. But if someone invented a magical Whopper cloning machine, and I can clone myself a Whopper while leaving their original intact, then it's not immoral to "take" that Whopper. You need to lurk moar and let the adults talk until you've educated yourself on what the real issues are.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't act like the business peeps are the good guys here, extortion is another kind of thievery. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Blakey Rat]

Please. It's just fucking disgraceful. You're not protesting crap, you're just throwing a hissy-fit.

This is like Ghandi going on a hunger strike, then ordering Domino's delivery (vegetarian, of course) three hours in.

People who want to change the world make *sacrifices* for it. If you're not making the sacrifice, you're not doing squat except deluding yourself into thinking stealing games is ok. (Whether or not you would have bought it anyway is *irrelevant* to the conversation.)

You can't get pissy about your own rights without respecting the rights of others-- in this case, the developers, artists, writers, network administrators, etc who created the game and who have the right to control its distribution.

All you're doing is weakening the message of people who really care. Because as long as you carry your current attitude, everybody's just going to assume that people who rant about DRM are only doing it to justify stealing. (As in your example.) Screw you.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Chris Burke]

But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense.

I don't think it's nonsense to say that DLC causes him to pirate, as long as we're all clear that the cause-effect relationship was created by his brain, not the game companies.

"Talking about Open Source and Free Software as if they were the same causes RMS to go into apoplectic fits" is a reasonable statement. It should not be taken to mean that talking about them as if they were the same does or should cause everyone to have that reaction, or that RMS' militant pedantry was created by people confusing the terms.

He's just stating the obvious -- he's willing to pirate games that use DLC. Ergo, DLC in a game he would (hypothetically) otherwise buy causes him to pirate.

And yes, it's a flimsy and pathetic excuse.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Lord_Alex]

Absolutely it is a license to do whatever you want, simply because they don't offer refunds.

My particular gripe: Fallout 3 for Playstation 3. I purchased the game, had great fun. Purchased all the expansion packs and 1 of them just doesn't work (system locks up within 20 minutes max) and the other I can't get into at all (system locks up trying to enter it).

Search the forums for these issues and they are well known bugs. That is unacceptable. I bought two products and can't use them at all. It's almost as if nobody even play-tested the DLC for PS3.

Can I return the defective product? Absolutely not. So I pirated the game for PC because it works better. Will I purchase DLC again? Probably not until I've play-tested it.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me..... You can't get fooled again.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[GasparGMSwordsman]

I would agree with you. I prefer the Bungie Halo map-pack model. That seems to me to have all the advantage and no downside.

For those of you not familiar the process goes like this:
1) Game comes out, you purchase game.
2) X time later an addition to the game is released. You can purchase this addition.
3) Y time later the addition is released to everyone for free.

You can repeat steps 2 and 3 several times. I purchased all of the Halo 3 map packs knowing that I could just wait a few months and get them for free. To me it was worthwhile to pay Bungie for immediate access.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[VoltageX]

I bought the game this time. I won't make that mistake again.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[GasparGMSwordsman]

He is accurately stating the cause and effect of 2K's (or theoretical companies action) on his decision. It is not to play or not to play. It is to pay or not to pay.

1) He *WILL* play the game he is interested in. Possibly this decision was made the second the game was announced.
2) He *WONT* pay for a game that contains for-fee DLC.

The only question (if statement if you will) is "will the game have for-fee DLC"?

In code form, it might look like this:

boolean willPlay = true;
if( willPlay ){
if(mustBuyDLC){
pirate();
}else{
doNotPirate();
}
}

That is a simple logical construct and unarguable.

If you want to take an exception to his ethics that is a whole other statement. We can debate ethics and legality all you want, but that is not what *THIS* was about. The man stated clearly, this is what it causes, a loss of sale.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[GF678]

I know the reason why pirates don't understand the analogy/comparison - if you pirate a game, you've only made a copy; you haven't deprived the owner of the original. You steal that Whopper, you're taking a physical object that doesn't have an identical copy made for free.

The ability to duplicate content for free is the reason why pirates don't consider their actions to be equivalent to other examples.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[GasparGMSwordsman]

The law, just like life, is not fair. It is not even an attempt to be fair.

To fully examine the OP's statement, the software producer could have done less work and by doing so would have made additional sales.

Less work because implementing and running a DRM system is more work than the zero work of NOT implementing and running such a system.

Additional sales because:
1) DRM does in no way prevent piracy. It is trivial to get around. There is not a single person who bought a game because they could not purchase it. (Much of the time it is easier to pirate a game than purchase it.)
2) Every person who would have purchase the game without DRM is simply one lost sale.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Roxton]

But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it. But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense.

I think you'll agree there's a game theory problem here. Pretend, for a moment, that 90% of users dislike this use of DLC and would agree to boycott the product if the other 90% did the same until the developer relented.

But there's no collaborative mechanism. Any single person boycotting is a futile response, and that person loses the benefit of the product for no gain. Basic game theory, everybody plays the spoiler, we get abusive terms.

This is why we needed an act of Congress to get phone companies to break phone number lock-in.

Some people want to hurt the industry by fostering a pirate culture, prick and needle them until they at least return to the pretense that they're acting like there's a reasonable bargain between producer and consumer.

Now, if you want, you can argue that such a bargain reflects an entitlement attitude. I call that a crass form of libertarianism, likely derived from rationalizing the status quo.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[LiveOne]

Wow... DRM is there to stop second hand game sales AND to force games to be unplayable? It couldn't possibly be to protect people and companies that put years of work and millions of dollars into games, could it? Conspiracy theory much? Take off your tinfoil helmet and join the real world.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Lunix Nutcase]

A passive activism that just means that the rest of us have to deal with crappier DRM because we don't accept the premise that "either I get the product as I want it or I'm going to take it anyway"?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[The End Of Days]

I wouldn't bother with either. I don't like this practice, so I'm not buying the game. I'm not going to pirate it, though, since I don't fool myself into believing I'm entitled to the free entertainment.

Your attitude invited the insults. You think your arguments are unique and interesting? It's the same crap the kids were spewing in the heyday of Napster. You aren't a hero, you're just a jerk.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Kjella]

The only message that sends to the developer is that they need to try harder to protect their games.

The better question is whether despite it all, this is a meaningful strategy. Like we've pretty much gathered up, there's three choices - buy, pirate or skip. Those that have skip is the first choice we might just forget about already. That leaves us with four preferences before we start adding DRM:

1. Pirate
2. Skip
3. Buy

1. Pirate
2. Buy
3. Skip

1. Buy
2. Pirate
3. Skip

1. Buy
2. Skip
3. Pirate

Those that belong to the first category is big, and will never be a sale. Yes, you can make pirating really hard and it'll give you a warm and fuzzy feeling but it won't do anything about the bottom line. The only ones that'll add to your bottom line are the second kind, so you throw on tons of DRM. If you did find great DRM (the same place as unicorns and fairies) you'd gain sales on #2 and hardly lose anyone on #3 and #4. Back in the real world, most DRM flops and is easily stripped from the pirated version - you gained nothing on #2 and lost customers both on #3 and #4. Pirates is this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and because they're busy chasing it they aren't collecting from the people that essentially wanted to pay. I do tend to pay for the games I find good, but every time I read a news story about how the sales - including my sale - was because of the new DRM I want to do a *facepalm*, ask for a refund and go pirate it.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[waspleg]

Yes, I do. Good people break bad laws, it's called civil disobedience. I was going to buy this game until I read this, I was just waiting for the price to come down a bit since the reviews say it's good but not much different than the original (which was amazing).

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[waspleg]

No, it's more akin to them putting wax paper around the cheese and putting it on the burger then wanting to charge you for removing it, after you already got the burger and paid for it. (sorry I'm working within your bad analogy)

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[jim_v2000]

They come up with the excuse that they wouldn't buy the game anyway, so the company hasn't lost anything. On the other hand, if there was no other way to get the game other than buying it, would they really never buy the game? I think not. It's more likely that they would wait for the game to be cheaper.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

>If you disagree with a restaurant not serving customers of your race, then don't go there, don't advertise it, don't have your friend get take-out from it, don't put on a fake mustache and glasses, just don't. There is NO entitlement to others working hard to serve you dinner regardless of your race. The only right everyone is justifiably entitled to is to NOT eat at any dinner counter they don't want to use.

Fixed that for you.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[lennier]

You are supposed to break laws you don't agree with to move forwards and cause change.

Or perhaps more effectively, you could stop promoting the product and contributing to the user base of a company whose actions you find unethical.

Don't just pirate their software but keep using it - completely shun them and avoid all their products, substituting ones whose ethics you do agree with.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[lennier]

They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to?

Because you can hurt a bad company more by ignoring a bad product than by using it and thereby increasing its installed customer base with all the social word-of-mouth promotion and lock-in effects that follow. A boycott, in other words.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[lennier]

How about because you're getting for free what other people are paying good money for? Is it fair to them?

It's neither fair nor unfair - a customer who has received a service for money still has that service even if another person now gets an identical service for free. (Unless the service consumes a shared resource, like bandwidth; but a single instance of a software package, your pirating it won't hurt my use of it.)

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[lennier]

I think it's more like saying 'I don't like that when I buy a Whopper from Burger King you first ask me for a mandatory blood sample, drug test, and retina scan, infect me with anthrax and clip an explosive collar to my neck... so instead of buying a Whopper on those terms I'm going to put on my wizard hat, wave my magic wand at your Whopper, shout 'GIGANTUS DUPLICATUS' and make me a thousand brand new magic-cloned Whoppers, without explosive collars, for free. And then give them out to all my friends right in the middle of your store.'

Which is of course way illegal, but it's what all the kids at Hogwarts are doing these days. I blame the butterbeer, and all those owls.

Azkaban Notice: You wouldn't cast the Cruciatus Curse on a Muggle... so why Duplicatus a Whopper? Think of the house elves! Magicing food is a Dementable offense.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

But you're effectively stealing from someone by pirating their game, and if you didn't feel the content was valuable you wouldn't even care, so morally you're a thief by extracting value from a person's labor while pretending that you have a moral imperative to not pay them for their work.

What you propose is similar to me hiring black people to paint my house and then telling them that because only a white person is clean and pure enough to follow god that I am not going to pay them. Either the black people painted my house or they didn't. Whether or not there is a moral argument to be made for who they are or what they did to accomplish their painting, the fact is that my house has fresh paint on it and my black people are not getting paid.

Either someone makes a game you want or they don't. If you don't pay for it but still consume it you are a thief. If something is worth having it is worth paying for. If you feel that a game isn't worth paying for, don't pirate it. Unless you're going to go into a grocery store and steal candy bars because they lock you out of the full experience and make you pay extra for nougat. That would actually be morally consistent.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[DudemanX]

No, DLC done right is more like what you get from Valve games like TF2 and L4D.

"Oh look we have these new maps, game types, and weapons that we've created for our several year old $20 game. You can have them for free."

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Expansions take months to years and usually introduce new modes (campaigns, whatever). DLC presented here is like deleted scenes on a DVD, unnecessary but appreciated by some. No one wants to buy a second DVD (expansion) for this material.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[alvinrod]

So if you were to 'wrong' me in some fashion I could stab you in the face as there's no more wrong? Just because someone else acts like a dick doesn't absolve you if you should choose to follow suit. Two wrongs make more wrong than just one wrong. Things can always get worse.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Animaether]

They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games

So they could.

You're omitting one point, though. You're not just -not- buying the game. You're not buying the game -and still getting it-. Big difference even if to you the only logic is "I wasn't going to pay the company ergo there is no difference in by then pirating it."
( disclaimer on the term 'pirate' goes here )

Your reply is basically saying "well I can't help that there's suckers out there who -don't- pirate their software/media/whathaveyou. EVERYBODY should pirate!"
If that is indeed your stance - hey, good for you. But you're only re-inforcing a statement you made...

think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.

...because apparently you -had to have it-, if not by paying for it then by golly you'll just pirate it.

Oddly enough you failed to actually grasp and accept that point in jim_v2000's post ( http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583644&cid=31487222 ), and instead go for a "do not!"-defense. Well, to bring it down to that level of debating, then... "do too".

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[PrototypeNM1]

I have to point out that if you could not refute the prior argument of the developers loosing no money, then your following argument of fairness of those who do pay adds nothing more. If you agree that pirating technically does not harm a developer, then the same applies to those who do purchase the software. So your argument is internally flawed.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Vohar]

No, I said that I'm not paying for it, whether I get it or not. It's the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

And yet a few posts up you said, "Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM." How is that the opposite?

You're confusing copy protection with DRM.

Copy protection IS a form of DRM. Even back when it was a password sheet that came in the manual, it was designed to hinder digital copies.

Once again, you provide no actual argument and instead scream your ideas of what I should be saying, despite the fact that they're the opposite of what I'm saying.

I've already provided arguments; you just ignore them and keep screaming your own opinions. All one has to do is read your previous posts, you say one thing but then say the opposite later on. Your entire last paragraph is nothing but McCarthy-style "You must love that thing we hate" idiocy. Like this:

Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.

This is exactly the crap you accused me of, and what you've been doing the whole thread. You dodge points people make with handwaving and then counter with insane garbage like this.

I'm done. Should have known better than to have started in the first place.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[misexistentialist]

Things do get complicated, but stabbing me in the face might not be wrong in certain cases. During the age of dueling it would have been considered wrong not to do so. Nowadays revenge is rather pointless, but a lethal attack or one that effectively warns me to avoid you could have meaning. Thankfully copyright infringement against companies that use dishonest DRM is a much clearer matter.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[kalirion]

A single pirate who would honestly not buy the game if pirating was not possible (and how many of those types of pirates are there, really?) might not hurt anyone. A lot of pirates will just make many people, who don't even know what "DRM" is, think "hey, they got for free what I paid for! That's not fair! I'll pirate my games too!" Do you honestly think that won't hurt the bottom line?

Here's a purely hypothetical scenario since slashdotters like car analogies so much: A device is invented (or alien artifact or magic wand or whatever is discovered) which allows people to quickly and easily make an exact copy of any car they want for free, and everyone has unlimited access to it. You want an exact copy of a Benz or a Porsche or a Ferrari? You got it! People who cannot afford the real thing are ecstatic that they can finally have the cars of their dreams. Since no cars are actually disappearing off dealers' lots, this doesn't cost them or the manufacturers a thing, right? Now how long do you think they will stay in business?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Krahar]

Sorry....my point flew right over your head. The basic metaphor is about expecting more than what you agreed to receive because the extra thing is "right there!"

Inflammatory comments aside, clearly that is the kind of metaphor you wanted to make, but what you actually succeeded in doing boils down to equivocation. In one case the burger is "right there" in the sense that you can take it away, while in the other sense it is "right there" in the sense that you can create a duplicate while leaving it where it is. Your attempted metaphor is to equivocate these two situations, but in fact it is entirely logical to oppose eating someone else's burger while approving of eating a burger that you have made yourself as a perfect copy of someone else's burger.

Considering that the more accurate situation would be eating a *copied* burger, the line of argument you attempted actually ends up supporting piracy if we think about the matter a little bit more - after all, what would be wrong about eating a copied burger? However, physical and digital things are so different that they cannot be thought of as the same, and I believe that that is what the grandparent poster meant when he said that your metaphor was equally lousy because whoppers aren't digital.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[BlackHawk-666]

Let me ask you, have you ever pirated a software package that didn't have DRM? My bet is you have a long list of reasons why something should be pirated, but the truth is you want it for free and will take it by force if you can.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[BlackHawk-666]

Actually, you would have the same effect on the company and DRM uptake if you didn't pirate the game and simply chose to not play it. Your argument that you're doing something positive to block DRM is a straw man, all you are doing is selective piracy.

What's your justification for playing a game you have no intention of buying when you could just as easily skip that content and have some integrity instead?

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

First, saying that "it's fitting to screw them over" does not mean I feel entitled. I have an easy opportunity to play the game while still not rewarding them for their vile actions - as I said before, I'm no worse off if I don't play it because it's a game. You don't care about that because it runs contrary to your preconceived prejudice that anyone who pirates anything feels entitled to get things for free.

Copy protection is NOT DRM. DRM involves restricting your ability to use the product you bought in the way you desire. Copy protection only prevents you from making a copy / easily distributing copies if they are made. Copy protection does no limit your ability to install / reinstall the software to your hearts content or to install it on 1,000 computers that you own if you so choose. DRM does.

Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.

This is exactly the crap you accused me of, and what you've been doing the whole thread. You dodge points people make with handwaving and then counter with insane garbage like this

.

No, that was a "to the side" comment that had nothing to do with the conversation. I just wanted to know if I was right about your attitude since most people with your "I know everything and no one can tell me different" attitude voted for one of the candidates.

You fail at trying to debate because a debate means you listen to the other persons statements and then counter them. You never listened to my statements and as such your counter-arguments had nothing to do with what I was saying. Stop making up your mind about what people should think or do before you find out their views and when they're contrary to your preconceptions, accept that you were wrong - don't keep screaming that you're right when you're not. It just makes you look like a petulant child.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Vohar]

No, that was a "to the side" comment that had nothing to do with the conversation. I just wanted to know if I was right about your attitude since most people with your "I know everything and no one can tell me different" attitude voted for one of the candidates.

You fail at trying to debate because a debate means you listen to the other persons statements and then counter them. You never listened to my statements and as such your counter-arguments had nothing to do with what I was saying. Stop making up your mind about what people should think or do before you find out their views and when they're contrary to your preconceptions, accept that you were wrong - don't keep screaming that you're right when you're not. It just makes you look like a petulant child.

That's what you've been doing THE ENTIRE GODDAMN THREAD. The "everyone agrees with me, you must be stupid" lines, the political accusations, the "you must love DRM" bits... You have no idea what debate really is if you think that's how it's done.

Your last post was the single most hypocritical post I've EVER read. So much that I can't even believe that you actually believe what you're saying at this point. You're just trolling us.

Re:I will never pay for DLC

[Totenglocke]

That's what you've been doing THE ENTIRE GODDAMN THREAD. The "everyone agrees with me, you must be stupid" lines, the political accusations, the "you must love DRM" bits...

No, no it isn't. If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that. Once again, you put what you WANT me to say into your head instead of reading what I ACTUALLY say. You really might want to see a doctor about that, because that's not normal.

How long until...

[JMatopos]

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it? At which point this becomes another way in which legitimate users get hurt. Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it even be illegal for someone to do this? They bought a license to it already, is the publisher breaking the law by forcing someone to pay more to access something they already bought?

Re:How long until...

[Lunix Nutcase]

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?

On the 360 or PS3? It probably will never. Maybe someone can try on the PC but I'm pretty sure they will be doing checks against such a crack when you log in to their servers. It would be trivially easy to detect if someone has done this.

Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.

What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it.

Re:How long until...

[Lunix Nutcase]

That was meant to be "wasn't absent".

Re:How long until...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Would it even be illegal for someone to do this?

Most likely. But even if it's not it would be trivially easy for 2k Games to block people from their servers by trying to crack the game to access it.

They bought a license to it already, is the publisher breaking the law by forcing someone to pay more to access something they already bought?

Under what statutory or case law would constitute this as illegal? It's content that was disabled and never advertised as being part of the package.

Re:How long until...

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Was it also mean to be an argument? DRM is what enables use of the media (or keeps it disabled), duh.

This pricing scheme is rotten. At least with DLC you could say to yourself, " well, there wasn't room on the disk or it wasn't completed yet, so I'll pony up $5 to cover costs". This is completed content, already on a disk which you've paid a license to use the content on. The cost of creation is already set, the media and license to content has been purchased, so it shouldn't be extra to use what's already been paid for.

Re:How long until...

[jim_v2000]

They bought a license to the game, not the DLC. The only thing that you own when you buy a game is the physical disk. You don't own the content of the disk.

Re:How long until...

[Drethon]

If I had not already posted in here I would mod this up. No precisely a DRM issue but still those who pay get the same thing that those who pirate get for free. Value added how?

Re:How long until...

[JMatopos]

"What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it."

If the software were cracked to allow access to the DLC, then legitimate users would be paying for something which could be obtained illegally for free.

If DRM is cracked, then legitimate users are paying for something which can be obtained illegally for free.

So I was just drawing the parallel between the two cases: They both encourage cracking of the software for personal gain. I wasn't saying that DRM was involved directly. :)

Re:How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must live in the US. Other places in the world you own the software, mighty nice to have that option isn't it?

Re:How long until...

[Ostracus]

"The cost of creation is already set, the media and license to content has been purchased, so it shouldn't be extra to use what's already been paid for."

What people paid for was Bioshock, 2K delivered.

Now if people had paid $60+$5 and didn't get it an argument could be made.

Re:How long until...

[Lunix Nutcase]

How is anyone who pirated the game getting this content for free? You can't even connect to their servers with a pirated copy of the game anyway.

Re:How long until...

[Homburg]

The only thing that you own when you buy a game is the physical disk.

Given that you own the physical disk, you can do what you want with it, except where restricted by law. You can't snort coke off the disk, because snorting coke is illegal, and you can't distribute copies of the disk, because distributing copies is illegal. Accessing the data on the disk for your own personal use would typically be legal, even if the publisher wants to charge you $5 to access that data. It's possible that under the DMCA altering the game to use the DLC without paying counts as an illegal circumvention device, so it would be illegal in that case. But the idea that the copyright holder gets to set any conditions they like on your use of an object you own is a misconception.

Re:How long until...

[jim_v2000]

"But the idea that the copyright holder gets to set any conditions they like on your use of an object you own is a misconception."

Which is why it's an important to realize that while you own the disk, you don't own the software. So no, they can't restrict you from reselling the disk with the software on it, but they can restrict whether or not you can access all of the software on the disk (as long as they weren't telling you that you had all of the access).

Re:How long until...

[Homburg]

they can restrict whether or not you can access all of the software

Really? How?

Re:How long until...

[jim_v2000]

Through any number of technical means...what are you asking?

Re:How long until...

[Homburg]

Well, through technical means they can make it difficult to access certain content, sure. I was wondering if you thought there were any ways they can make it illegal to access certain content.

Re:How long until...

[jim_v2000]

Well, they could encrypt it and if you decrypted it you'd be violating the DMCA. But no one's watching what you do on your own PC (hopefully), so it's irrelevant I suppose.

Re:How long until...

[Shrike82]

The time spent developing the Downloadable Content cost money in terms of programmer salaries. The publishers (rightly or wrongly) feel they deserve an extra $5 in return for the additional time they spent on this DLC. Now someone will crack it and people will be able to get it for free, but it's not legitimate consumers that lose here, it's the publishers. The consumer isn't incovenienced by not having this extra material - not having it doesn't stop the game working nor does it piss them off by clogging up their system and screwing with their DVD burner. Now if people think "Fuck you Mr. Publisher, I have no problem with you losing thousands and thousands of dollars" then that's a different issue.

5 dollar game

[BikeHelmet]

Heh, seems like only indy game companies get it right. About a year back I bought Defense Grid (TD) on Steam. Played through it - definitely worth the $5 I paid. A few days ago I fired it up again, and what do I find? More levels, and more game modes. The company just keeps on giving!

I guess what it comes down to is, indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game, while building up their name. Big game studios want your money, and want to figure out ways to get your money. Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals.

Re:5 dollar game

[snowraver1]

Defense grid was awesome. I bought it on XBLA. Does anyone know if the new maps are available on xbox live?

Re:5 dollar game

[greyline]

Team Fortress 2 got it right. Look at all the free content Valve has been giving away over the course of a couple years with it. Not just a couple maps, either, but major, huge game updates.

Re:5 dollar game

[Anonymous Coward]

And because of your post, I'm gonna go see if that game is something I want. Never would have heard about it or looked for it otherwise.

Re:5 dollar game

[Fallingcow]

All of us who pre-ordered L4D thought they were going to do the same thing with it (in no small part because Valve said they would). We got burned.

Excellent job with TF2, which no-one expected them to support so well or so long. Awful job with L4D, which they said they'd support very well but didn't.

Re:5 dollar game

[waspleg]

Try Shadowgrounds, it's an awesome indie game (also on Steam). It reminds me of the *very* old Crusader series from like 1994 only with better graphics and cool physics. I played the whole thing through in like 8 or 10 hours but it was only $5 or so too.

Re:5 dollar game

[Ginger Unicorn]

you will want it, it's fucking awesome. It's the kind of game that is simple and addictive as hell and would work on an 8bit micro, but has HD 3D graphics. The best kind of game.

probably cut features to make the deadline

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible that this is a very cynical attempt to cash in. But to be fair, it is also likely that this was content that was cut at some point. In addition, if they were planning all along to charge for the content, they could have just left it off the disk and forced a long download on you.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:probably cut features to make the deadline

[Aphoxema]

This apparently isn't a patch, though. It's only a "key" to "unlock" the content already available and clearly capable of operating.

Re:probably cut features to make the deadline

[rxan]

It is unlikely that the data required to complete those features would total a few hundred kilobytes. This seems planned to me.

2k

[Ogive17]

After Borderlands I pretty much gave up on 2k. Sure the game was fun, but it was short. And within a couple months of release they were selling more content which didn't appear to add that much more to the length of the game.

I understand DLC is going to be more prevelant in the future, but I hope us gamers don't get hosed with unfinished games that the company requires an additional payment just to see all of the original content.

Re:2k

[Aphoxema]

DLC is a great idea, despite being unable to resell it. Expansions and sequels have always been a big deal, but clearly the producers don't want to play the same game that consumers do.

Some hard lessons are going to be learnt before DLC becomes a tool that is used fairly. Just wait until DLC becomes integral to gameplay instead of optional... THAT will piss off just a few people.

Re:2k

[spire3661]

It is integral now. Halo 3 multiplayer is a joke unless you continuously pony up money for new maps. Right now they are still selling $30 worth of maps for it.

Re:2k

[Lunix Nutcase]

Or you can just get a used copy of ODST and get all the multiplayer maps included.

Re:2k

[toastar]

This is one of the reasons I like Bad Company more then Modern Warfare.

When the first bad company came out multiplayer wasn't very good, I don't think it even had conquest mode. but today I pop in the game and it's pretty fun, I don't have to buy some crappy DLC to get the real online experience.

Compare this to CoD:W@W this game was actually pretty fun the day I bought it. But it only came with some of the content, Now there are 3-4 DLC's out and they want $10 bucks each. If I want to play a game today I have to wait in the Queue to get in a game for a map that I have, Also when the map ends you get a new random map from the DLC and you get booted back to the main window. I'm sorry the TCO(Total cost of owner ship) of this game is not worth $90!

The DLC issue is why I'll be buying bad company 2 instead of MW2

Re:2k

[spire3661]

Again, im ponying up money to play something i already paid for. This is not an equitable solution. I didnt love Halo 3 enough to pay more money for it.

Re:2k

[snowraver1]

Not true. About a month ago they changed the map rotation. Most gametypes now only need the original Halo 3 disc without any DLC. It appears that if the game detects that all players have additional maps available, that they will be included in the rotation though.

I think that they are trying to make people really bored of Halo 3 so that when Halo: Reach comes out, people will be so sick of Halo 3 that they will hop on the new version right away.

Re:2k

[Anonymous Coward]

The ending to prince of persia was sold as DLC after the game came out.

Re:2k

[sesshomaru]

I think that they are trying to make people really bored of Halo 3 so that when Halo: Reach comes out, people will be so sick of Halo 3 that they will hop on the new version right away.

Wow! A sequel to that boring, sickening game that I've been playing is coming out. I'd better jump right on that.

Re:2k

[Idiomatick]

I think DLC done right will be more like expansions.
- They gradually lower in price over time.
- People buying the game for the first time get all the current DLCs with the game.
- They will have to be decently large, or very unnecessary or else it will fragment the player base into nothingness.

In fact, pretty much exactly like expansions. The other kind of acceptable DLC of course is totally pointless stuff. 'Paint your skin green $1. Make your bow look like a machine gun $2...' These things I wholeheartedly accept, since they aren't needed. I don't know why the console industry didn't look at online games in asia where DLC supports a large corner of the market. They seem to mostly know wtf they are doing.

Re:2k

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not get too carried away raving about how BFBC2 did it better.

It came with some *day 1* content that can only be "activated" with one time key. Anyone who buys the game used or rents it has no access to the full game.

That is, until some unnamed date in future when they will decide to make keys available for sale.

Speaking of being boned by DLC

[zepo1a]

Dragon Age:

I got boned by that "Keep" DLC with the storage box. I made it to the top of the Keep, killed everything, on the way out I notice that Picture you click to make a chest pop out of the wall..I'm overloaded so, Hey I'll just bop down to the storage box, unload and come back.

NOPE! Since I "Beat" the Keep , the doors now no longer open, Chest lost forever. I was so pissed.

They could have just dumped that damn storage box at camp since the door to the keep was closed forever after you beat it. I paid for that damn Keep and now I can't enter it? What Bullshit.

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a free dev made storage box mod for the camp

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[sammy baby]

You weren't the only one who had keeping the spoils from the DLC.

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

No Quicksave? Autosave? I mean that sucks, but who just runs through an RPG without saving? :p

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[mathx314]

People playing roguelikes :)

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I never bothered with it. I just downloaded the free fan made loot chest which sits in your camp. Problem solved and I saved $5. The DLC for DA:O is pathetic.

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't get back into the keep then you missed a section of the quest, or killed everyone. It's supposed to become the new Warden headquarters if you do things right.

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC

[Tromad]

Wait, I haven't read much on Dragon Age because I'm still running through it, but you mean if I buy Warden's Keep, not only do I eventually not get to keep it as a castle, but I don't even get to keep access to the chest?

The reason some of us feel so "entitled" is because we used to get this stuff for free. Baldur's Gate II had what, 4 strongholds and universal storage? Also IIRC a huge 200pg book and cloth map, in the regular version of the game. Hell, at least Dragon Age came with some type of a book rather than just a PDF. I found it especially insulting though that in the manual it states something to the effect of "yah this manual is brief because it has to be". No, it doesn't, some games used to come with textbooks. Also, Dragon Age Awakening, a $40 expansion released 4 months after the game came out, just seems insulting.

"Trouble is brewing in Rapture"

[Anonymous Coward]

How long has someone been waiting to start a submission with that line?

Not surprised at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why people would feel happier paying for DLC that they feel came out after the game's release. If that were the overwhelming opinion then all companies would do is complete the DLC before the game was released (on the same schedule as before) and then artificially delay it for a couple of months.

That said, I love DLC, as it's what's prevented me from paying $50 for any new title. Nowadays I just wait a couple of years for a gold/platinum/complete/game of the year edition and pay $5-20 for a large amount of gameplay. I look forward to playing Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 in 2012 :)

Re:Not surprised at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you purchased your used flat panel tv yet?

Re:Not surprised at all

[ukyoCE]

There's a long tradition of game sequels. These are additional content that come out after the game's release - not that much different than DLC is it?

A big difference between pre-release and post-release content is that post-release content can take feedback into consideration in its development. Even if it starts during QA of the final game, the post-launch DLC can incorporate gameplay and content that players felt was lacking. Sequels often take the chance to remove annoyances and add more of what people liked. DLC can do the same thing.

Otherwise DLC is double dipping, gaming players with more money (or interest) into paying more for the same game. Like the Windows Home / Professional analogy someone made further up in this thread. But pre-release content being sold as DLC feels dishonest.

If they want to segment the market by removing game features, they should do it on release day with "light" and "full" versions of the game. There have been many "collector's edition" game releases, and no one felt particularly gypped by those, despite often costing $30+ more than the base game.

Re:Not surprised at all

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny you should mention that. I bought my *first* LCD monitor only a year ago (the 7-year-old CRT died). Managed to get a 24" 1920x1200 for $290, which I thought was a fair price considering there are no pixel-perfect guarantees.

My TV-watching TV is still a 26" CRT. I'm waiting until 3-D TV takes hold and hoping to get a 40-50" non-3-D model for a lot cheaper than they are now.

I'm not poor, I just know what I'm willing to pay for certain things.

Re:Not surprised at all

[metamatic]

That said, I love DLC, as it's what's prevented me from paying $50 for any new title.

Same here. It used to be, pay $50 at release, or wait a year and pay $20.

Now, it's pay $50 plus $20-40 for release plus DLC, or wait a year and pay $30.

Worse, the DLC reduces the resale value of the original full-price game if you want to sell it when you're finished with it.

Basically, they've massively increased the cost of buying the game when it's new.

Games I would have bought new, but won't because of the DLC, include Borderlands, Dragon Age, and probably Resident Evil 5.

Re:Not surprised at all

[mezron]

To me it feels like I'm paying $60 for the shareware version, then need to pay another $1 to $20 in little chunks to unlock all the features of the full version. I'll just wait a year or two then buy the "Game of the year" , fully tested, patched, unlocked version when its under $40.

Re:Not surprised at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that when the GOTY edition comes out 6 months to a year later, it's been coming up at full price, $50, rather than the $30 or so they had been.

Re:Not surprised at all

[odeland]

Nice. I do the same thing. I paid something around 8$ for the first Mass Effect during that Steam Holiday sale. I've paid more to drink a beer that goes down the bowl an hour later.

Isn't everyone getting what they are paying for?

[bondiblueos9]

Everyone who bought the game bought it because of itself, not because some extra content might be on the disc. Then if they wanted the additional content, they paid extra for it and they were able to use it. How does it matter that the content was just unlocked instead of downloaded when they get the same result either way? I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't understand the problem.

Haves and have nots.

[Chris Burke]

Of course you want everyone to be able to play games with people who have downloaded the DLC! Obviously, you want them to see what they're missing by being a "have not".

This reminds me of the Descent 3 expansion pack, which introduced a new choice of ship to the existing 3 models, which was pretty much superior in every way. Even if you didn't buy the expansion pack, you could still play with people who had it and see their ship in all it's black and multi-missile-launching glory -- I can't remember if it utilized the content downloading system to get the model or what. The point is, they made sure not to "split the player base" because that way those without the expansion could get their asses handed to them by the new ship and go "I want that!"

Not splitting the player base is good for everyone, I'm just saying there's another motive here and it involves pushing the DLC.

Insanity and Profits.

[Kaldesh]

This sort've thing drives me insane. DLC is a good idea in concept but in practice? You get results like this. You shouldn't have to pay any gaming company for additional content they included on the disc, it's madness, taken to another high level. I get severly annoyed with these gaming companies that release DLC 5 days after the game's out,a nd change 15 USD for it. Or the ones that release DLC that actually just fixes bugs in their game whilst adding very very little to the experience. Its one thing to add an expansion to your game, it's another thing to take content that should've been free that was already on the disc... and charge people to play it. I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.

Re:Insanity and Profits.

[Lunix Nutcase]

I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.

And I'd be willing to bet that 2k Games will then block any person from their servers who have done this.

Nothing new here. Move along.

[kriston]

Whether it's on the disc or downloadable, you're paying that money to license the software product.
I'm surprised that this could be news to anyone.

What, you say you didn't know that your Windows 7 disc has all five versions of Windows 7 on it, too?

You can't get blood out of stone. Pay your money or just don't play the game.

Funny

[The MAZZTer]

Is it just me or do I see more outrage than the time MS shipped all versions of Vista on a single disc, and it was only the product key you got (and the price you paid for it) that determined the edition it installed. If you skipped the product key it had to ask you which edition to install!

AFAIK they're still doing this with 7.

Re:Funny

[Aphoxema]

I guess the difference is with Microsoft you kind of expect to get fucked in the ass.

Re:Funny

[dunezone]

With Microsoft you are not paying for the software, you're paying for the license, that's why they ship all versions on one disc. Its cheaper on their part from a deployment stand point and manufacturing, but they had all versions of Windows 7 ready at day one and you could choose openly which license you wanted, this wasn't hidden from you and you had the option to purchase whatever version you wanted.

The problem here is that you purchased a game that had the game and the first DLC for it already available on the disc. This is acceptable and but seems like a slap to the face that they had a portion of the product ready (without your knowledge) and put it on your disc but now charging you to unlock it.

Of course the simple thing for them to do is not place the DLC on the disc and make you download it, but people will get pissed off that on day 1 their DLC already available.

Re:Funny

[PitaBred]

They're also complete and you know that when you get it. Calling it DLC and including it on the disk is straight up lying. Call it an unlock code, call it extra unlockable content, just don't call it downloadable content. It's the duplicity of the thing that has people's hackles up.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista/7 all on one disk makes somewhat sense though. They streamline their production into one single disk that is needed, and you simply unlock which version/features you got with your key. Most people don't need/care for most of the higher end features and can just simply get something like home premium and be happy. This is also super useful if you have a few keys but lose a cd somewhere, you can still just use any old cd with the same os on it.

Games however, are a different type of product. You pay for the game, thats how its been. DLC has always been considered something usually created a few months after the game is out to keep people coming back to the game. But now games are on a trend to release more and more DLC closer and closer to the release. Also DLC was often content that was originally wanted in the main product only to get cut along the way, and this is especially true for DLC that is released close to launch. Dragon Age had Stone Prisoner, which added a new character. You can spend 5 bucks, or you get it free if you bought the game new. He was originally planned, they cut him out due to time constraints, then they ended up having time to put him back in as DLC at the end. It even didn't make the disk burning.

What irritates me with this is that they had this DLC ready so far in advance they even got it burned to disk. Then you start to feel like they decided hey, lets charge extra for this part of the game that used to be given away for free.

Re:Funny

[cbhacking]

The main difference here is that they advertised, quite clearly, what you do or don't get at which prices. This is more like if you paid the full price (that the market would support) for Windows, thinking you were getting the full product, and only after installing did you find out that you only had Home and would need to pay even more (bringing the total cost to above the market price) for the full version.

That said, maybe my view of this is outdated because I don't consider DLC when determining the market price of a game. This is at least partly because I'm still of the mindset that DLC should be free. I expect that expansion sets which greatly increase the scope of a game will cost money, but I don't expect that a handful of multiplayer-only maps that introduce no new game mechanics will cost money. This may be why I have the expansions to both SC and WC3 (and dozens of maps made post-release by Blizzard, not to mention the maps made by community members) but the only song I got from the Rock Band music store was Still Alive... (in case anybody doesn't know, it's the only free song in the store).

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

A reasonable argument, but when you purchase a video game in a physical format you own the disc itself and have bought that copy of data itself which happens to be on a disc. There hasn't been so much of a transfer of intellectual property so much as there's been a transfer of product, particularly since no contract/EULA has been signed. Meanwhile, copies of Windows have all the versions on it because when you purchase a copy of Windows, you actually haven't done so, you've only bought a license to make use of the property indefinitely, and which version you use is specified, which is why you can download it so long as you have a key. You don't really own Windows, you just have the right to use it whenever you want and however you want so long as it doesn't break that EULA. That being said, when you purchase a game (not through a service like Steam) you have bought a disc and have signed no contract waving the rights to anything on the disc so people assume that this means that they own all of the content on the disc. It's hard to say who owns what when it exists in two formats when you own one of them but not the other. It's even harder when you have a physical item in your possession and every law we've had in the history of mankind and biology says that if you have something, you own it unless proven otherwise. And then, people are willing to fight tooth and nail when someone tries to tell them that they don't own something that they paid money for, even technically. I know that I would slam the door in their face if a Sony representative tried to repossess my PSP because I have administrative control over something I own. (And we all know that if they could, they would.) Microsoft gets away with it because they expressly stated that there were multiple things on the disc and you would only be allowed to use what you payed for. On the other hand, 2K implied that you own everything on the disc and then when you find out that you don't, tells you that you can't have what you already own, at least in the physical world. It's not actually illegal, but it's definitely a jerk move. Of course, you could say that you already own every version of Windows on the disc, but the case here is just more apparent since there's a very smoke-and-mirrors feeling, plus it's specifically stated that you don't get to use anything on the disc that you didn't buy. That's not even mentioning that it's unethical just to produce DLC along side a game with the express purpose of selling it for more money.

A lesson to be learned

[Carlos Rodriguez]

If customers succesfully manage to cause PR trouble for 2K over this, developers will have to take notice and they will never do this again with any other game: for subsequent releases, the 108kb key will be padded with 350MB of nothing. PR crisis averted!

Re:A lesson to be learned

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing easily compresses and would be quite noticeable. Better to pad with 350mb of random bits.

Re:A lesson to be learned

[BoppreH]

And don't forget to put a big sleep call to make the installing process look important. Unfortunately they wouldn't be the firsts to do that.

Re:A lesson to be learned

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh man, you just hit the nail on the head.

What's DLC stand for now?

[Zarrot]

Dick-over Legitimate Customers

Re:What's DLC stand for now?

[SIR_Taco]

No, it's actually DownLoadable Content.

Re:What's DLC stand for now?

[godrik]

I find it funny that it is the french acronym for "Best Before"

Re:What's DLC stand for now?

[Desirsar]

Be careful not to lose any hair as stuff goes flying over your head now.

Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I installed Windows 7 Home Premium with a disc that had all of the bits for Windows 7 Ultimate. Was I ripped off because the bits for the Ultimate edition were on the disk but I don't get to access them until I pay more? I don't think so. While this maybe challenged what people think of in terms of DLC it certainly isn't new to require someone to pay to unlock a "feature" that they already had the bits to.

Re:Windows

[Zarrot]

Your analogy is a little off... They produce one disk with all the versions but openly advertise different features with different versions. DLC is supposed to be additional content produced after the game goes gold/is released. It violates the spirit of what DLC is...it's extra. It's not part of the game held back so they can charge extra for it. To use your Windows example it would be like after installing if you wanted a network two PC's and had to purchase an additional feature pack to do it. Games cost almost 60 buck...game companies are crossing a line trying to milk their customers.

Re:Windows

[exomondo]

To use your Windows example it would be like after installing if you wanted a network two PC's and had to purchase an additional feature pack to do it.

No it isn't, because you expect that to be there. It's not as though people bought bioshock with the expectation that this DLC was included. It's more like if MS bundled the Office suite with Windows, only charged you for Windows but made you buy an additional license if you wanted to use office, is there a problem with that?

Sidestep

[Applekid]

So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?

All this outrage is going to do is to force developers to move that content off-disc so they can pretend they developed it outside the standard development cycle. You don't really think company execs will say "gee, we'd better provide better value," do you? Particularly when every other company jumps aboard?

Re:Sidestep

[Aphoxema]

So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?

They wouldn't have gotten caught and the question would never have concerned us. That makes it difficult to discuss what could have been.

In retrospect, it would have been the same bullshit, it just wouldn't have stirred the outrage.

Re:Sidestep

[Anonymous Coward]

The letters DLC are an acronym for DownLoadable Content. You aren't downloading any additional content, you are downloading an unlock code. In my books that is plain false advertising. ULC would be a more appropriate acronym to use.

Re:Sidestep

[Amarantine]

I'm not sure if they would be able to keep such a deceit up. Word would get out eventually, and i think it would do more harm than good, it clearly would show that there is something to hide, and it would even more look like a scam to separate the punters from their cash.

Sheeple

[Hohlraum]

will still pay for the damn thing. Gamers are some of the biggest mindless consumers there are right after the Apple fanatics :)

You get a few companies like Rockstar who release DLC which is basically the equivalent of an entire new game. That's the kind of DLC people want.

The funny thing is that DLC is a perfect way for publishers to make sure they will always get some $$ on used game sales. BUT savy people know that if you just wait 6-12 months you'll be able to buy the SE version of a game that includes all the DLC. Greed, it's what's for dinner.

Re:Sheeple

[Renraku]

I don't mind DLC usually. Like in the case of Borderlands. I liked the game, but it was enough for me. The bugs and the cheating really killed any hope of multiplayer that I had with the game. But the DLC idea was nice.

If they had tried to get me to pay for 'locked' areas that were already in the game, however, they wouldn't have gotten my money. Moreover, I would have returned the game if I could have and explained why. Games should NOT have DLC from day one unless it's a cheap game to begin with. Some free MMOs work on this system, and that's fine, because they're free to begin with. I'm not fucking paying $60 for a game and then realizing I STILL didn't get the complete game.

Re:Sheeple

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yeah, I might call them sheeple too, if there were a single rational argument against this practice. Remind me: who's rights are being infringed? Who's being inconvenienced? Who's the victim? If you can't answer those, at least tell me which law is being broken by 2K.

Oh right, I guess only sheeple think about these kind of questions.

Re:Sheeple

[Slashcrap]

Gamers are some of the biggest mindless consumers there are right after the Apple fanatics :)

Some people have paid good money for Ayn Rand books, so it's hardly fair to single out gamers and Apple fanatics as mindless consumers. I mean, fucking hell, we're talking orders of magnitude here people.

U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.

[Barryke]

I see people feel bad about this.

I wanted to say i dont get that, and dont feel that way at all about this DLC X being stored on the disc Y.
Don't act all surprised and sad now. Nothing new here. DLC is for making money, and its quite efficient this way.

Rationale:
its just some dusty bits named X that happened to be in your physical proximity because you once bought Y.
Plus the fact you bought X and got X. No problem there, except incorrect feeling of already owning X in the first place.
Wrong. You previously bought Y, not X.

Pull yourself together trolls and whiners..

Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.

[Monkeedude1212]

I'll repost Aphoxema's comment above, since it is the best Car Analogy for the scenario.

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money for me to take that lock off , would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

Can you understand it now? Can you understand that -having- content but being unable to use it as frustrating?

Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.

[Zerth]

What if I am selling a $1,000 piece of lab equipment, but sell it to you for $500 with $2 chip removed to disable the high-end features. That way I don't have to retool to produce a second version, and I can upgrade you with 5 minutes of soldering.

Given the choice of that, or a second model that costs $800 and can't be upgraded, which would make you feel more ripped-off?

I agree that on-disc DLC is a ripoff, but the comparison doesn't scale quite the same.

Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.

[Lemming Mark]

Situations like this irritate people because they're one of the most extreme embodiments so far of the true intent of DLC (and DRM, for that matter). People don't like being asked to pay money to buy incremental updates on something they paid a fairly decent amount for. And they don't like it when the incremental updates were available at release time but held back. When the updates that were held back were on the same disk it feels worse but it is still highlighting an eagerness to nickel-and-dime that the customers would object to anyhow, if it were sufficiently obvious.

Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It's pure appeal to emotion. There's no rational basis to this.

If I bought a car that was advertised without cupholders, I would expect nothing more than a car without cupholders. If I felt that I wanted a car with cupholders for the same price, I wouldn't have bought the friggin' car! I would take it as a bonus that I didn't have to wait at the mechanics for a cupholder to be installed (and still pay the premium, by the way), should I want cupholders installed in the car.

What this episode teaches 2K is that they should never try to optimise this process. If they want to distribute a DLC, they should never efficiently use the otherwise wasted space on the disk image. No, they should always subject people to a lengthy download period, so people can feel that they were previously deprived.

Can you understand that -having- content but being unable to use it as frustrating?

You don't have the content. Can you understand why not having any effort barrier to acquire the content may be simply a better way of doing things?

Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.

[Anonymous Coward]

which would make you feel more ripped-off?
The $1,000 version, because it's obviously only worth $502.

Complete scam

[thetoadwarrior]

Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk. Compatibility isn't a problem. An models that users don't have can default to something else just like the Quake games have always done.

It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.

If they can't afford to make these games then either their games aren't good enough of there is something fundamentally wrong with their business model and it needs to change so they don't have to nickel& dime people to death.

Let's not forget this game shipped some of it's development off shore to China where they almost certainly saved boats by paying those developers what is almost certainly a fraction of what they would have paid western developers.

Re:Complete scam

[Aphoxema]

Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk.

This is technically impractical, considering all sorts of resources might and often do end up on a game that aren't actually used. The "coffee" scene in GTA3 comes to mind.

Re:Complete scam

[Zanix]

This is why I don't play MMOs. If I pay $60 for a disk, I better get a game on it. If I then have to pay $15 a month to play the game I own, then it's a scam. If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine. Give me the game for free.

Re:Complete scam

[vlm]

It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.

Essentially its a false advertising argument.

You can play the game on this disk for $X. You pay $X. Ha Ha Sucker to play the game on this disk you have to pay an extra $5. Ha Ha Ha.

That's blatant false advertising. Like buying a steak at the store for a fair and agreed upon price, taking it home, opening the package, and discovering you actually have to pay even more to eat the entire steak.

Re:Complete scam

[Aphoxema]

This is why I don't play MMOs. If I pay $60 for a disk, I better get a game on it. If I then have to pay $15 a month to play the game I own, then it's a scam. If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine. Give me the game for free.

EVE Online does.

Re:Complete scam

[Anonymous Coward]

You can play the game on this disk for $X. You pay $X. Ha Ha Sucker to play the game on this disk you have to pay an extra $5. Ha Ha Ha.

(emphasis, obviously, mine)

Let me play devil's advocate for a second here: When did they say "you can play the game on this disk for $X"? Rather, did they say "you can play the game for $X", without any "on this disk" qualifier? Can you define where "the game" and "the disk" are, legally? Or are you simply assuming that because you're holding something, that means you deserve complete ownership, support, and access to absolutely everything in that object? And if so, why?

I'm not disagreeing with you; this was a terribly sleazy thing to do on 2K's part, there's no ethical reason for it, and now I'm more glad I never bought the game, nor do I plan on doing business with them. What I AM doing, however, is challenging you to come up with a concrete argument against it (or a legal argument against it), and not an argument that boils down to a presumption of arbitrary entitlement from a company solely because you threw $X at it.

You can't litigate lawful evil to death, is what I'm saying. You need a better plan.

Re:Complete scam

[shutdown -p now]

It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.

"Cheaper" then what, though?

If they offered the game $10 cheaper, do you seriously think there wouldn't be all that outrage, with people saying that "it would have been fine if it wasn't cheaper"?

Don't get me wrong - I fully understand the argument... but who decides what the fair price for the content that you get without DLC is? Since you claim that you want it to be "illegal", someone aside from developers will have to do so.

I say, let the market settle this. If people feel that the content they get without buying DLC to unlock extras is worth the price that's being asked for it, then what's the problem?

Re:Complete scam

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine. Give me the game for free.

EVE Online does.

Except for that whole "pay $5 extra the first month" thing.

Re:Complete scam

[Aphoxema]

Well, that's better than 60 I suppose.

Re:Complete scam

[thetoadwarrior]

Take a look at the acronym DLC, it stands for downloadable content. You're not really downloading the content at all. It's there already. I do considering that deceptive and as I said I consider it just a tactic to bump the price of the game up after you've bought it.

At least with real DLC the price is justified by the bandwidth costs and additional development time. They aren't footing a bill for downloading the content and if it's on the disk then it's not really additional development.

I'm not saying I'd like it if it was cheaper. It would still be dodgy, imo. Like the example given earlier with Windows Vista. While all versions may be on the disk, at least it has variable pricing depending on how much content you use with a one off payment.

If they want to do that fine but label the game as containing content which has to be unlock for a price or at the very least don't call it DLC.

They know most people wouldn't not be impressed at all by this tactic so rather than being honest and letting the market decide, they've masked their moves hoping most people wouldn't figure it out.

Re:Complete scam

[thetoadwarrior]

If it's called DLC and you don't actually download the content then you're not buying DLC.

http://www.destructoid.com/bioshock-2-dlc-confirmed-160747.phtml

A recent interview has confirmed that BioShock 2 will be receiving downloadable content after it launches next month. According to 2K Marin's Kent Hudson, the studio is working on some "aggressive" DLC plans as we speak.

"Absolutely," says Hudson, when asked if DLC is coming. "We are working on pretty aggressive plans for DLC and that’s actually something that is already underway. That is something that is mostly being run out of the Marin studio because like I said the Australian studio is already ramping up on the next big thing."

So far, nothing has been detailed, so we've no idea what form this DLC may take. The original BioShock released a new difficulty level along with some brand new Plasmids. With BioShock 2 containing multiplayer and 2K Games ready to make as much cash as possible, who knows what treats are in store for our wallets?

He repeatedly called it DLC and said downloadable content. The implication is clear that you are purchasing content grabbed from a server and not an unlock code.

What reason would they have to cause this confusion other than to deceive people knowing full well they would not go for it.

You can debate what the $60 buys you when you purchase the game. That's fine and I'm fine with them selling unlock codes but they should have to be completely honest and at the very least no call it DLC because it is not.

I would consider deceptive advertising and, assuming this site can be considered a valid source then yes it is deceptive marketing: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deceptive+marketing

I dont know...

[Reapy]

who to be more angry with, the company, or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again.

Re:I dont know...

[waspleg]

if i had mod points you would get them sir.

Re:I dont know...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Tell me: how has 2K victimised you?

Did they infringe any of your rights? Well, no. You have no obligation to buy from them.

Assuming that you did buy from them, did they infringe any of your rights, or at least inconvenience you in some way? No, you still have the same game, pixel for pixel. You were given what exactly what you paid for, no more, no less. Oh, except for a, for all intents and purposes, useless block of data on the disc that you were never going to access anyway.

Assuming you did buy from them, and you wanted to buy the DLC, did they ... yada yada yada? Hmm, still no. The price, the transaction, all of it is the same. The only difference is that you don't have to download the data in order to play it. How cool is that!?

The only possible way you could feel victimised after this is if you believe that you are entitled to play the DLC for free, just for buying the original game. All I can say is that this mentality doesn't lead to better, more extensive games for the same price, rather it just leads to games being more limited or games being more expensive.

How is this new?

[Amarantine]

I seem to remember that the so-called DLC for EA games years ago (Madden NFL 06, Godfather, Need For Speed) also took 100KB to download on an Xbox 360. This was 4 years ago. Did nobody wonder back then how they fitted entire football arenas, weapon arsenals and sportscars in just a few thousand bytes?

Gamers' bill of rights?

[Gizzmonic]

Gamers are getting shafted more and more these days.

I think we should bond together and form some kind of consumer advocacy group, maybe offer some kind of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" type trade mark for compliant games.

Here's what I would put in my own bill of rights:

1)Right to resell games - either on virtual games or real, at a price that I set.

2)Ability to play my game at a friend's house without having to redownload (there are broadband caps, you know-and the next generation of consoles probably won't even have a disc player).

3)No DLC that is on the physical disk.

4)No DRM. That is not to be confused with copy protection measures as it so often is on Slashdot. I mean actual DRM, where the OS enforces whether or not a game is "pirated."

These are my rules, what do you think?

dont be silly

[unity100]

They have the right to choose to do business this way

they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.

its selling an incomplete product. its basic fraud. these are now legal because we let them do so - they sell a 'game', but the definition of amenities in the game are not defined in detail, and also a shitty 'game experience may change' dropped into eula. this covers their ass from selling an incomplete product. it shouldnt happen.

Re:dont be silly

[Aphoxema]

Well, they did sell a functioning product, and what they essentially did was lock out an existing feature. No one really complained when GTA3 didn't have access to "coffee", but they didn't release a DLC the same day allowing you to unlock that "existing feature" in the game.

Re:dont be silly

[fotbr]

No, it's more like selling a car, and then directing you to the performance parts department where you can purchase add-on parts that were developed prior-to and available at the time of purchase.

My truck didn't come with a supercharger, but the manufacturer had a factory-produced, dealer-installed, covered-by-the-standard-100k-warranty option available as an extra. Is the supercharger necessary? No. Is it desirable? Depends on the buyer.

Re:dont be silly

[Dishevel]

They already do that. AC, Power Door Locks, Sunroof, Matching Paint of the mirrors.

Re:dont be silly

[Carrot007]

You are halfway right.

It's more like having the supercharger in already but taking the fuse out and charging to thousands to fit the fuse.

You know like the old tv's (sont was it not) that just needed a resistor putting in to "upgrade" it to the top end model.

Re:dont be silly

[fotbr]

No, it's not. So it was on the disk, but that's irrelevant. You're not entitled to everything on the disk when you bought the license for the game. It's called an add-on, or an optional component, or "DLC", and it costs extra.

Re:dont be silly

[regular_gonzalez]

No, it's like buying Windows Home Premium for $120 and finding out that hey! it also has Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate on that disc. I mean they already did the work before it even shipped, but if I find out later that Windows 7 Professional is the version I really wanted, I'd have to pay to upgrade. How come I can't just install Windows 7 Ultimate instead?



The answer will blow your mind. It's because you didn't pay for it.

Re:dont be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

So it was on the disk, but that's irrelevant.

No, no it isn't. When you buy the disk, you own the disk and everything on it - you shouldn't have to pay extra for content that's already yours.

Re:dont be silly

[Anonymous Coward]

They have the right to choose to do business this way

they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.

--

Furniture stores do something like this a lot - at least the ones where I live. You buy a dresser and the n the drawers are separate, or a table whose matching chairs X dollars each and the table seats four for example.

Re:dont be silly

[unity100]

yea you do, but you KNOW that you are buying a dresser's separate part, and can add the others on.

in this you dont know whats locked out, what functions are guaranteed and what not.

Re:dont be silly

[dmneoblade]

I bought the disk. I am holding the disk. Why are you saying that I do not have the right to use all the ones and zeros that are on the disk I purchased? I believe the purchase of these ones and zeros does, in fact, entitle me to all of them.

I'm sorry, what?

[Dorkmaster Flek]

So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code? Sounds to me like your game is broken. Why the hell can't you make it work so that I can play with my friend who has the DLC when I don't? As long as we're not using the new DLC maps/weapons/whatever, that shouldn't be a problem. Admittedly, I haven't played Bioshock 2 and I don't know exactly how the multiplayer works, but that sure sounds like a bullshit excuse to me.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Aphoxema]

So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code?

This isn't really as far-fetched as it sounds, and the key here is having the resources available for all players. For example, if I had a big, silly hat on that I paid for because I wanted others to see it in multiplayer, without that resource on your game installation you wouldn't be able to see it and I wouldn't get to show off. This is the case with the costume packs in RE5.

The issue here is not that there's some inconsistency, but that this stuff was already complete and available at an additional fee. This wasn't a patch introduced later, it was already done.

So they're probably telling the truth in every way, and that's where the bullshit lies.

lsl:mcl

[Anonymous Coward]

this is nothing compared to how badly pre-order buyers of Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude got burned. first the pre-order was supposed to come with a bonus cd, instead there was just a little slip of paper where the cd should be saying to visit a web site that just had censored versions of the promo wallpapers. the much other thing they did was much worse, the game was promoted as having nudity which was why people pre-ordered, what the customers actually got (at least in america) was a hollow shell with most of the content stripped out and giant censored panels over what was left. shortly after they advertised an "uncut and uncensored" version for online purchase only. i don't know if that version lived up to the promise since i wasn't going to get burned again for a product i had already bought. scams like this, computer games with viruses (psychotoxic, anything touched by sony, etc), bad drm, and games that unnecessarily require net (beyond good and evil)(the money i now spend on net used to be part of my gaming budget) resulted in me finally giving up on purchased games. so when they burned me the industry lost a 100$ a week customer. now i mainly play pbbg's and flash games

I don't mind paying for expansions

[GodfatherofSoul]

In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games. But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman. I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.

Re:I don't mind paying for expansions

[Aphoxema]

In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games. But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman. I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.

What this does sort of say is they weren't concerned about impressing the customer at all, just buy the fucking game.

Re:Nothing new here. Move along.

[Demonantis]

This kind of shenanigans is always done in the corporate world. You can buy servers that require a simple piece of paper to run more cores, but the components are already in place. The car example even covers this with the hooded gas tanks to change the amount of gas you can put in the car. The car company is actually physically adding something to the vehicle to place it in the "unupgraded" state. Companies do this all the time. What is ridiculous is that software would get special treatment under the law in these respects. I wonder if the license disallows cracking the DLC you have technically already purchased the code in a physical sense. The one that I think would stop that would be modification limitations, but maybe not?

Hot Coffee Anyone?

[WebmasterNeal]

Ah, if the hidden content would have been the Hot Coffee portion of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas there would be a much different reaction to this. I guess its not the first time a product has been shipped 110% complete.

Re:Hot Coffee Anyone?

[mister_playboy]

How is that similar? Was Rockstar charging $5 for access to Hot Coffee?

Hot Coffee was lazy QA, letting naughty demo code slip into the retail release. It could have even been an intentional easter egg to stir up controversy. This is just a money grab.

New content

[phorm]

And in some sense it may still be "incomplete" content. Perhaps they had the game base up, and while testing or whatever is going on they also have some "expansion" content being developed. It's not fully done, but they're fairly sure of much of it (say, the graphics or whatever), but there are still some bugs in the AI scripting, whatever.

The core game is done, but you don't want to release the extra bits yet because they haven't been tested. So you segregate them from the game, but keep the files on disk so that only the last few pieces - maybe a patch or whatever - need to be applied to make it usable and ready for sale.

I haven't played BS2 so I don't really know all of what's in this pack, but really if the game is fully playable through to a definitive end-of-plot, then I don't see what the big deal is. Either I'm willing to shell out a few bucks for a bit more - however it happens to be packaged/delivered - or I'm not. Now if the content is cut from the game itself so that it's noticeably incomplete, that's different, but it doesn't seem to say whether this is the case or not.

Waters are being tested

[MisterJones]

This whole thing is interesting to me. I think we're sort of watching a paradigm shift in the way publishers and consumers interact.

Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter? Everyone who purchased a copy of the game knew what they were getting into. They willingly exchanged money for the game as it was. This unlock was not included in that transaction. Then, the publisher asks people to pay more money for additional content. People decide whether or not they want that content.

However, we have this notion that once we've bought a 'thing' we should have full access to it. I like this idea, personally. I think most of us here do. When they reveal that you bought the disc, and it had the content ready to go and you are locked out, that's evil.

However, if they did the same thing but shipped it without this content on the disc, that would be OK? If they COULD have put it on the disc, but they didn't - does the publisher have an obligation to release the content if it is finished? I think that gets a bit more gray.

What if they finished this the week after the disc shipped? Is that OK?

Is it that we're theoretically 'covering the cost' of the development of the game with our $60 or $50? And then the price of DLC is an incentive for them to continue expanding the game? On the other hand, they delivered a game in a state that you can choose to buy or not. What is hidden in the disc's dead space is of little concern, right?

DLC has caused some interesting ethical and financial quandries. One the one hand, it seems like game prices are going up by degrees. We're paying $60 for a game, PLUS another $5 here and $10 there. Some games, especially multiplayer titles, may cost you upwards of $100 by the time you're finished. Are we getting our money's worth? Are we getting a good deal for our gaming value? At the same time, do publishers have an obligation to tell us up front what we're getting into: ie, you will pay $60 for this game and an estimated $x/interval for DLC in order to have the 'complete' experience.

Not to mention the whole 'project $10' initiative - where there's a code in the box that you can only use once, and it locks used owners out of content that you would otherwise have to pay for as DLC...

Complicating matters is that there's not any competition in the market - if you want a COD:MW2 map, for instance, you're getting it from IW/Activision/MS Live. There's not a competitor that can sell you a similar product at a competitive price.

I think the future is going to be full of more of these practices. And, by and large, the average gamer is going to be oblivious.

Re:Waters are being tested

[JMatopos]

"Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter?"

Interesting point. I suppose the fact that it was present on the disc doesn't matter - rather the fact that they are charging extra for something that you might reasonably expect to be included with the original game matters - but then, perhaps you just wouldn't want to buy the game in the first place with this in mind.

Another economic point is that if the original game is worth $50, then is it worth paying $5 for a couple of extra maps? Perhaps - from the developers' point of view, it probably didn't take anywhere near as long to develop the DLC as write the game, so extra profits can be gleaned by adding DLC. From the gamers' point of view, extra maps may give more than a 10% (5 into 50) increase in playtime. So in terms of cost versus benefit, both parties may be better off for it.

Personally though I think the worrisome thing is that if DLC becomes the norm, we may end up buying games that are effectively unfinished.

Re:Waters are being tested

[opposabledumbs]

Or effectively a demo-style release, playable from start to finish and with a full feature set as advertised on the box, but missing the cool bits that actually make the game. I noticed this with some of the racing games I had on xbox 360 - many of the cars are not included in the initial release, and you have to buy them later: what the hell is the point of a car racing game without cars?

Re:Waters are being tested

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this may be a valid business decision: Sony charges the publisher for distributing DLC, so it makes sense to keep it small.

Shareware

[Torodung]

Wasn't this the same basic concept behind "shareware?" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times, many years ago. So long as the game is complete, and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box, does it really matter where the data comes from?

--
Toro

Re:Shareware

[Aphoxema]

Wasn't this the same basic concept behind "shareware?" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times, many years ago. So long as the game is complete, and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box, does it really matter where the data comes from?

-- Toro

Not quite, at least not always. Many games, like Wolfenstein, didn't have the resources available and buying the complete game provided those resources. A lot of shareware software worked differently where a registration code was all that was necessary to make existing content available.

What is unique about this particular event is that there was an expectation for a complete game, but part of that game was intentionally "held hostage" until you paid for it. In essence, you have to buy the same thing twice, like when you "upgrade" Vista/Seven.

The part that's bullshit is they seem to think it's cool to play it like this. If they thought it was such a wonderful feature in the first place, they ought to have just charged 5 more dollars for the game in the first place.

They charged a non-competitive price for the game, and then turn around and expect people to pay even more than the typical price of a game to get something that wouldn't take any more work to create and distribute.

Re:Shareware

[exomondo]

What is unique about this particular event is that there was an expectation for a complete game, but part of that game was intentionally "held hostage" until you paid for it.

But you got the complete game! You didn't expect this additional DLC and if it were delivered over the net you wouldn't have had an issue with it. If you didn't look at the time taken by the installer or the disk space used you wouldn't have even known about it!

If they thought it was such a wonderful feature in the first place, they ought to have just charged 5 more dollars for the game in the first place.

So that would've been ok too? Then you would've had people complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a premium for a feature they didn't want, it never ends. You clearly don't have an issue with DLC or the cost so your only issue is the delivery method...WTF?!

Re:Shareware

[Aphoxema]

But you got the complete game! You didn't expect this additional DLC and if it were delivered over the net you wouldn't have had an issue with it. If you didn't look at the time taken by the installer or the disk space used you wouldn't have even known about it!

Yes, I know I'm basically asking that they try to uphold some masquerade; they've shown a lack of respect for their consumers and audience by taking the "downloadable" out of "downloadable content".

So that would've been ok too? Then you would've had people complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a premium for a feature they didn't want, it never ends. You clearly don't have an issue with DLC or the cost so your only issue is the delivery method...WTF?!

It is an extremely complicated issue, but why should developers ever plan on DLC instead of shelf price as a definite source of income? Where can it stop that a game is endlessly segmented into features "people might not want" while the base package is still 60 dollars and several dozen DLC come out offering to pay for integral parts of the artistic experience that are already given out on the disk.

It's a trudge through muddy waters and 2k just made the water deeper.

Re:Shareware

[exomondo]

Where can it stop that a game is endlessly segmented into features "people might not want" while the base package is still 60 dollars and several dozen DLC come out offering to pay for integral parts of the artistic experience that are already given out on the disk.

Well what about when there is a new multiplayer DLC, you need to either segment the user-base (those who have the content update and those who do not), or you force a patch on everyone to keep the user-base unified but only those who have paid for the content can actually use it. The former would annoy users and the latter is basically what they have done here, what's the problem with that?

Whether or not you agree with the DLC concept or it's pricing is not relevant for this discussion.

Re:Shareware

[Aphoxema]

Well what about when there is a new multiplayer DLC, you need to either segment the user-base (those who have the content update and those who do not), or you force a patch on everyone to keep the user-base unified but only those who have paid for the content can actually use it. The former would annoy users and the latter is basically what they have done here, what's the problem with that?

Whether or not you agree with the DLC concept or it's pricing is not relevant for this discussion.

"Splitting the user base" isn't what I'm complaining about, and I can't even agree or not with the concept of DLC because obviously since there's so much discussion over this event what the concept of DLC is even supposed to be isn't even something we can agree upon!

My problem here is, since you didn't understand the first time, is that developers are learning they can sell you the same thing they used to sell for 60 dollars now for 60 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 2 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 10 dollars, and 10 dollars, and whatever else they want thanks to the perverse incentives of DLC.

Re:Shareware

[exomondo]

My problem here is, since you didn't understand the first time, is that developers are learning they can sell you the same thing they used to sell for 60 dollars now for 60 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 2 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 10 dollars, and 10 dollars, and whatever else they want thanks to the perverse incentives of DLC.

Well that's another issue, whether this additional content is actually additional content or part of the originally described product. Previously expansions came in the form of ~1/3 priced products, now they come in even smaller form, what's the problem with that? Did you find that the game was incomplete in it's original form? If not then there is no issue, you got what you expected for your $60. So far i haven't found any game that actually requires paid DLC to make it the full product i expected it to be from the outset. You make the claim that it's $60 + additional costs for the same product that didn't include those additional costs but i don't see any proof of that, it looks more like additional costs for additional content.

Personally i found Bioshock 2 to be a full and complete game, exactly what i originally paid for. Im not interested in this add-on, but im certainly not sour about not getting it for free.

Re:Shareware

[Aphoxema]

What I'm suggesting is the "slippery slope". I remembering there being a big fuss when games started to leave out a real ending for a "to be continued", especially with XIII that never was continued. Now it's almost mandatory that every game is broken into a trilogy.

I'm sure Bioshock 2 is awesome and I look forward to playing it sometime, but what I fear here is that this will pave the way for mainstream game developers to go a step further and not only expect to make more money from DLC, but plan the entirety of the experience around it.

I can't say that by agreeing with this event that you're agreeing with handing out every minute of a game 5 dollars at a time, but can you not see the concern I have with this?

Revolutionary Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I am of the opinion that if you own the disc, you should own *everything* on the disc.

I know this is a little bit of crazy talk, but it just might work.

Nothing new.

[MaWeiTao]

This is not a test. This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now. 2K was just following standard procedure. Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.

I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them. They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles. They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game. Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us. Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.

If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes. They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line. As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints. This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.

Re:Nothing new.

[Totenglocke]

Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us.

Consumers and publishers / developers alike know that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (hence why DRM never stops piracy) - it's about killing used game sales / intentionally breaking the game in a few years so force the moronic masses to buy the next version of the game instead of playing the old game.

Re:Nothing new.

[CaseM]

If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes.

That would be a splendid idea if the back of the case said "Some content on this disc must be purchased before it is unlocked", but they don't, do they? Many people have already purchased the game and are just finding out now that 2K was planning on doing this the entire time. And since they don't accept returns of opened content, you now have no way of boycotting the game a posteriori.

Re:Nothing new.

[CaseM]

It's bad form to reply to yourself, but it occurs to me that the intent of the publisher is what irks most people. Make me download the content later, I don't care. I want to be fooled. Just make me feel like you've done something to deserve an additional $5 beyond the fact that you merely culled out content in some boardroom decision 6 months ago in view of this day. At least fucking try to look like there's some good will there, that's all I ask.

What's the problem?

[samael]

You agreed to pay for content X. Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum. When they wrote Y, and how they deliver it to you is _none of your business_.

Re:What's the problem?

[Aphoxema]

You agreed to pay for content X. Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum. When they wrote Y, and how they deliver it to you is _none of your business_.

But it's already on my computer, does that too mean that what is on my computer is of no relevance to me?

Re:Nothing new here. Move along.

[Lemming Mark]

The reason it seems so irksome in this case whereas people are OK with the Windows situation is that you know upfront that you're buying one version of windows that has a certain number of features, from a list the company offered you. When the company drip feeds extra features to you at extra charge it interferes with the normal way people judge value, so they feel swindled, hence a general dislike of DLC. But DLC isn't as bad as it could be - at least you're getting extra content that wasn't available before. When it turns out that the "new" content isn't actually new development work, it feels like you're being exploited.

Improvements?

[guysmilee]

So will user feedback be included in the update? Will the game be any better? I expect no on both accounts. Sounds like someone needs to take some lessons from Valve.

Licenses

[Rizz]

So if the $60 I spent for the 360 version lets me use and transfer the license for the content that's provided by the game developer and the distributor (i.e., I can sell the CD on the used market), shouldn't the DLC license also be transferable as I already posses the physical media with said content?

Honestly, I don't mind paying for the DLCs. I just wish they had been up front about how they were being distributed -- they've lost some of my trust simply because they didn't disclose the method they were planning to use.

This isn't new....

[master811]

This isn't new, IIRC, the same was done with Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5.

Re:This isn't new....

[Aphoxema]

I believe the DLC was introduced with a patch.

DLC almost always sucks.

[drej]

Yes, this is complete and utter bullshit. But in my opinion DLC is almost always some form of ripoff, because most developers are "doing it wrong". Nowadays it's become usual practice to announce DLC even BEFORE the game is out. Sure, it lets the customer know that the developers will continue supporting the game after it's released - but seriously, who in their right mind would think that games like Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2 *won't* receive any DLC? If the developers are already working on the content for the DLC along with the main game they should either a) push back the release date a little and integrate it into the main game or b) release the game and then offer the DLC for free when it's ready, like it was done with the first Bad Company (the Conquest Mode was included later). There should be a rule as to when DLC is allowed to be published - I assume everyone would love to download some more dungeons for Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess, but paying for DLC the day the main game is released (see Dragon Age) it just a complete fuckover for the customer. And when the content is already on the disc...well, fuck you, developers. I'm not gonna pay for something I already own.

Reason: Kill second sale

[Tei]

This type of DLC that is included in the box is not new, theres also some in Mass Effect 2. Is included as a bonus for these people that have buy the game AND have pay the game. Good people buy it, pirates pirate it, friends and brothers can't have it. If you sell the game, will *not* have it. Is a way to make part of the game "server side".

Another car analogy and a computer analogy

[lullabud]

I don't think your car analogy works exactly. The CD is a deliver mechanism for the content, it is not the feature itself. You merely use the CD to get the game. The game is what you're paying for, not the disc itself.

Imagine you bought a car and had somebody deliver it to your house, and they brought it on a truck that had extra sport racing tires stored in it. They give you the keys to the car and say "if you pay $5 more you can get these nifty tires, but the car works just fine without them. they're just an add-on that we thought you might like so we brought it along."

Better yet, imagine you buy a brand new computer and it comes loaded with software, but you have to pay for it in order to get the full version... oh wait, you probably don't have to imagine that because most people have already done that.

I really don't think it's a problem that they are using the disc to store additional stuff that you may enjoy but haven't paid for yet. The original Quake CD did this with every single game Id had ever made (and was also cracked to get free access to those games, but that's a digression.)

Would you rather not have the content be there and have to go to the store and buy another CD? How many game CD's have you lost over the years? By shipping both of these products on the same disc, that's -1 potentially lost game CD.

I have never played Bioshock or Bioshock 2, but I do not see a problem with filling an optical disc with additional software that you have the option to pay for.

Who cares?

[PopeRatzo]

I don't see multiplayer as being much of a big deal for Bioshock 2. There are just too many great games that were made for multiplayer, instead of a game like Bioshock, where multiplayer was clearly an afterthought.

A lot of people who haven't yet bought Bioshock are just going to see if maybe there's a scene release of the single-payer instead of enriching a company that has such hostility toward their customers.

I'm not condoning it, but I can understand it.

Vote with your pocket book

[Dan667]

I stopped buying anything from EA when they started doing things like this and I did not buy Bioshock 2 because I heard 2K was going to start doing this. Glad I did.

Jimmy

[ArundelCastle]

How about this...
What if Starcraft 2 had all three campaigns on one disc (size of the disc being irrelevant), and you had to buy a $60 key to unlock each one? Let's assume it's actually $60 worth of content, but you still have to wait 3 months before playing each campaign. Doesn't that feel just a bit shady? And if so, why does it feel less shady if it's just $5?

I wasn't too fussed about buying BS2, and now I'm in no hurry at all. Last time I checked, renting wasn't pirating, so I'll probably give the DiscExperience^TM a go when I've got time.

If these buggers want to go episodic... just go episodic.

STFU

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep sucking that corporate cock, dumbfuck. Taking as much as you can while giving as little as possible is something you consider admirable in a corporation, but despicable in your fellow citizens.

We don't play the bullshit legal game because it has been rigged by the law-purchasing corporations against us as individuals. Just because you have been mislead by propaganda into thinking this situation where legal might makes ethical right is sensible does not mean the rest of us have.

I shall take what I can until someone forcible stops me. I shall become as a corporation, holiest of all of man's creations. All hail capitalism, high priest to the god of money.

Corruption without, corruption within.

Re:STFU

[jim_v2000]

>Taking as much as you can while giving as little as possible is something you consider admirable in a corporation, but despicable in your fellow citizens.

Actually, I prefer that everyone deal fairly with each other and only take that which they are due.

>Just because you have been mislead by propaganda into thinking this situation where legal might makes ethical right is sensible does not mean the rest of us have.

You realize that we're talking about whether or not you buy a game, right? You know, dealings between private parties? Not the war in Iraq or Prohibition or something, right?

10 dollar game

[BikeHelmet]

Yep, TF2 is definitely the best $10 game I ever bought. I've gotten a lot of fun out of that game!

Assassin's Creed 2 deserves a mention here

[Anonymous Coward]

The DLC in Assassin's Creed 2 is very obviously held back from the game. They are chapters ripped right out of the late-middle of the game. The main character even grows a beard for a very specific reason in the DLC and he just suddenly has a beard in the game. There's even a map icon that is never used and suddenly with the DLC there it is.

That said the game is truly massive in scope. It's a real pity they did the DLC by redacting kep parts of the main plot.

Arsehats

[Carrot007]

To be honest I am against thius as much as the average sane rest of you.

However the thing that pees me off most is trhe use of the term DLC.

If they called it "pay for additional features" then it would not be half as bad in my view.

DLC is downloadable add ons.

Additional featues are things you pay to enable that are already there.

Personally I like neither, I just however would like the abuse of langage to stop.

5 dollar Pokemon.

[Anonymous Coward]

"DLC is a great concept but has turned into such a cash cow that companies are now developing the game and DLC at the same time so to increase their revenue pipeline in a shorter span of time. Its smart from a revenue perspective but the $5 here and the $5 there is starting to add up and to a customer perspective we feel like were getting screwed. "

The only people who feel they're being screwed are those who believe they have to have it all. Those who have the fortitude to pick and choose will not suffer so much from the "they're nickle and diming me". Also the idea of having extra content locked onto the disc is actually quite old. I have VB6 software discs like that.

Price Elasticity is a GOOD thing!

[fullfactorial]

This is a classic example of Price Elasticity, and it's actually GOOD for gamers. Managing the demand curve is how game companies stay in business.

Price Elasticity is simple: different people are willing to pay more/less for the same thing. Gamers are already familiar with this; it's why prices drop over time. At launch a new game sells to people who think it's worth $60. Over time, the price drops so they can sell the game to people who don't think it's worth $60 -- first to the $40 folks, then the $30 folks, and finally the $20 folks. DLC is just another way to recoup the investment of making a game (and hopefully turn a profit). You create additional content, and sell it to the people who are willing to pay for it.

Complaining about content on the disc is just idiotic--who cares where it is? Would it be better if Bioshock 2 padded the 24kb with an extra 20mb? The only valid complaint (and the only complaint developers and publishers will listen to), is that the base game was unsatisfying or felt incomplete without the DLC. And I haven't heard a single person say that.

Re:Price Elasticity is a GOOD thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about poor Australians ? We pay $99.99 for Bioshock 2. According to currency conversion that's still over $91USD. So we've already paid $60 + 30 + 1 and we still don't have that $5 bit that was already on the disc. That's bullshit.

Re:Price Elasticity is a GOOD thing!

[mjwx]

This is a classic example of Price Elasticity, and it's actually GOOD for gamers if it ever existed.

There, fixed that for you.

DLC is not Price Elasticity because the price of the original game does not change one iota. It still costs me A$80 to by a PC game locally no matter how much DLC available for it, it does not matter which PC game this is or who published it they are all the same price. Most markets call this price fixing and is illegal. Price Elasticity is when price fluctuate due to changes in market conditions, this does not happen with games and media products in general.

What DLC is, is nickel and diming customers.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Isn't everyone getting what they are paying for

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't really make any difference from a practical point of view. But it is a sign of the corporitization of the gaming industry that many are upset about. The feeling is that developers used to spend their time creating the best product they could. Now they only spend a fraction of the time doing that, and another fraction of their time doing DLC. Sure, they say that you got the "whole" product, but compared to what it could have been it is an inferior product at a higher cost.

Bullshit

[waspleg]

Okay Mr. Blizzard Troll Fanboy, I'll bite.

Blizzard (possibly the most evil gaming company to convert from awesome indie hood to 1984), will almost definitely try to do tiered access the same way they do with WoW, oh you didn't buy the expansion? Well you don't have to, but you will be the handicapped of Azeroth with no special parking, to the point that not buying the expansions means you've completely wasted all the time money you DID invest. I notice you didn't provide a link to your assertion so I'll just spout my opinion the same as you.

In addition, the most purchased game EVER, Modern Warfare 2, does and did have a $60 MSRP, and is still selling as such on Steam and probably elsewhere. No, I don't own it; nor will I.

I am an avid, long time gamer (25+ years), I supported Blizzard from Blackthorne on 3.5" floppy to WoW; never again. They've proven money is more important to them than anything else, their customer service is abysmal, their inflated monthly fees for a 5+ year old game are sad, they're pro-censorship and anti-freedom at every level. Their enormous Asian market keeps them afloat I'd wager. Yes, they have polished releases where almost no one else does. That's the one thing they have left, I wonder how long before it goes too. Once bitten twice shy? I got sick of re-buying scratched games and whatnot.

It seems like they will be milking the SC2 and Diablo III releases for as much as they can. I would rather seem them charge $80 or $100 up front and include everything than do something insidious like this which contributes to the DLC debauchery, which I think is wrong generally, as has already been posted, developers are now leaving things out on purpose to charge for them later.

I used to scoff at people who said PC gaming was dying. I've since sadly joined their ranks.

ps, fuck karma.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

http://starcraft2.com/faq.xml
They're not going to have "tiered access" or whatever. You're raging about nothing. All races will be available for multiplayer no matter which Starcraft 2 you buy.

And Blizzard didn't invent paid expansions in MMOs. WoW is quite obviously based on EQ. If you really feel that strongly about the issue, you should have done your homework.

Despite MW2's $60 PC price, the vast majority of PC games retail at $50. That's a simple fact. There is no reason to believe that the game will cost more than that.

WoW's monthly fee is hardly "inflated"... $15 is the standard rate for modern MMOs. And it's hardly a 5 year old game. The WoW of today is nothing like the WoW of 2005. Their customer service is far from perfect, and I doubt few will argue that. But it's a T-rated game and of course they're going to be pro-censorship.

No one's forcing anyone to buy SCII or Diablo III. Expansions may have spawned "the DLC debauchery", but as you said, Blizzard's releases are polished. I have no reason to believe that their developers are ripping anyone off that way.

TL;DR Of course Blizzard loves money. They're a business. But you're overreacting.

-a former WoW player

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, the most purchased game EVER, Modern Warfare 2, does and did have a $60 MSRP, and is still selling as such on Steam and probably elsewhere. No, I don't own it; nor will I.

That was a weird non sequitur in the middle of your post. You are aware that Blizzard had no hand in that game, right? Or did you decide to drop that in just to reinforce your credibility, like one of those smug "I don't own a TV" assholes?

Re:Bullshit

[waspleg]

i don't own a tv either ;P

maybe you should have read the post i was replying to.

Re:Bullshit

[Kalriath]

ActivisionBlizzard. Yup, sounds like the same company...

Re:Bullshit

[Nyder]

Okay Mr. Blizzard Troll Fanboy, I'll bite.

Blizzard (possibly the most evil gaming company to convert from awesome indie hood to 1984), will almost definitely try to do tiered access the same way they do with WoW, oh you didn't buy the expansion? Well you don't have to, but you will be the handicapped of Azeroth with no special parking, to the point that not buying the expansions means you've completely wasted all the time money you DID invest.

Um, thats because WoW is a MMORPG. To you, just buying the main game and not the expansion may seem like you got shafted, but you didn't. The game has evolved past that first release.

I don't play WoW, I play eq2, and you don't buy expansions anymore. you buy the whole game again. guess this way, new peeps get access to all the stuff, but sort of sucks to have to cough up an extra $40 every year to year and a half.

The point is, it's not DLC (DownLoad Content? DeLayed Content? DollarLeach Content?) if it's on the disk. you shouldn't have to pay extra for crap they already finished.

Re:Bullshit

[odeland]

I think you're funny saying that you "invested" money. WoW is not an investment, it's entertainment. I hope you had fun, otherwise, you should seek help.

Nobody is forcing you to pay and yes, they are making money. You work for the same reason.

I don't pay games at 60$ either, but I'm not complaining, they're not getting my money.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This transition occurred when activision bought them out. Damn shame.

Meh

[Rix]

Like most people, I don't really give a shit about copyright. I don't see anything wrong with piracy, but I do buy some things.

I'm not doing anything unethical

[Rix]

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but most people see copyright as equivalent to drug laws and have no issue with ignoring it.

Of course I do

[Rix]

Like the vast majority, I pay for some things and pirate others. I also use the public library. The horror!

DRM would still exist

[Rix]

They'd still want to attack the secondary market.

Buying used games is stealing!

Faulty premise

[Rix]

You're starting from the position that there's something wrong piracy. I, like the vast majority, have absolutely no problem with it.

You have every right to your opinion, but keep in mind that to the rest of us, you sound like a Catholic haranguing people for eating meat on Fridays.

Re:Faulty premise

[jim_v2000]

> I, like the vast majority, have absolutely no problem with it.

You call my premise faulty, but then make an unsubstantiated claim that the "vast majority" (of who?) supports your idea, which also happens to be a logical fallacy. Having people agree with something doesn't make it right.

Re:Faulty premise

[BlackHawk-666]

Please post statistics from a reliable source indicating that the vast population of this planet accept there is nothing wrong with piracy. Note: just asking the doodz at thepiratebay.com what they think is not acceptable.

But I've already played it

[Rix]

It's not like the original Fallout games, where I'll want to revisit it from time to time.

I've bought dozens of licenses of those, mostly through GoG.com, to push on friends and relatives who haven't played them.

How would I know what's on the disc beforehand?

[Rix]

I haven't played it. All I know is that what's on the disc is not the full game. I don't want to read through a bunch of crap deciding whether I want or do not want to spend $5. I just don't want to deal with it.

So I'll go to my friendly neighbourhood torrent aggregator and find the "all DLC for X" torrent. Since the pirated DLC won't work with the retail game, I'm left with no choice but to pirate the game, too.

BZZZZT, but thanks for playing.

[mjwx]

You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!

You do realise that is ridiculously stupid and incorrect.

2K is doing a bait and switch, they have put the content on the disk you've already paid for and then 2K require you to pay more to use all the content you've already got.

This is the equivalent of Hungry Jacks (Burger King) selling you a whopper but giving you a whopper with cheese and then expressly forbidding you to eat the cheese without paying an extra $0.50. Of fucking course I'm going to eat the cheese without paying as they already gave it to me, it's already on the burger, I am are protected by law even if I eat the cheese without paying. In any other industry this kind of scam is illegal, commonly refereed to as "fraud" or "extortion".

Perhaps Burger King need to start using some DRM (Dairy Rights Management) on their burgers in order to prevent people from consuming the cheese that they have not paid for... or they could keep doing what they are currently doing and not putting cheese on the burger unless you ask (and pay) for it before getting the burger.

Re:BZZZZT, but thanks for playing.

[jim_v2000]

Bait and switch? They never told you that the content would be on the disk, and they never told you anything other than that it would cost you $5.

Re:BZZZZT, but thanks for playing.

[mjwx]

Bait and switch? They never told you that the content would be on the disk, and they never told you anything other than that it would cost you $5.

Then they shouldn't care when this gets cracked and someone who has the disk can get it for free.

Just because they didnt disclose it doesn't make it alright. They are forcing you to pay for the content you already have, plenty of games kept cut content on the disks. Crysis and KOTOR II off the top of my head but Crytek or Lucasarts don't care if you look at it, it was cut because it was incomplete where as 2K knowingly and willingly put content on the disk that you would have to pay to unlock.

We are going to deliberately withhold part of this product until you pay us. That is borderline extortion, seeing as you already have to product. It's like your landlord locking you out of your 2nd bedroom unless you pony up another $20 in rent per week. This is quite illegal under Australian laws.

If they were going to withhold this content, it should never have been on the disk.

Re:BZZZZT, but thanks for playing.

[jim_v2000]

I guess it just doesn't bother me like it bothers you. Plus I buy all of my games on Steam these days, so it's kinda irrelevant to me.

no, you do

[unity100]

a product is sold as defined. provider has to identify what they are selling. the only venue in which providers are allowed to sell undefined water vapor, so far, is in gaming. the eulas come in the form of 'we are selling you entertainment, but we cant define what it is. you have to take it as what you get out of the box, even we dont know what it will be'.

this definition basically equates pong with crysis 2. you buy something but the provider can conveniently evade precisely defining what they are selling you, and can escape the guarantee they have to give.

it is by no means logical.

You've missed the point

[Rix]

Your argument is as follows:

Piracy is wrong
Not paying for DLC is piracy
Therefor, not paying for DLC is wrong

Compare it to the following argument (presuming you're not Catholic):

The Pope is infallible
The Pope says it is wrong to eat meat on Friday
Therefor, it is wrong to eat meat on Friday

We can shout at each other until we're blue in the face, but neither is going to convince the other on the morality of piracy. You can tilt at windmills if you want, or you can accept that others will differ with you and move on.

So you hate libraries?

[Rix]

Lots evil pirates reading for free there.

Re:Nothing new here. Move along.

[kriston]

The add-on DLC for, say Guitar Hero, is both free and costs money. What difference does it make if the data to implement the DLC is on the disc or downloaded from a remote server? The money is being used to pay to license the software. As all users of software should know, mere physical possession of software means nothing. It is licensed to you, whether for no charge (free) or for a fee.

Re:Nothing new here. Move along.

[Lemming Mark]

Practically the difference is pretty small, as you say. I'd argue that the business model of "We have this stuff ready for release but will keep it and sell it to you later" is not what people are used to and the fact that this *is* the business model is most apparent and explicit when the content was already on the disk.

When it's really downloaded content at least people can imagine the content hadn't gone gold when the software was shipped. If the content shipped on the disk then there's no question of that being the case, therefore people see the business model they dislike more clearly and make more noise about it.

A better view would be...

[tindiin]

Imagine if Disney started charging you for to download "Bonus material" such as behind the scene stuff on DVDs, stuff that traditionally was free and is ON the disk.

Re:A better view would be...

[Jedi Alec]

Let's take it 1 step further and start charging people for *not* having to see stuff that's on the disc...how's this?

Now, for only $1,95! Watch the movies you already paid for without having to sit through non-skippable ads and an FBI warning completely irrelevant to your country that you're a thief first! Unmatched value for money! All major credit cards accepted.

Unreal had it right

[Voyager529]

The Unreal Tournament series (and Half-Life and Doom, etc.) had a pretty solid way about it. They released a quite-playable game and shipped it with dev tools so that players who wanted to could create their own maps and mods. The GOTY edition of UT2004 even included a tutorial DVD to help get you started. From there, DLC was created by the users and was hosted on FileFront and Gamespot and Rapidshare and wherever else users could get their files hosted. It cost the developer nothing while simultaneously increasing value for buyers.

IMO UT3 did everything just about perfectly. The retail key could be entered into Steam, and voila, instant backup. The disc had no copy protection, but your key was tied to your username and password. No internet? no problem. Offline play is always an option, but only one account can use a single key, which can only play online from one IP address at a time. They released five patches for the game, plus the Titan Pack, which added two new gametypes and several new maps. Worth the $40 I paid for the game within a month of its release? you bet. Fair all around? I don't see how much more even handed they could have gotten while still preventing everyone on Pirate Bay from using a single serial.

The flip side to this is that maps and mods wildly varied in quality, and publishers couldn't monetize it outside of creating an incentive for full game sales. If publishers were to create first party DLC at a nominal cost, it would be great to have the choice, but at the same time there would be a disincentive to do both since it's essentially enabling competition.

One word says it all...

[McKing]

Cocks!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Civil Disobedience

[BlackHawk-666]

You're actually meant to do this in full view of the authorities and get arrested for it. This doesn't apply to you downloading a copy of the latest game and cowering in your basement playing it.

Firstly, you're not actually making a stand by hiding away breaking the law, You're not declaring your opposition to the unjust law, but rather just quietly circumventing it. You change nothing and bring nothing to the debate.

A group of activists who go sit on the stairs of congress with laptops running torrents, burning discs, and swapping their favorites tunes or handing discs out to passerbys would be making a difference. If they organised media to come down and film it for the news and posted to their blogs shots of them being dragged off in cuffs it might bring attention to the issue.

Get a few million involved and you might make a difference.

That kid, in his basement playing a pirate copy of BS2 changes nothing.

Libraries have been built for millenia

[Rix]

So don't be facetious. The idea of applying copyright to private individuals is only a few decades old.

Re:Libraries have been built for millenia

[BlackHawk-666]

So post some statistics that are less than a few decades old indicating the vast number of people are opposed to copyright. You're making the claim, now back it up with proof.

Your making the claim

[Rix]

Show some proof that things have changed.

Re:Your making the claim

[BlackHawk-666]

You're unable to substantiate your claim that most people approve of piracy.

Happening again?

[Fussen]

This sort of reminds me of when ID Software released their Quake Shareware CD. The disc had the shareware release as well as the full version of all the ID top titles, nicely tucked away in an encrypted mass, ready for ID authorization to unlock, that was until qcrack.exe came around :)

Re:Happening again?

[Fussen]

OH YEAH! and BEST of All.. You got the full PCM soundtrack of NIN on a shareware disc!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion