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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[steve buttgereit]

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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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: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

What's DLC stand for now?

[Zarrot]

Dick-over Legitimate Customers

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?

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you hate libraries?

[Rix]

Lots evil pirates reading for free there.