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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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!

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: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.

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.