How do you feel about drm , dlc and artificial expansion packs?

[Richter Belmount]

Everyone knows when you bought a older console and a game , those 2 things were yours . But when you buy a game on a modern console especially a downloadable game , your expected to have constant internet connection for it to run technically it isnt yours if thats the case. What about games that require a subscription to xbox live?

Say you buy black ops for the system , you dont get access to 50 percent of your 60 dollar purchase if you dont have a xbox live account, so cough up another 60 bucks for xbox live. Its worse when a game solely depends on multiplayer and the trend is , games are going that way so if you buy a sequel chances are the single player gets shorter and shorter and developers plan the game to solely dependent on multiplayer.

Say your playing a bioware game like Dragonage , or mass effect and a huge part of the game or campaign is held hostage until you cough up some extra xbox live points or cash , yet its called a expansion pack but its on the actual disc , they probably decided during development '' Hey lets just charge extra for this side mission campaign and just call it a expansion pack the gamers wont know the difference''.

Capcom is guiltier than bioware of doing that , holding resident evils multiplayer hostage when it was on the actual disc. Not to mention their plans for marvel vs capcom 3 charging 5 bucks a new character.


Yeah its a rant but i think of those as more as examples , what do you think about drm and dlc?

[josekortez]

Personally, I find it irritating. For instance, Fallout 3 is one of my favorite 360 games, but I'm going to need Fallout 3: GOTY edition if I want to enjoy the entire story. Of course, I haven't finished the main game yet, so I've got a way to go yet. Maybe the GOTY will drop in price by the time I'm ready to play it.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'm done thinking about it. I've decided, I'm not buying any of it. There are or will be options which do not include vaseline and a backdoor channel to my bank account.

[Enigmus]

DLC - A 50/50 thing. The MvC3 $5 per character is actually pretty good sounding, especially since not a lot of people would use every single character. If it's unlock keys for disc-based content, that's a whole new angle. They're holding the buyer back from up to half the actual content until they buy a key. It's like if you went to a hotel, but had to buy individual keys to drawers, doors, the minifridge, etc. for $12 each - it's mindless and it's treating the buyer as if they were an obedient pet.

If it's legitimate add-ons that aren't on the disc and they aren't all released in one wave as soon as the game launches (a.k.a. "We didn't feel like finishing this on time, now buy them for $10 each instead of the initial disc's $60"), I'm okay with that.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Annoying, but it depends on the dev.

For example, the Magicka devs (a PC game) are releasing an expansion pack for their game soon. But they decided that instead of forcing everyone to own it so they can play together, only ONE person needs to own it. So even if you don't own the Vietnam expansion, as long as one player owns it, you're good to go.

[MASTERWEEDO]

DLC - A 50/50 thing. The MvC3 $5 per character is actually pretty good sounding, especially since not a lot of people would use every single character. If it's unlock keys for disc-based content, that's a whole new angle. They're holding the buyer back from up to half the actual content until they buy a key. It's like if you went to a hotel, but had to buy individual keys to drawers, doors, the minifridge, etc. for $12 each - it's mindless and it's treating the buyer as if they were an obedient pet.

If it's legitimate add-ons that aren't on the disc and they aren't all released in one wave as soon as the game launches (a.k.a. "We didn't feel like finishing this on time, now buy them for $10 each instead of the initial disc's $60"), I'm okay with that.

I had an experience with a hotel similar to that. I stayed at the Palms Place when I went to Vegas last month, and a big part of choosing that hotel was the balconies on every suite. After check in, I got to my room and the balconies were locked, I called the desk and asked for them to be unlocked.....they said if I gave them $500 more a night they would move my room and i could use the balcony, I declined.

[Retro Legends]

I had an experience with a hotel similar to that. I stayed at the Palms Place when I went to Vegas last month, and a big part of choosing that hotel was the balconies on every suite. After check in, I got to my room and the balconies were locked, I called the desk and asked for them to be unlocked.....they said if I gave them $500 more a night they would move my room and i could use the balcony, I declined.

Wow thats just shady business practice. Its all in the details I guess.

[CDiablo]

Drm is garbage. It generally cripples good consumers and does nothing to stop pirates. DLC & DLC expansion packs are the shits as well as I never support gaming stuff that you cannot resell. People give me shit for not liking Steam because I cant resell/trade/give away the things I buy because there is no money in used PC games anyways. This is true but if I am in a pinch I would rather get 50 cents for it than nothing. I also like being able to lend or give away games to friends if they are no longer needed. I dont mind paying for an expansion pack for a game at the right price as long as I own it. Fro example: I have been waiting forever to get borderlands GOTY but for the longest time the (XBOX)DLC was on a code card. They just released a version with the DLC on a 2nd disk and I just bought 2 copies so myself and friends can play 4 player system link.

[lookfun78]

[QUOTE= If it's legitimate add-ons that aren't on the disc and they aren't all released in one wave as soon as the game launches (a.k.a. "We didn't feel like finishing this on time, now buy them for $10 each instead of the initial disc's $60"), I'm okay with that.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. Yes if it's new characters and add on story content and no if it's maps and online content. Think of it this way would you like your game to come out on time or have the release date be pushed back for stuff that doesn't have to do with single player mode. Stuff that you may not use or download anyway.

[Rickstilwell1]

About DLC -

For me, the core material on the retail disc is enough. By the time I finish the on-disc portion of the game without buying anything, I am tired of playing that game and ready for the next. To me, online multiplayer is too much of the same thing for it to grab my attention for long and I have more fun playing the one player mode because it actually has a story to it most of the time. And if I want all these extra characters in a fighting game I'll just play Mugen for free and put them all in myself.

About DRM -

That is stupid because sometimes I don't like to be online or sometimes my internet router trips and stops working for half the day so it is really an inconvenience. I think I will avoid games that require that altogether. I still don't have any yet.

[VACRMH]

Personally, I find it irritating. For instance, Fallout 3 is one of my favorite 360 games, but I'm going to need Fallout 3: GOTY edition if I want to enjoy the entire story. Of course, I haven't finished the main game yet, so I've got a way to go yet. Maybe the GOTY will drop in price by the time I'm ready to play it.

GOTY is on sale for $20 at Gamestop. http://www.gamestop.com/browse?nav=16k-fallout+3

[maxlords]

I never buy expansions for any game once I have the physical disc. If it doesn't come with it, I don't need it.

[Graham Mitchell]

for the most part I think dlc is bullshit. It's always available a week after the game is released. That is way too soon. I usually don't finish newer games for months, sometimes even years because my interest in games is always changing. Ill play something for a couple weeks and shelve it until it strikes my fancy again. I might be willing to buy new dlc for a game released a year ago, long after I've finished it. But generally when this stuff is introduced I'm still involved in the main quest.

[WCP]

So far, i've purchased a handful of downloadable games. About 4 games on PSN, and 1 game on XBLA. The PSN games that I got was via game sharing, so I chipped in with other people, and the lone XBLA game was Marble Blast Ultra for 5 bucks. It's amazing that I haven't purchased more games, considering how much good stuff is available via DD, but I just hate the fact that I'm basically "leasing" these games, because in no way, shape, or form, do I own them.

The only way I'll purchase them is if they cost 10 bucks or less. Tons of stuff is $15, $20 or more, but I'm just totally avoiding that shit. I used to share with a couple other dudes on the PSN games. We'd buy a PSN game for $20, and each chip in $5. I know that isn't exactly the most morally upstanding thing to do, but considering the lack of rights you get with these games, I honestly think I'm justified in getting them the cheapest way possible (outside piracy), so if Sony and the 3rd parties hate game sharing, then they need to require the online connection thing. The games that don't require that are fair game imo.

XBLA games really kinda blow though, because there is no game sharing. You can only put that game on 1 360, and every other 360 you play the game on has to be from the Gamertag that purchased it, and has to be logged into Xbox Live. Just a lot of bogus restrictions. PSN games can be on 5 different PS3's systems, and you aren't required to be online (except for a couple of Capcom games I think)

[SpaceHarrier]

The only game I've purchased DLC for is Mega Man 9. I wasn't wild about getting nickeled and dimed for extra features, but I liked the game enough to do so anyway.

As for the other query: I will never buy any game that requires a constant connection to anything other than electricity.

[kedawa]

I like having the option to download games rather than purchase them physically, especially on my computer. I think I'm at a greater risk of having my physical games stolen than losing access to what I have on Steam.

I don't have any issue with the concept of DLC characters and map packs and such, but I think a lot of other DLC has very little value. I really don't care if DLC is locked on the disc or downloaded, so long as I know what's actually available to me when I purchase the game.
It seems like the majority of 'microtransactions' are aimed at the same chumps who pay for ringtones on their phones. I don't support the monetization of things that should be free, and I find the proliferation of closed platforms like smartphones very troubling.

DRM is kind of a strange beast. If done properly, it could be very useful not only to commercial content providers, but also to individuals who want to keep documents or videos or whatever private and secure. Unfortunately, DRM is almost always implemented in the most hamfisted and counter-productive way possible, and only serves to encourage piracy.

[ncman071]

i generally dont buy DLC after i buy the disc. i can only think of a handful of games on my 360 i did that for.....one of which were all the multiplayer maps for halo 3 ages ago.

for the most part i feel like developers purposely withhold content that should already be on the game just so they can make more $ obviously.

i feel like if you spend $60 for a game....everything should be there @ purchase.

now as far as downloadable games....i've had the 360 for 5 years and have 37 xbla games....several of which i regret but most of which are some of the best....

however, i'd much rather have the physical disc/cartridge than something digital

[Damaramu]

GOTY is on sale for $20 at Gamestop. http://www.gamestop.com/browse?nav=16k-fallout+3

Thanks for this! I just ordered one!

[Leo_A]

None of that bothers me.

I haven't bought a disc based or downloadable game yet that required an active internet connection for it to run, besides perhaps 2 or 3 PC games from Ubisoft. And I mostly play PC games for the experience at that time, there aren't many I find myself wanting to go back and revisit 10-15 years down the road (Grand Prix Legends, SimCity 3000, and Titanic Adventures Out of Time are pretty much the only PC content I regularly have gone back to over the years). So I can tolerate such DRM in that area.

All my XBLA games, PSN games, and downloaded Nintendo games and such play just fine offline for me. When it's implimented on consoles (Having a hard time thinking of any examples here beyond a handful of Capcom downloadable games that require an active internet connection, mostly on PSN), I'm simply just not buying. And I'm not aware of any of my 360 games that require a gold Xbox Live subscription to play. So it simply hasn't been a problem so far for me.

I'm fine with paying for online play through Xbox Live. I've felt like I've gotten my money's worth over the years with a superior service. Letting it lapse soon though since I just don't find myself doing enough online multiplayer anymore to justify it and mostly just enjoy the leaderboards anyways, which are free. I can even tolerate tying in online play with new copies and forcing used buyers to pay for it. Most people interested in the online capabilities of a game are buying soon after release (Including myself). And since I'd have to be online anyways to enjoy the online capabilities, I just don't see much worry about what happens down the road there.

All it's going to do for the most part is discourage people from buying that $50-$55 used copy sitting on the shelf. It might even benefit someone primarily interested in single player if all those used copies of Call of Duty each year suddenly were $10 cheaper to reflect that at GameStop to make up that difference and keep attracting used buyers, since I'm only interested in the 6 hour long single player campaigns in them anyways.

But if a retail game doesn't let me enjoy a full single player experience on any console that isn't connected to the internet, I'm simply not buying. I'm not going to buy a game that is a ticking time bomb. I only buy small releases like XBLA games since they're cheap and too many nice games to pass up just out of principle.

The day DRM gets as restrictful as companies like EA would prefer it to be is the day I stick with earlier console generations. I'm not about to be buying a game on disc and feel like I essentially just leased it for a short while.

[exit]

I don't mind DLC that actually expands the game, Burnout Paradise Big Surf Island is probably the best example on how DLC expansions should be done, since it added a whole new area and vehicles to mess with. Super Star Dust HD released a few expansions after it's original release that I didn't mind buying, but I waited for them to be sold bundled together because I knew it was inevitable.

As for the BS DLC, if other people want to be stupid enough to buy it then that's fine by me, I'll ignore it unless it's something I really want, which it almost never is.

DRM is just complete bullshit, I've already been burnt twice by Capcom with it and I'm going to be a lot more cautious buying anything from them in the future because of it. I should not have to be online 24/7 to play a game that doesn't require a constant internet connection to be played. If it's not an online only game, then I shouldn't have to be online to play it.

[gepeto]

For me it is not to bad. Only time will tell like in the end of 360 life. What happens? I really like some of the downloable games like limbo and such. I just can't stand when I feel fleeced. Like the tiger woods master game I was online and if I am not mistaken there were like 6 or 7 expansions. I feel like I would be getting short changed. Just put it on the game disc. I mean talk about blantant. This hurts more than anything because especially when you are charging full msrp price.

I guess the days of Nba street 2 where there were tons of unlockable are gone.

[dgdgagdae]

We'd buy a PSN game for $20, and each chip in $5. I know that isn't exactly the most morally upstanding thing to do, but considering the lack of rights you get with these games, I honestly think I'm justified in getting them the cheapest way possible (outside piracy), so if Sony and the 3rd parties hate game sharing, then they need to require the online connection thing. The games that don't require that are fair game imo.

So as much as people complain about DRM, you're justifying piracy (let's call it what it is) by saying it's ok because Sony doesn't have enough DRM around their product?

[Dobie]

I don't have a problem with DLC per se. In fact, I buy it often. The things that irk me are the codes that come with new games intending to lock me out of a portion of the game if I buy it used (EA and THQ, I'm looking at you). It lessens the resale value of the game I purchased, and it makes buying a used game require added research. I am much less likely to impulse buy a used game now, because I want to be aware of what parts of the game were a one-time-use DLC code--GOTY editions especially.

As a result, instead of buying a game (for example, Medal of Honor) used a few weeks after release, I will just wait for the NEW game to drop to the price I would have paid... and the farther from launch the game gets, the lower the price goes, because the online community will be smaller. As such, I still have not purchased Medal of Honor. EA doesn't get ANY of my money, where before they could have gotten me to buy DLC map packs or add-ons if I liked the game. On my end, instead of giving a game a chance... I don't play their game at all. I just spend my time with other company's products, lessening the chance I will buy or pay attention to the inevitable Medal of Honor sequel. So its a lose-lose.

[Leo_A]

For me it is not to bad. Only time will tell like in the end of 360 life. What happens? I really like some of the downloable games like limbo and such.

When 360 releases wind down and I have all the DLC I want, I feel safe in expecting Xbox Live to remain functional for the platform for at least several years afterwards just like it was last time.

I intend to start using the license transfer utility when I'm done buying stuff. I'll put my current console offline permanently, buy a brand new replacement, and initiate the license transfer utility.

Then, 12 months down the road, I'll rinse and repeat so I'll have several systems in storage with my content linked to each by the time Xbox Live is turned off. I intend to do something similar with my spare PSN activations as well so I'll have everything on 5 PS3's and PSP's..

The only system I fear I might lose everyone is going to be the Wii. Hopefully the DSiWare transfer utility we're going to get for the 3DS is a sign we might be able to at least bring our current content with us to a new platform. So at least we should be able to delay the inevitable loss of our Nintendo content even on that platform as long as that happens.

[ScourDX]

DRM is crap. Never works against pirate and make legit paying user suffers. As for DLC, it is bad enough when company trying to milk more money from paying customers.

[WCP]

double post

[WCP]

So as much as people complain about DRM, you're justifying piracy (let's call it what it is) by saying it's ok because Sony doesn't have enough DRM around their product?


Game Sharing, isn't something that Sony has really spoken up specifically about. They don't necessarily encourage the practice, and they do allow 3rd party publishers (Capcom), if they so choose, to require an online connection to play. Still, at the same time, they don't specifically discourage people from game sharing. At least, as far as I was aware. Maybe things have changed.

I haven't done the game sharing thing in a number of years, but I honestly don't think there is anything really wrong with it. The fact of the matter is, that these digital games that people "lease", you really get zero rights to these games, compared with a physical disk.

Yes, yes, I know that when you buy a physical disk, you don't really "own" the game, you just own a license to play the game, but that doesn't change the fact that you actually "effectively" own the game because you can sell it to someone else. You can give it away to someone else. You can rent the game from a rental provider. You can trade the game in towards another game, you can let a buddy borrow the game for a few weeks, etc, etc, etc.

Under the new, digital download era, all the rights that we had before, are taken away. We no longer have the right to do what we wish with the product. If we don't like it, we're stuck with it. Can't sell it to anybody, can't trade it in, can't give it away to our cousin. If the console that our digital download game is tied to dies, we are screwed out of the game, etc, etc.

So yeah, it's totally justifiable in my opinion.

[Clownzilla]

Just finished Alan Wake and this game is the poster child of abusing the DLC system. After completing the game on the disc you have to download two DLC chapters for around $7 each if you want the "complete story". How is DLC "optional" if I can't get the entire storyline on the disc? Would I read a book and stop at the last two chapters and say that I read the entire book?

I could see this coming the day that DLC was announced. Game companies were touting the flexibility that DLC brought the gamer but it has become an excuse to release half-baked games with long term financial commitments for the gamer. It's the property of these game companies and they can do what they want with it but the DLC model is starting to extend it's welcome and has become a scam.

[kupomogli]

I could see this coming the day that DLC was announced. Game companies were touting the flexibility that DLC brought the gamer but it has become an excuse to release half-baked games with long term financial commitments for the gamer. It's the property of these game companies and they can do what they want with it but the DLC model is starting to extend it's welcome and has become a scam.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

DLC now days is what developers in the past did for gamers for free. If you had an online connection, you could get your game patched to the latest revision. This might have added extra weapons, game balancing, features, etc. Diablo 2 recently released the option to reset all your stats one time per game. Did this cost the gamer anything? Developers/publishers now nickel and dime you with literally everything.

Then there are some companies that push out legitimate DLC. You're not just getting one character for $10 or a costume for $5, you're getting something well after release that really expands enough on the game to be worth it. Behind Her Blue Flame, on Valkyria Chronicles, is $5 for extra missions and the point of view from the enemy side. It was released well after the game release so it feels like it was made for fans who just want more of the game. I'd prefer no DLC at all, but some releases, very very few, are nice.

[kedawa]

Just finished Alan Wake and this game is the poster child of abusing the DLC system. After completing the game on the disc you have to download two DLC chapters for around $7 each if you want the "complete story". How is DLC "optional" if I can't get the entire storyline on the disc? Would I read a book and stop at the last two chapters and say that I read the entire book?
That's pretty bad, but without DLC it may have been even worse.
In order to finish the campaign for Halo 2, I had to buy not only another disc, but also another console entirely!
Seriously, though, I agree with you completely.
DLC should be an optional expansion to a complete game rather than the final piece of an incomplete one.
If I go to a restaurant and order a steak and potatoes, I expect to pay extra if I want dessert as well. I do not expect to pay extra for butter and salt.

[Bojay1997]

I don't have a problem with DLC per se. In fact, I buy it often. The things that irk me are the codes that come with new games intending to lock me out of a portion of the game if I buy it used (EA and THQ, I'm looking at you). It lessens the resale value of the game I purchased, and it makes buying a used game require added research. I am much less likely to impulse buy a used game now, because I want to be aware of what parts of the game were a one-time-use DLC code--GOTY editions especially.

As a result, instead of buying a game (for example, Medal of Honor) used a few weeks after release, I will just wait for the NEW game to drop to the price I would have paid... and the farther from launch the game gets, the lower the price goes, because the online community will be smaller. As such, I still have not purchased Medal of Honor. EA doesn't get ANY of my money, where before they could have gotten me to buy DLC map packs or add-ons if I liked the game. On my end, instead of giving a game a chance... I don't play their game at all. I just spend my time with other company's products, lessening the chance I will buy or pay attention to the inevitable Medal of Honor sequel. So its a lose-lose.

That's interesting, but charging used buyers for DLC is actually the only kind of DLC I think is legitimate nowadays. Why should a publisher or developer subsidize Gamestop's profits and allow used buyers to use their resources for free? I think perhaps it would be better to charge Gamestop a re-registration fee and not pass that expense on to the used buyer, but someone should be paying for that added use of resources. Other than large expansions in the vein of the GTA IV stuff that really are somewhere between being less than a full game, but more than just a mission or costume pack, I think DLC is just a huge rip-off.

[Leo_A]

Why should a publisher or developer subsidize Gamestop's profits and allow used buyers to use their resources for free?

No one is getting anything free. That game with its online capabilities was once a brand new game. The original buyer when they purchased it subsidized the online network to support that game going online.

GameStop isn't pressing used games that put a strain on a publisher's online network that never earned them any money. The server space for that game was paid by the original buyer.

[Bojay1997]

No one is getting anything free. That game with its online capabilities was once a brand new game. The original buyer when they purchased it subsidized the online network to support that game going online.

GameStop isn't pressing used games that put a strain on a publisher's online network that never earned them any money. The server space for that game was paid by the original buyer.

Incorrect. There are on-going costs associated with maintaining on-line games including file and account management and data streaming. While it's not massive amounts of money, it certainly is in excess of several dollars per player. As such, I have no problem with EA or anyone else charging $10 for used buyers to have on-line access. They don't charge anything additional for the game itself, so I fail to see why only new game buyers should be paying for those expenses. It's just like buying a used car, you still have to pay state registration fees as the buyer, even though the original owner may have paid their full year registration on the car prior to sale. Now, if you decide not to drive the car, you pay a substantially lower registration fee for keeping the car non-operational. Same thing here.

[Leo_A]

I don't see how you proved what I stated was incorrect in the slightest.

If there are ongoing cost that need to be subsidized beyond the initial purchase of the software, then go with a subscription model.

Just because someone bought the software used and it didn't remain being played online in the hands of the original buyer, that doesn't put some undue strain on their network that is financially unfair.

[Bojay1997]

I don't see how you proved what I stated was incorrect in the slightest.

If there are ongoing cost that need to be subsidized beyond the initial purchase of the software, then go with a subscription model.

Just because someone bought the software used and it didn't remain being played online in the hands of the original buyer, that doesn't put some undue strain on their network that is financially unfair.

Of course it does and the DLC charge for used buyers is in fact the same software license model being applied to new buyers. New buyers have already paid for the license in the purchase price. Used buyers are just being charged in a more obvious way.

Publishers know that the first two weeks after release are when players are most active in the on-line community. After that time, their costs go down as the amount of bandwidth and resources being used declines. Used game buyers extend that peak usage period by coming into the on-line community on average 2-3 weeks after launch. It's a classic free rider problem. When a new game buyer pays $60 for a game, the developer and publisher share in those financial rewards and they are buying the right to play for as long as they would like, tempered by the fact that developers and publishers know they will become bored at some point or move on to another game. That throttling effect doesn't really exist in the same way for used buyers, especially since publishers make nothing from that subsequent sale and used buyers are essentially fresh consumers who want to use the on-line features to the same extent the new buyers did, all without paying anything for it.

You can believe all you want that publishers make enough money off the first sale, but as the spate of studio closings this year and last goes to show, it's becoming a much harder business to succeed in and used game sales have a significant impact on the bottom line, if for no other reason than it gives buyers a cheaper alternative to whatever new game is released that week leading to the problems of lower overall sales and declining revenue to the publishers and developers.

I understand that you don't like the idea of used buyers paying a fee for on-line usage which is a perfectly valid opinion, but your dislike of the practice doesn't do anything to prove your point that used buyers don't really cost publishers any additional money to support.

[Leo_A]

Rather or not the game is still in the hands of the original buyer, the publisher made money that paid for online access for that game.

I don't see how that car example is a proper analogy in the slightest. You're paying a registration fee because you're paying to register the vehicle under your own name. Much of the fee is administrative cost and you gain benefits such as protection for the vehicle and other benefits a state DMV brings to their motorist. The vehicle registration when a vehicle changes hands should be paid for because it causes more work for the DMV.

To a Sony or Microsoft ran server (Heck, most Xbox Live games don't even involve publisher ran servers, so what's the rationale there when it's just using player hosted servers and the normal Xbox Live ran matchmaking?), a copy of the game is just a copy of the game. It's no different to the server if it's being played in my console or yours.

It places no extra burden on them if it changes hands or remains in posession of the original buyer. It simply exists as a avenue for a publisher to profit off used software sales.

And I'm fine with what. But I'm also not buying an excuse that says otherwise.



I understand that you don't like the idea of used buyers paying a fee for on-line usage which is a perfectly valid opinion, but your dislike of the practice doesn't do anything to prove your point that used buyers don't really cost publishers any additional money to support.

Read the thread and you will find I've already said otherwise. I'm fine with the practice. Just don't try to portray it as something it isn't. If what you said was valid in the slightest, we'd see a subscription based model for online play if there was a need to subsidize online access for that copy of the game beyond the initial point of sale. Heck, it happens with Xbox Live enabled games where the publisher isn't running anything anyways. And why should a Xbox Live Gold subscriber have to pay twice for the ability to play online multiplayer just because they bought a used copy of the game? That Xbox Live gold subscription should subsidize the cost of them playing online. That's what it's supposed to be for.

I don't care about the practice one way or another (Although it alarms me since I worry someday they will do something similar with single player, making portions of single player component impossible to access on a different console when the day comes that the servers are switched off). I just disagree with your rationale that you've used to defend the practice.

[Bojay1997]

Rather or not the game is still in the hands of the original buyer, the publisher made money that paid for online access for that game.

I don't see how that car example is a proper analogy in the slightest. You're paying a registration fee because you're paying to register the vehicle under your own name. Much of the fee is administrative cost and you gain benefits such as protection for the vehicle and other benefits a state DMV brings to their motorist. The vehicle registration when a vehicle changes hands should be paid for because it causes more work for the DMV.

To a Sony or Microsoft ran server (Heck, most Xbox Live games don't even involve publisher ran servers, so what's the rationale there when it's just using player hosted servers and the normal Xbox Live ran matchmaking?), a copy of the game is just a copy of the game. It's no different to the server if it's being played in my console or yours.

It places no extra burden on them if it changes hands or remains in posession of the original buyer. It simply exists as a avenue for a publisher to profit off used software sales.

And I'm fine with what. But I'm also not buying an excuse that says otherwise.



Read the thread and you will find I've already said otherwise. I'm fine with the practice. Just don't try to portray it as something it isn't. If what you said was valid in the slightest, we'd see a subscription based model for online play if there was a need to subsidize online access for that copy of the game beyond the initial point of sale. Heck, it happens with Xbox Live enabled games where the publisher isn't running anyways anyways. And why should a Xbox Live Gold subscriber have to pay twice for the ability to play online multiplayer just because they bought a used copy of the game?

I don't care about the practice one way or another (Although it alarms me since I worry someday they will do something similar with single player, making portions of single player component impossible to access on a different console when the day comes that the servers are switched off). I just disagree with your rationale that you've used to defend the practice.

Actually, the vehicle registration fee is the perfect analogy. In most states, the administrative portion of the fee is only about 20%. The rest goes for things like road maintenance, traffic safety, etc...It's a way of a state requiring people who actually use the road and freeway infrastructure to pay for what they use. Conversely, people who don't drive, don't have to pay the taxes.

What I think you're missing is that Microsoft and Sony don't just say to developers "hey, make your games on-line compatible and we'll pay for the servers and bandwidth." In fact, publishers are required to pick up a portion of whatever it costs to run their servers over the life of the game and there is tiered pricing depending on what level of bandwidth and data storage is required. They also have to pay expenses related to patching and security issues. That's why EA regularly retires their older games on a two year cycle instead of continuing to run them. I don't have the current cost schedules around anymore, but I know two years ago Microsoft was charging pretty substantial fees for third party publishers to support their titles on Xbox Live above and beyond the standard licensing fees.

The only reason publishers don't require subscription models for all games is that they know there would be a consumer backlash. That doesn't mean that used gamers don't cost them anything to support. It's just common sense. For your point to be valid, you'd have to be able to point to a number and say it costs "x" to run the servers and support structure for the game and that number never changes regardless of how long the servers are up and how many players use them. That simply can't be true and I think you know that.

In any event, there really isn't much point in continuing to debate the same issue. Paid on-line access for used game buyers is here to stay regardless of the reason.

[Clownzilla]

That's pretty bad, but without DLC it may have been even worse.
In order to finish the campaign for Halo 2, I had to buy not only another disc, but also another console entirely!
Seriously, though, I agree with you completely.
DLC should be an optional expansion to a complete game rather than the final piece of an incomplete one.
If I go to a restaurant and order a steak and potatoes, I expect to pay extra if I want dessert as well. I do not expect to pay extra for butter and salt.

Got to hand it to them though, Alan Wake was good enough to where they were able to extract an extra $14 for around 3 hours of content to finish the story (atleast for the first game). I guess as long as there are people like me who cave in to temptation there will be no stop to the DLC issue:)

[Rob2600]

Just finished Alan Wake and this game is the poster child of abusing the DLC system. After completing the game on the disc you have to download two DLC chapters for around $7 each if you want the "complete story". How is DLC "optional" if I can't get the entire storyline on the disc? Would I read a book and stop at the last two chapters and say that I read the entire book?

What about all the people who bought Harry Potter, only to find out they had to buy another six books to get the whole story?

If you bought the first book, the next six should be free so that you can finish reading the story, right?



Developers/publishers now nickel and dime you with literally everything.

To be fair, the "hard core" gaming audience nickel and dimes the game industry too, by constantly waiting for new releases to go on clearance and never paying full price for anything. Developers and publishers need to make money somehow and die hard gamers, who supposedly love gaming more than anything, are the ones screwing the industry out of money by searching for deals and pirating stuff.

"Wow, I love this developer and I love this series! How do I show my support? By waiting until it's in the bargain bins for $5, of course. I also have a micro SD card full of DS ROMS, a USB hard drive full of Wii ROMS, and shelves full of Dreamcast and PlayStation bootlegs...but hey, I'm a hard core gamer who supports the industry! Screw those 'casual' people who pay full price!"

[Clownzilla]

What about all the people who bought Harry Potter, only to find out they had to buy another six books to get the whole story?

If you bought the first book, the next six should be free so that you can finish reading the story, right?



Each Harry Potter book is a separate story on a longer storyline. Alan Wake and it's DLC is one story and Alan wake 2 (if it comes out) will carry on that longer storyline. The current Alan Wake DLC is like buying the first Harry Potter book and then finding out you have to buy the last 2 chapters separately.

[Clownzilla]

To be fair, the "hard core" gaming audience nickel and dimes the game industry too, by constantly waiting for new releases to go on clearance and never paying full price for anything. Developers and publishers need to make money somehow and die hard gamers, who supposedly love gaming more than anything, are the ones screwing the industry out of money by searching for deals and pirating stuff.

"Wow, I love this developer and I love this series! How do I show my support? By waiting until it's in the bargain bins for $5, of course. I also have a micro SD card full of DS ROMS, a USB hard drive full of Wii ROMS, and shelves full of Dreamcast and PlayStation bootlegs...but hey, I'm a hard core gamer who supports the industry! Screw those 'casual' people who pay full price!"

Your stereotyping hardcore gamers. Many hardcore gamers would never bootleg a game or play roms so that's a weak point to make. On top of that it's pretty hard to bootleg games on the newer systems like the 360 and PS3,

Second, gamers are not saying they are against DLC in general. If the DLC is in addition to the purchased game and only adds to an already full experience then there is nothing wrong with DLC. I don't even think many gamers would argue with online content subscription codes because many gamers understand that servers have to be maintained and used sells don't contribute to the long term use of the product. It's when DLC is used to "finish" an incomplete game that is the problem.

Finally, the only reason why gamers wait for the bargain bin is because the remainder of the gaming audience doesn't see a higher retail value in the product. There are plenty of well made titles that are purchased on day one. Months down the road when it hits the bargain bin is it better that I purchase the game at $20 or not purchase the game at all if it stays at $60? If a game goes straight to the bargain bin then there is something wrong with the game, game marketing, or game release date. That has everything to do with the developer and nothing to do with the consumer.

Don't get me wrong, gaming companies can do anything they want with their property. However, it's going to get to a point where gamers won't find value in the ever increasing prices for gaming entertainment. If DLC keeps increasing prices then the gamer will either stick with (or discover) older, non DLC based systems ( that's where I'm heading myself) or leave the industry behind all together and find another hobby. Hey, I would love people to discover the systems from the PS2 and before and find that they can be just as much fun as the PS3 and the Xbox 360.

[Rob2600]

It's when DLC is used to "finish" an incomplete game that is the problem.

If hard core gamers want to get a full experience, they must be willing to pay full price for new releases.

The more hard core gamers keep waiting for new releases to hit the bargain bin before they finally buy them, the less content developers are going to include in their games.

Hard core gamers want everything, and they want it cheap. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and now because of them, we all get screwed with DLC.



Many hardcore gamers would never bootleg a game or play roms so that's a weak point to make.

Either you're being sarcastic or you're extremely naive.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I see it as reciprocal. They want to set conditions for access and use on something they are producing for sale? Fine. I have conditions when it comes to what I spend my money on.

Econ 101 - Everyone wants the most gain for the least amount of effort possible.

Why are people waiting for games to hit the bargain bin? Because they know the chances of that occurring are good. In that situation, it's not the fault of the customers but it's the fault of the producers. The market price is what the market will bear. If that's the bargain bin, then that is what people have decided it is worth to them. If anyone wants to change that, it's not the customer side that needs tweaking.

[Rob2600]

The market price is what the market will bear. If that's the bargain bin, then that is what people have decided it is worth to them.

Exactly. Hard core gamers want to pay bargain bin prices, which is fine...but then they get mad when developers only fill the disc with a bargain bin's worth of content.

If hard core gamers continue to cheap out on their own hobby, eventually developers will only release shallow cheap games along the lines of Angry Birds or Defend Your Castle.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Worth to who? That's the important aspect. At least until it hits the bargain bin. LOL

My point was, obviously prices across the board are too high.

[Rob2600]

Worth to who? That's the important aspect. At least until it hits the bargain bin. LOL

My point was, obviously prices across the board are too high.

Hard core gamers want a full 20+ hour cinematic gaming experience with HD graphics and online multiplayer, but they want it for cheap. The world doesn't work that way.

Cheap hard core gamers are to blame for our current DLC situation. "Give me the most incredible mind-blowing experience of my life, but don't expect me to pay more than $25 for it." If you only want to pay half price, that's fine...but then developers will only give you half the experience and release the other half as DLC.


"Casual" gamers might only buy six or seven games per console, but at least they pay full price and support the industry.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Incorrect. There are on-going costs associated with maintaining on-line games including file and account management and data streaming. While it's not massive amounts of money, it certainly is in excess of several dollars per player. As such, I have no problem with EA or anyone else charging $10 for used buyers to have on-line access.

... but you already pay a fee to cover online access, account management and data streaming. IT'S CALLED AN XBOX LIVE GOLD MEMBERSHIP!

[PapaStu]

... but you already pay a fee to cover online access, account management and data streaming. IT'S CALLED AN XBOX LIVE GOLD MEMBERSHIP!

EA is a special beast. They before they allowed any of their sports games to be Multiplayer accessable on XBL demanded server control of their games. Doing so allows they to nuke older game servers when they want to, and to 'require' the registration of all these newer games to your system when you boot them up for the first time now. When I fired up Bulletstorm the first time, I had to (if I wanted to do anything online related at all) register my copy by using the code in the back of my manual as well as use my EA.com account to tie that code to my username (on top of the additional tie to my XBL name).

They will get their $$ one way or another.

[Bojay1997]

... but you already pay a fee to cover online access, account management and data streaming. IT'S CALLED AN XBOX LIVE GOLD MEMBERSHIP!

Except none of that money goes to anyone except for Microsoft. It also does not fully subsidize the cost of what it actually costs to run the server infrastructure unless you are one of these rare gamers who only uses it a few hours a week.

[Dobie]

So what I'm getting out of this conversation is that the current "hardcore" market is unsustainable, and there's no room for tiered pricing structures in games. $60 on launch or GTFO.

I can see the financial difficulties game companies have. Technology is a quickly depreciating cost, not an investment, being the bleeding edge game technologically rarely pans out financially. This would be why the current gen has been longer would it not? DLC certainly helps the books... I mean, low distro costs, sometimes simply for an unlock code, extra content can be made with existing art assets. Wouldn't it benefit game companies to DROP the launch price of their middling/average/derivative product at launch to increase the purchase rate of their high margin DLC? Or go the Double Fine route and go smaller, leaner, more frequent but quality product, then put out a couple packs of add-ons?

Looking at last gen, games like Katamari Damacy would never have gained the traction and multiple sequels it had without coming out at the budget price it was. But it seems developers want it both ways... full price at launch, while nickel and diming gamers on the back end with DLC and withheld content too. THAT seems to me to be unsustainable. DLC isn't a negative for gamers, its just not used to its potential, IMO.

[Bojay1997]

So what I'm getting out of this conversation is that the current "hardcore" market is unsustainable, and there's no room for tiered pricing structures in games. $60 on launch or GTFO.

I can see the financial difficulties game companies have. Technology is a quickly depreciating cost, not an investment, being the bleeding edge game technologically rarely pans out financially. This would be why the current gen has been longer would it not? DLC certainly helps the books... I mean, low distro costs, sometimes simply for an unlock code, extra content can be made with existing art assets. Wouldn't it benefit game companies to DROP the launch price of their middling/average/derivative product at launch to increase the purchase rate of their high margin DLC? Or go the Double Fine route and go smaller, leaner, more frequent but quality product, then put out a couple packs of add-ons?

Looking at last gen, games like Katamari Damacy would never have gained the traction and multiple sequels it had without coming out at the budget price it was. But it seems developers want it both ways... full price at launch, while nickel and diming gamers on the back end with DLC and withheld content too. THAT seems to me to be unsustainable. DLC isn't a negative for gamers, its just not used to its potential, IMO.

I think the current financial reality as a number of developers have pointed out in recent days is that there is no longer a viable business model for the "middle class" game. Games with low development costs that can sell massive quantities at low cost can be lucrative for companies, including very large ones and games with large budgets that sell massive quantities can also be financially viable. It's the games in between that unfortunately tend to be the ones we classic gamers are drawn to for their quirkiness or unusual themes and mechanics that are going extinct very rapidly. From a collector's perspective, as well as a gamer's perspective, this makes me doubly sad. I suspect that in the next generation, there will literally be almost no collectible games simply because everything will be either a blockbuster with a full retail release or a downloadable title not available on a physical format. There simply won't be anything in between to really collect.

[Chadt74]

I think this is a very good topic, but there are some some points that need to be addressed. Rob2600 - Your comment of "To be fair, the "hard core" gaming audience nickel and dimes the game industry too, by constantly waiting for new releases to go on clearance and never paying full price for anything" is not exactly correct. Forrester Research in their May 10th, 2011 publication called "which gamer is right for you" divides 'gamers' into four categories one of which is called the Hardcore gamer. This gamer spends $466/yr on gaming (including DLC) and mostly on console gaming; which is by far the highest spend of any category. So your comments do not appear to align with a nation wide research study from a legitimate research firm. We all know that some people pirate games, but even if the hardcore gamers are, they are still heavily contributing to the gaming industry. I think your view of a hardcore gamer is slightly off.

Icarus Moonsight, Econ 101 - "Everyone wants the most gain for the least amount of effort possible". I believe that the basis for Econ is that humans (or systems) have unlimited wants and needs, but have limited resources. Based on that principal your bargain bin argument has to be viewed in a different light. The video game in question has to be viewed as a good along side other goods and with the amount of resources the consumer has available to him/her. The recent economic downturn where the US has had a 10% unemployment rate probably constrained the resources of the general video game buying public and therefore a gamer willing to pay $60 for a brand new title might not have enough resources to pay full price and be forced to wait until that game is $30 since other Needs have to be met first or that good now becomes a luxury item in the eyes of the buyer. Also note that with the people buying video games averaging over 30 years this also points more to the possibility of a re balancing of resources towards needs (family etc) with the slightest interruption of income.

I think this is a very good topic and I hope my comment do not derail the conversation.

[Rob2600]

Forrester Research in their May 10th, 2011 publication called "which gamer is right for you" divides 'gamers' into four categories one of which is called the Hardcore gamer. This gamer spends $466/yr on gaming (including DLC) and mostly on console gaming; which is by far the highest spend of any category.

Just because hard core gamers spend the most money, that doesn't mean they're spending it on new, full priced games. Does the study indicate the $466 per year is spent on brand new games at full price? Or is the $466 spent on games that are on sale and/or used?

In the case of hard core gamers, I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

To me, a "casual" gamer who spends $100 a year on new, full price games supports the industry more than a "hard core" gamer who spends $466 a year on used and marked-down games. Do you agree?

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think the idea that "supporting an industry" is important or essential is incorrect in focus and framing of the problem.

I don't know what content has to do with cost, other than technologies utilized and scale. Themes and ideas can fit whatever tech, medium or scale. I'm not sure if mid tier games being profitable is really an impossibility. Sounds more like an excuse to make only huge expensive games or cheap thrill diversions, negating the mid ground desire level completely. I think that says something about the industry... Either that, or they don't know how to make them work in the current environment. But to say that is to say, "Durr, we no understood how do our jobz."

[Bojay1997]

I think the idea that "supporting an industry" is important or essential is incorrect in focus and framing of the problem.

I don't know what content has to do with cost, other than technologies utilized and scale. Themes and ideas can fit whatever tech, medium or scale. I'm not sure if mid tier games being profitable is really an impossibility. Sounds more like an excuse to make only huge expensive games or cheap thrill diversions, negating the mid ground desire level completely. I think that says something about the industry... Either that, or they don't know how to make them work in the current environment. But to say that is to say, "Durr, we no understood how do our jobz."

I strongly disagree. There are some concepts, themes and ideas which require a budget of a certain level to acheieve. Whether that's because of the precision of the graphics, the sophistication of the AI, the IP attached to it or whatever the reason may be. The "job" of publishers and developers is to make financially viable products so that they can return a profit to their share holders or owners. Finally recognizing that maybe there is little profit to be made in the mid-range is a sign of sophisticiation and maturity for the industry. Unfortunately, I preferred the less mature version of the industry from the collecting and even playing point of view.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I strongly disagree. There are some concepts, themes and ideas which require a budget of a certain level to acheieve. Whether that's because of the precision of the graphics, the sophistication of the AI, the IP attached to it or whatever the reason may be.

Those are technologies, not concepts... Well, IPs are ideas and the only cost there I could conceive of is licensing, which is just a time-saving measure or simply brand piggybacking.


...Finally recognizing that maybe there is little profit to be made in the mid-range is a sign of sophisticiation and maturity for the industry...

Um... I think you just completely lost me.

[Bojay1997]

Those are technologies, not concepts... Well, IPs are ideas and the only cost there I could conceive of is licensing, which is just a time-saving measure or simply brand piggybacking.



Um... I think you just completely lost me.

Yes, they are technologies or rather tools, which provide the canvas on which the concepts can be brought to fruition. IP licensing is not always just a time-saving measure, it can also be a way to extend the connection people have with a brand or a beloved existing character or fantasy world. In addition to licensing costs, most IP holders require a certain level of quality to be applied to their brand. In other words, many IP holders will not just let some programmer or team working out of their basement develop games based on their IP.

The maturity reference was to the level the industry has reached on the business developmnent scale. It's now at the point where decisions are being made with an eye toward maintaining a healthy balance sheet as opposed to just doing something because it would be cool or quirky. Again, not necessarily great for gamers or collectors, but it represents the fact that gaming has become so mainstream that a second crash or collapse of the industry is pretty unlikely. It also means that smaller companies are rapidly being squeezed out in favor of larger ones with the financial means to compete.

[G-Boobie]

I like having the option to download games rather than purchase them physically, especially on my computer. I think I'm at a greater risk of having my physical games stolen than losing access to what I have on Steam.

I don't have any issue with the concept of DLC characters and map packs and such, but I think a lot of other DLC has very little value. I really don't care if DLC is locked on the disc or downloaded, so long as I know what's actually available to me when I purchase the game.
It seems like the majority of 'microtransactions' are aimed at the same chumps who pay for ringtones on their phones. I don't support the monetization of things that should be free, and I find the proliferation of closed platforms like smartphones very troubling.

DRM is kind of a strange beast. If done properly, it could be very useful not only to commercial content providers, but also to individuals who want to keep documents or videos or whatever private and secure. Unfortunately, DRM is almost always implemented in the most hamfisted and counter-productive way possible, and only serves to encourage piracy.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I don't pay for a whole lot of DLC, but on every platform currently out there (excepting Nintendo) the stuff you buy digitally is tied to your account, not the hardware. As long as that's true, I'm not too worried about it. Having the disc is always the better option, but if I want a game that's only available on PSN or XBL, I'll buy it without a second thought.

DRM leads to piracy.

[Necron99]

I'm done thinking about it. I've decided, I'm not buying any of it. There are or will be options which do not include vaseline and a backdoor channel to my bank account.

In agreement with you there. I like to physically own the games I buy, and want to play them when I want and how I want.

[Rickstilwell1]

It's cool to have the option to upgrade your games, but totally not necessary to enjoy the games. Are you a person who likes to sit and play the same game all year or are you the type who would much rather start playing a new game when you finish one? That's the question that matters here.