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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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]

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.