DLC getting out of control

[wormraper]

ok, DLC is getting out of control I just go a copy of "Black ops" today so I could play zombies with my buddy only to find out to get all the zombies maps I had to spend $60 on 4 map packs to get the maps. that's TWICE what I paid for the game alone just for the add on packs. this is getting ridiculous guys. I played pc games for YEARS and map packs were always (or almost always) just free downloads for FPS games. $15 is just WAY too much for a couple of maps.

[UK_fan_05]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ok, DLC is getting out of control I just go a copy of "Black ops" today so I could play zombies with my buddy only to find out to get all the zombies maps I had to spend $60 on 4 map packs to get the maps. that's TWICE what I paid for the game alone just for the add on packs. this is getting ridiculous guys. I played pc games for YEARS and map packs were always (or almost always) just free downloads for FPS games. $15 is just WAY too much for a couple of maps.

Yeah, it sucks. One thing I can say about Activision is they don't make people double dip with Game Of The Year releases for the Call Of Duty titles. They just force you to fork over the full amount for the DLC.

[krazeyeyez]

Fully agree but the sheep have spoken with their wallets saying this is an ok trend. Its a way for them to charge $100 plus for a game without people realizing thats what they paid. Now you have things like ELITE as well which is a yearly fee. It also bothers me the DLC is linked to your system in most cases and not your account. Meaning i cannot take it with me to a friends.

In addition they are starting to force the purchase on you.... there has always been pressure to buy the packs if your friends have them, but now in gears of war for example.... even though it says on the back of the box of the $60 game you bought "play on fast and fair dedicated servers" you can now only play on those dedi servers IF you also bought the DLC. This is absurd imo.

DLC in concept could be great for both consumers AND developers. Unfortunately it is being abused imo for greed, and gamers in a vast majority are bending over taking it and saying please may i have another.

In addition i am really hating xbox atm because my account has been suspended and there by has cut me off from all the DLC i have paid for. Apparently when i used my credit card to buy some gold time a few months back instead of getting a prepaid card, i missed the fine print on the "grace period" where they let you continue to play for a week or two even when they can't charge your card and instead of reverting you to silver they suspend your account completely until the grace period balance is paid meaning you must add another care to your account. They also don't allow a cancelation of the auto renew on the system, you must go through a website and you can't remove the card. Its litterally held hostage, and in the case of a friend of mine he got charged for a year of gold out of nowhere 2 years after he added the card, and after 2 years of using gold prepaid cards. Leaving him dealing with a series of phone calls and disputes to get the charge reversed but still leaving him with an over drafted debit card/bank account. NICE RIGHT.

[wormraper]

yeah, it's beyond nuts how gamers have voted with their wallets and given in to the game companies. I just put it up for sale on half.com. Not worth keeping for this type of crap.

[MOONPHASE]

That's nothing. I have games that have over $100 worth of DLC for 1 game and I bought all of the DLC for it and i've done that for multiple games that are like that. Though those are niche games from niche companies that actually need that money unlike someone like Activision.

Some Japanese games even have 20,000 yen worth of DLC or more(over $200).

But you see, with those games, I honestly don't really care because I like the game and want to show as much support as I can for those niche companies and the work they put into for making my favorite games.

[Ada_Wong]

DLC is supposed to be an optional thing - those who want it are welcome to purchase it. What really gets me is how these DLC's are offered on future "complete edition", "game of the year edition", etc releases of the same game. It's like punishing the customer for purchasing the turns-out-to-be incomplete game for full price and rewarding the ones who waited.

Well, I refuse to be "punished" and have learned to wait for the game versions that include all the DLC's. Waiting turns the tables and gives the consumer the advantage - it'll allow us to avoid double-dipping on games just for their DLC's or if the game never gets a DLC for it, waiting will always guarantee lowered prices.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by Ada_Wong

DLC is supposed to be an optional thing - those who want it are welcome to purchase it. What really gets me is how these DLC's are offered on future "complete edition", "game of the year edition", etc releases of the same game. It's like punishing the customer for purchasing the turns-out-to-be incomplete game for full price and rewarding the ones who waited.

Well, I refuse to be "punished" and have learned to wait for the game versions that include all the DLC's. Waiting turns the tables and gives the consumer the advantage - it'll allow us to avoid double-dipping on games just for their DLC's or if the game never gets a DLC for it, waiting will always guarantee lowered prices.

Not every games gets a complete edition, Game of the Year edition, or whatever for not selling enough copies to warrant a Greatest Hits release. Though i'm probably just saying that since I buy games that would be lucky to even reach 100,000 copies sold in America. Even 50,000 would be considered a good number.

[Almadacr]

This reminds me of one edition of Assassins creed that the 13th episode of the game was missing in the game and came out as DLC since that day forward i never bought anymore DLC and then EA sports diden't helped by adding a fee for online play ( Activison was seriously thinking about this ) .

[tyler2tall147]

Originally Posted by Almadacr

This reminds me of one edition of Assassins creed that the 13th episode of the game was missing in the game and came out as DLC since that day forward i never bought anymore DLC and then EA sports diden't helped by adding a fee for online play ( Activison was seriously thinking about this ) .

The online passes don't bother me all that much. Don't buy the game used if you wanna play online. It only sucks if you move the game between multiple xboxs.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Fully agree but the sheep have spoken with their wallets saying this is an ok trend. Its a way for them to charge $100 plus for a game without people realizing thats what they paid. Now you have things like ELITE as well which is a yearly fee. It also bothers me the DLC is linked to your system in most cases and not your account. Meaning i cannot take it with me to a friends.

I thought the DLC content was linked to your account? I haven't had a working 360 in years, nor knows how Elite works, but I'm kind of surprised if you can't use your account in another system and the content you bought online. The Older Xbox 360 model at least had a removable hard drive you can replace on another system almost as easily as the memory card.

yeah, it's beyond nuts how gamers have voted with their wallets and given in to the game companies. I just put it up for sale on half.com. Not worth keeping for this type of crap.

In addition they are starting to force the purchase on you.... there has always been pressure to buy the packs if your friends have them, but now in gears of war for example.... even though it says on the back of the box of the $60 game you bought "play on fast and fair dedicated servers" you can now only play on those dedi servers IF you also bought the DLC. This is absurd imo.

It wouldn't have worked any other way, largely since most people want to get their money's worth out of their DLC. You couldn't do in say a PC game like Team Fortress 2, where they sell you guns and hats (mostly hats) that are not needed because they aren't substantial.

However, it most definitely would never worked in the PC realm, because there is A LOT of content provided by modders and such. Take a look at Valve, where all of their substantial DLC is free on the PC version, including Team Fortress 2. Microsoft wanted to charge the DLC of that game that we got free on PC; There is a reason the console versions of that game is dead.

In fact, Call of Duty Elite isn't even available in the PC version of MW3, meaning the only way to get the "substantial" DLC is through larger map packs that cost $15 each, and we had to wait even longer than the PS3 version "big" map pack (First PC map pack was in the middle of May I believe). You think PS3 owners got it bad, the PC version has very infrequent patching and also a few game-killing ones (my gaming PC gives me a blue screen of death after a recent update of that game), which is why I haven't got the DLC of MW3. I like the game, but having to resort to updating my BIOS in order to play a game running on a Quake III engine on steroids is borderline ridiculous.

[beefytwinkie]

I think Asura's Wrath is ridiculous. In order for you to get the really real, totally true ending, you have to purchase the DLC. What the hell kinda crap is that? I wanted that game and it dropped to $15 bucks at one point but there is no way I'm going to support that. My non-purchase is inconsequential to them but I can't bring myself to support a title that requires you to pay more to get the final, final ending.

[Almadacr]

Originally Posted by tyler2tall147

The online passes don't bother me all that much. Don't buy the game used if you wanna play online. It only sucks if you move the game between multiple xboxs.

I would't mind to pay the $10 asked by EA the problem is .... the games don't work on the multiplayer side ( my experiences are with FIFA and NHL ) every year is the same thing , the worst is that they are aware of the situations by the EA forums but they don't do nothing to change that .

Other thing is you paid $60 for a game and in a 2 years period they shut down the server ( BTW IMO the worst servers in the gaming community ) . Does gamer's think about that ?

Keep in mind that there isn't much upgrade in the games playability .. so PPL are paying $60 for a roaster update .

[mostlyharmless]

Agreed, DLC sucks, and that's why I got out of FPS and have stayed away from consoles.

I'm probably going to give Tony Hawks HD a whirl on Tuesday, but that's only a 20 dollar game. I'm also going to be playing Guild Wars 2 (PC game, but everything purchasable in micro transactions in that game can be earned through game play...)

This crap of buying a 60 dollar game, and then having to pay 50 bucks for xbox live to use play multiplayer, and then on top of it having to fork over 15 bucks so you can actually get into the servers that are running map rotations having the DLC in it is absolutely asinine. They won't be getting my money for FPS any longer. When the content is older and cheap? Sure, I'll buy it on steam for 20 cents on the dollar during a steam sale so I can play through the SP, but MP? EA/Activision etc...they can all go bite a dick as far as Im concerned.

[Steve]

Every time I read through a thread like this it just makes me feel that much better that I gave up on online play altogether.

Luckily for me the debit card I had linked to my Xbox Live account expired and I got a new card with a new number a couple of months prior to renewal. They can hold that card hostage all they want (which is total BS by the way).

[ThePhantomOak]

I dont think that people have spoken...

I think that they have tested the model, and now they are getting significant pushback.


Not JUST by the people who dont buy, but more importantly, by the people who do. At one point map packs were a thing gamers liked to use to exclude other gamers from "their" world.

Now, more games are starting to suffer from fracturing the playerbase with map packs. This hurts people who bought the maps as well... That causes even more pushback, and now you are seeing games offer map packs free and looking towards a more micro transaction model (as well as a non-actual-game related fee model) where they can squeeze the people willing to pay, but leave the actual game open to everyone...

For example COD Elite is part of this... as far as I know, you are not missing a significant part of the actual game if you dont buy it.





The DLC model is extremely new to these companies and consumers. It is just now feeling significant pushback...


BTW, PC games have had paid additions for a LONG time. You just bought it in a store instead of downloading it.





Gaming is a fairly open and free market... NO ONE is forced to buy DLC. There is a pretty good idea of what the product you are buying is, so it is hard to get blindsided. Basically, people who buy DLC are better off, and people who sell it are better off... no one is "bending over and taking it." It is a transaction that makes both sides better off...

The issue devs are running into is that fewer people are buying (meaning fewer people think they improve their situation in the trade of money for goods and services), so devs are starting to have to change their model.


The only thing that Publishers are doing to actually try to screw us is trying to eliminate the used market. They (as is well known) manipulate reviews in their favor in an attempt to restrict information, thus removing the core of what makes a free market work. That is fine if, say, you decide that $30 is a good risk premium to pay to try a game, because you can sell it if it sucks. Now Developers are trying to take that away, too.

Essentially, they are explicitly trying to force everyone into a blind-buy moderate purchase, with no recourse after the transaction.



That, to me, is FAR worse than DLC.

[sk33tr]

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless

Agreed, DLC sucks, and that's why I got out of FPS and have stayed away from consoles.

oh trust me, it's not just consoles. they do it on pc as well.

i bought cod:mw3 a couple days after it was released. i paid $60 for it at best buy (or was it wal-mart? oh well, not important).

well, i hadn't played it in a while so i decided to fire it up and give it a go a couple weeks ago.

of course, there was a dlc notice on the cod:mw3 page on steam. i read a little further to see what was included with the dlc and noticed it said there two packs to dl and they were both discounted and the proceeds were to go to charity (don't know if that's true, but that's what it said).

i may have been a little behind everyone else who plays, but i got both packs for just $7.49/ea. imo, it was worth the wait as i paid half of what they were when they were first released.

in all i've paid $75 for the game. and it's a game of which i've gotten a lot of enjoyment. i played through the single-player campaign a couple times and i've been playing multiplayer every since then. i need to go back through and finish up the spec-ops portion.



i don't have an xbox 360 so i don't have to pay for xbox live. but even if i DID have one, i wouldn't pay for xbox live just to be able to play online.

you pay for the game, you pay for the dlc, then you pay to play online just to be able to use that dlc.

not cool, imo.

i don't mind paying for dlc (if it's worth it), but having to pay for the ability just to play online is utter bullshit. and i won't do it.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by ThePhantomOak

I dont think that people have spoken...

I think that they have tested the model, and now they are getting significant pushback.

Not JUST by the people who dont buy, but more importantly, by the people who do. At one point map packs were a thing gamers liked to use to exclude other gamers from "their" world.

Now, more games are starting to suffer from fracturing the playerbase with map packs. This hurts people who bought the maps as well... That causes even more pushback, and now you are seeing games offer map packs free and looking towards a more micro transaction model (as well as a non-actual-game related fee model) where they can squeeze the people willing to pay, but leave the actual game open to everyone...

For example COD Elite is part of this... as far as I know, you are not missing a significant part of the actual game if you dont buy it.

The Free-to-Play model (of Team Fortress 2) is the anti-thesis to Call of Duty Elite subscription model.

I think, as I mentioned again, Valve is a very good model in the way that people can use any of the content in their games, so EVERYONE can access the same maps and the same content. In Team Fortress 2, most of the "DLC" can be earned in-game, and unlike the micro-transaction models that plague the concept, most of those items aren't much better, if at all than the standard items you get from the game; most of the earnable items are ideally nerfed (A Sniper Rifle that can injects piss (no Seriously) to make the victim more prone to damage, but it can't pull headshots, a lightning fast rocket launcher with a very small explosion radius, etc.). In fact, some of the best players never even bother using any of the new items or crap (hats) in the game. They are at best emblems in the game.

COD Elite does prevent you from accessing a "VIP" section of the community that can have content non-elite members can't. Whether the content is important to the game isn't the point, but rather it does allow the "elite" access to content that other players can't, unlike Valve's take on DLC.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by sk33tr

oh trust me, it's not just consoles. they do it on pc as well.

i bought cod:mw3 a couple days after it was released. i paid $60 for it at best buy (or was it wal-mart? oh well, not important).

well, i hadn't played it in a while so i decided to fire it up and give it a go a couple weeks ago.

of course, there was a dlc notice on the cod:mw3 page on steam. i read a little further to see what was included with the dlc and noticed it said there two packs to dl and they were both discounted and the proceeds were to go to charity (don't know if that's true, but that's what it said).

i may have been a little behind everyone else who plays, but i got both packs for just $7.49/ea. imo, it was worth the wait as i paid half of what they were when they were first released.

in all i've paid $75 for the game. and it's a game of which i've gotten a lot of enjoyment. i played through the single-player campaign a couple times and i've been playing multiplayer every since then. i need to go back through and finish up the spec-ops portion.



i don't have an xbox 360 so i don't have to pay for xbox live. but even if i DID have one, i wouldn't pay for xbox live just to be able to play online.

you pay for the game, you pay for the dlc, then you pay to play online just to be able to use that dlc.

not cool, imo.

i don't mind paying for dlc (if it's worth it), but having to pay for the ability just to play online is utter bullshit. and i won't do it.

The half price on the MW3 dlc packs was much better deal than whatever Elite offered, but it still sucked we had to wait until the middle of may to get the first package. Elite doesn't even exist in the PC version. I didn't get the DLC for the PC version because of that damn BSoD bug that is a hassle for me. I'm kind of disturbed they still didn't patched up such a destructive bug.

[wilky61]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ok, DLC is getting out of control I just go a copy of "Black ops" today so I could play zombies with my buddy only to find out to get all the zombies maps I had to spend $60 on 4 map packs to get the maps. that's TWICE what I paid for the game alone just for the add on packs. this is getting ridiculous guys. I played pc games for YEARS and map packs were always (or almost always) just free downloads for FPS games. $15 is just WAY too much for a couple of maps.

Yeah, game designers/companies are trying to take over the custom maps market so that they are no longer user-generated and freely downloaded across the Internet... they'll try to squeeze an extra $$ out of you any way they can.

[BJ Blazkowicz]

The gaming industry's greed knows no limits. Very few games give you much bang for their buck. Game companies have ripped people off since the beginning when they made titles like ET for Atari and dozens of awful games for NES (there were classics of course but if I paid 50 or 60 dollars at the time for a game like Predator I'd feel very ripped off). Now they're using DLC to squeeze every last penny out of their customers for content that should be included in the games at launch. The whole industry can crash and burn for all I care.