The DLC trend

What's so wrong about this? You pay money for a low-end processor, you get a low-end processor. You pay extra money, you upgrade it. Why do people always get so upset by this?
 
Because you aren't paying extra money to upgrade it. If Intel can cover the costs of the processor with the base version those 50$ for the unlocked version are extra cash they are milking out of your pocket.
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
Because you aren't paying extra money to upgrade it. If Intel can cover the costs of the processor with the base version those 50$ for the unlocked version are extra cash they are milking out of your pocket.
Click to expand...
Not really, they're just selling a product for profit. They are a business, y'know. This entire world is built on the idea of asking more money for something than it cost you to produce it. Think about it: you wouldn't be complaining if they created two separate products at the exact same priceline as this CPU and its upgrade. Yet there's no practical difference between the two, so you're only complaining about a perception.

If another company can do it cheaper than them, they'll feel the competition. And I'm sure AMD will try.

Besides all that, Intel already does this sort of thing at a hardware level. Cheaper CPUs are often made with the exact same process the more expensive CPUs are made, except the cheaper CPUs are the 'broken' models produced by the process.
 
It depends on what kind of a DLC we are talking about. Paying 10 dollars extra for 4 or 5 multiplayer maps is a ripoff. But on the other hand something like the Borderlands DLC's is acceptable. They really add something to the games content and story.
 
I agree with you on the Borderlands DLCs, especially The Zombie Island of Dr Ned, and The Secret Armory of General Knoxx.

Astiaks, what did you think of Claptrap's New Robot Revolution?

I wish the main campaign had been longer.
 
Not really, they're just selling a product for profit. They are a business, y'know. This entire world is built on the idea of asking more money for something than it cost you to produce it. Think about it: you wouldn't be complaining if they created two separate products at the exact same priceline as this CPU and its upgrade. Yet there's no practical difference between the two, so you're only complaining about a perception.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit too much for profit though? Sure, companies have always tried making as much money as possible, but this trend just shows a relative lack of competition. If another company could offer the same but at the base price w/o "DLC", this thing would never fly for Intel (or it'd turn into one of those "overpriced brand names" like Apple). With only two major producers in the market, we're more likely to see AMD doing the exact same thing.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
I agree with you on the Borderlands DLCs, especially The Zombie Island of Dr Ned, and The Secret Armory of General Knoxx.

Astiaks, what did you think of Claptrap's New Robot Revolution?

I wish the main campaign had been longer.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly i haven't had time to play it but it sounds pretty neat.
 
Sander said:
What's so wrong about this? You pay money for a low-end processor, you get a low-end processor. You pay extra money, you upgrade it. Why do people always get so upset by this?
Click to expand...

I think we're more talking about some publishers abusing a monopoly here, and hence always giving us less and less content, and making us pay more for it. People vote with their money, maybe, but when there are just shitty candidates, they vote anyway. So they get the money anyway.
The game they play is dangerous, however. Low-cost game development is waiting at the door.
 
Sander said:
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
Because you aren't paying extra money to upgrade it. If Intel can cover the costs of the processor with the base version those 50$ for the unlocked version are extra cash they are milking out of your pocket.
Click to expand...
Not really, they're just selling a product for profit. They are a business, y'know. This entire world is built on the idea of asking more money for something than it cost you to produce it. Think about it: you wouldn't be complaining if they created two separate products at the exact same priceline as this CPU and its upgrade. Yet there's no practical difference between the two, so you're only complaining about a perception.

If another company can do it cheaper than them, they'll feel the competition. And I'm sure AMD will try.

Besides all that, Intel already does this sort of thing at a hardware level. Cheaper CPUs are often made with the exact same process the more expensive CPUs are made, except the cheaper CPUs are the 'broken' models produced by the process.
Click to expand...
Youre making a few nice points.

Just that I have to say that doesnt mean anything as it doesnt make it right.

In the 18 century it was no problem to let people work without any safety, insurance, unions or rights at all. That was "ok". And they could probably do the exact same today as well. Its capitalism. But that doesnt mean its "right".

There is a difference between what they can do and what they "should" do. And usualy today it happens quite often that games cut out content which gets sold as DLC later (see assasins creed where they even have admit that, same with ArcaniA in Gothic). Is that really the way in which games should go ? That we pay for "unifinished" Beta versions even where its no surprise to get a "release patch" so the game runs well on your system ? Companies have to survive, yes. They have to make a living and all that stuff. But what happend with things like "customer-friendlynes", "Value for money" or "quality control". Have those loost all their meaning for the consumer and companies ?

Not everything that happens in the name of the buisness or capitalism means that it has to be tolerated. Sadly gamers seem to be a somewhat different kind of consumer compared to many other branches. But we Germany at least managed to even kick out Walmart. No one either wanted to work for them or to buy their products really. So they had to leave.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Youre making a few nice points.

Just that I have to say that doesnt mean anything as it doesnt make it right.

In the 18 century it was no problem to let people work without any safety, insurance, unions or rights at all. That was "ok". And they could probably do the exact same today as well. Its capitalism. But that doesnt mean its "right".

There is a difference between what they can do and what they "should" do. And usualy today it happens quite often that games cut out content which gets sold as DLC later (see assasins creed where they even have admit that, same with ArcaniA in Gothic). Is that really the way in which games should go ? That we pay for "unifinished" Beta versions even where its no surprise to get a "release patch" so the game runs well on your system ? Companies have to survive, yes. They have to make a living and all that stuff. But what happend with things like "customer-friendlynes", "Value for money" or "quality control". Have those loost all their meaning for the consumer and companies ?

Not everything that happens in the name of the buisness or capitalism means that it has to be tolerated. Sadly gamers seem to be a somewhat different kind of consumer compared to many other branches. But we Germany at least managed to even kick out Walmart. No one either wanted to work for them or to buy their products really. So they had to leave.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, but this isn't exactly hurting anyone.
 
hmm ? Why does it have to hurt "someone" first. There are many laws or regulations in use with the focus on a "fair" market to say it that way. Well at least here. Like as good example price agreements or monopolism both of which do not really "hurt" anyone but put the consumer in a disadvantage.

The free market is not free. It just means the company is free to do what ever they want. Now I am not saying DLCs need regulations. But is it really necessary to think in "it hurts" - "it doesnt hurt" particularly when we are talking here about the way how you waste your money. You either buy it or you dont. But that doesnt mean its right. Actualy I dont know what my point really is.

Maybe I am just sentimental and miss those times when I could thrust game developers and their comments. When they talked about their game in interviews with the target to not just make games to sell them but REALLY see happy consumers and feel proud about a prouduct many people can enjoy. I think quite a lot of old developers seen themself eventually as artist. Or at least I compare it with that. A professional artist has to try to get money and do what is necessary. But I think for many artists the real joy is when the people actualy "enjoy" their work. Has been always true with my art at least. But well thats just me.
 
It's an interesting idea, to say the least. At first I thought "How the hell could this work? Wouldn't everyone just crack the damned thing?".

But then I read that they were only selling it in those piece of shit gateways, which are only purchased by computer illiterates. This little nugget of knowledge makes the idea go from idiotic to genius; as the type of person who buys a gateway is also the person who buys into all of those subscription firewall/spyware scanner scams.

Well played Intel, well played.
 
Crni Vuk said:
hmm ? Why does it have to hurt "someone" first. There are many laws or regulations in use with the focus on a "fair" market to say it that way. Well at least here. Like as good example price agreements or monopolism both of which do not really "hurt" anyone but put the consumer in a disadvantage.

The free market is not free. It just means the company is free to do what ever they want. Now I am not saying DLCs need regulations. But is it really necessary to think in "it hurts" - "it doesnt hurt" particularly when we are talking here about the way how you waste your money. You either buy it or you dont. But that doesnt mean its right. Actualy I dont know what my point really is.
Click to expand...
Yes yes yes. What, exactly, is your point here? DLCs are not interfering with a fair market, they do not constitute any form of monopoly, they are not the consequence of cartels and they don't hurt anyone.
Excuse for me not seeing a moral problem here.

See, people keep railing against DLCs but they can't really construct a logical argument as to what, exactly, is wrong with DLCs. The only valid complaint is that it's too expensive for too little content. Well okay, no one's forcing anyone to buy DLCs are they? Are you going to claim that $200 jeans are immoral too?
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe I am just sentimental and miss those times when I could thrust game developers and their comments. When they talked about their game in interviews with the target to not just make games to sell them but REALLY see happy consumers and feel proud about a prouduct many people can enjoy. I think quite a lot of old developers seen themself eventually as artist. Or at least I compare it with that. A professional artist has to try to get money and do what is necessary. But I think for many artists the real joy is when the people actualy "enjoy" their work. Has been always true with my art at least. But well thats just me.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of developers out there making games for their own enjoyment only. Big-budget games and big-budget hardware are produced by businesses, not artists.
 
Sander said:
Well okay, no one's forcing anyone to buy DLCs are they? Are you going to claim that $200 jeans are immoral too?
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and oranges here.
We don't care about 200$ jeans because there's plenty of choice for cheap alternatives.
The market game, however is flooded by big budget but content-scarce games, published by a handful of "majors".
In this context, yes, the trend of DLC's is a shame. Introduce a little more competition in-here and they would probably become marginal.
More competitors like Valve, for example, from which game updates are INCLUDED with the game and not SOLD afterwards (at least on PC).
 
Sander said:
Besides all that, Intel already does this sort of thing at a hardware level. Cheaper CPUs are often made with the exact same process the more expensive CPUs are made, except the cheaper CPUs are the 'broken' models produced by the process.
Click to expand...
It's completely different, selling CPUs with deactivated cores that don't perform up to specs (or at all) for less is entirely different from selling a product and then selling software to make it work to it's full capability. The former product is working to it's full safe capability while the later is selling you a product which is limited for the sole reason of selling software that unlocks it. With the former you can be lucky and get one with deactivated functional cores which you can then reactivate at no additional cost to you but running the risk of activating bad cores. It's a free possible upgrade.

Odds are that the price point on the hardware is such that it covers manufacturing costs so the problem is that consumers are being charged for an upgrade whose cost has already been covered in the original product price. Sure, there are alternatives currently but if this takes off like game DLCs then customers are just going to get fucked. A monopoly-like situation arising in the market is a serious issue.

Sander said:
Are you going to claim that $200 jeans are immoral too?
Click to expand...
Ahh but that's not the same thing at all. It would be more like selling the crotch portion of pants for standard retail and then charging customers another $20 for the legs. It's still not a good comparison as the markets are completely different so let's shift it to diamonds.

Diamonds (which are a less than perfect comparison given they are both naturally occurring and manufactured) are not as rare or expensive to extract as the price suggests but due to De Beers having essentially a monopoly on the market they have been able to massively artificially inflate the price of diamonds. That, I think, is the concern. It's a slippery-slope argument, sure, but it isn't always invalid. In fact, in the processor market it would be very easy for the two manufacturers to form an implicit cartel which manipulated the market, something which is illegal (anti-trust laws), if hard to prove when implicit.
 
It would be more like selling the crotch portion of pants for standard retail and then charging customers another $20 for the legs. It's still not a good comparison as the markets are completely different so let's shift it to diamonds.
Click to expand...

To use a better example: imagine buying a game at full retail price, and then finding out that you have to pay an extra amount of money to activate it (and otherwise you get, say, a demo-version).
 
UncannyGarlic said:
It's completely different, selling CPUs with deactivated cores that don't perform up to specs (or at all) for less is entirely different from selling a product and then selling software to make it work to it's full capability. The former product is working to it's full safe capability while the later is selling you a product which is limited for the sole reason of selling software that unlocks it. With the former you can be lucky and get one with deactivated functional cores which you can then reactivate at no additional cost to you but running the risk of activating bad cores. It's a free possible upgrade.

Odds are that the price point on the hardware is such that it covers manufacturing costs so the problem is that consumers are being charged for an upgrade whose cost has already been covered in the original product price. Sure, there are alternatives currently but if this takes off like game DLCs then customers are just going to get fucked. A monopoly-like situation arising in the market is a serious issue.
Click to expand...
Yet there is no monopoly-like situation in that market, and that is not what people are complaining about. They're complaining about the perception that the hardware they bought could do more than it currently does.

UncannyGarlic said:
Ahh but that's not the same thing at all. It would be more like selling the crotch portion of pants for standard retail and then charging customers another $20 for the legs. It's still not a good comparison as the markets are completely different so let's shift it to diamonds.

Diamonds (which are a less than perfect comparison given they are both naturally occurring and manufactured) are not as rare or expensive to extract as the price suggests but due to De Beers having essentially a monopoly on the market they have been able to massively artificially inflate the price of diamonds. That, I think, is the concern. It's a slippery-slope argument, sure, but it isn't always invalid. In fact, in the processor market it would be very easy for the two manufacturers to form an implicit cartel which manipulated the market, something which is illegal (anti-trust laws), if hard to prove when implicit.
Click to expand...
So the problem is that there might be a cartel?
Well, again, what does this have to do with DLC? Nothing, is what. There is nothing inherent about DLCs that make it an exploitation of the customers.

Ausdoerrt said:
To use a better example: imagine buying a game at full retail price, and then finding out that you have to pay an extra amount of money to activate it (and otherwise you get, say, a demo-version).
Click to expand...
That's a horrible example. If you buy the processor, you're not getting less than you paid for: you're getting exactly what you paid for. And if you pay more, you can increase its performance level.

Arr0nax said:
You're comparing apples and oranges here.
We don't care about 200$ jeans because there's plenty of choice for cheap alternatives. The market game, however is flooded by big budget but content-scarce games, published by a handful of "majors".
In this context, yes, the trend of DLC's is a shame. Introduce a little more competition in-here and they would probably become marginal.
More competitors like Valve, for example, from which game updates are INCLUDED with the game and not SOLD afterwards (at least on PC).
Click to expand...
There is plenty of cheaper competition in the form of indie games, or in fact these big-budget games without DLC.

DLCs are *extra*. They're not required to make a game work.
 
Sander said:
Well, again, what does this have to do with DLC? Nothing, is what. There is nothing inherent about DLCs that make it an exploitation of the customers.
Click to expand...
I think you quite missunderstood me Sandy. What I mainly think about is the evolution, the intention and ideas behind DLCs. Com on dont you enjoy quality games as well ? Not even you can be THAT capitalistic to simply accept it cause its a part of the usual buisness or market.

The question is in what direction it will move. When you compare the usual content a few years back with addons and the trend of DLCs now there is a shift. And there seems to be as well the idea to eventually not even release full games anymore but offer them as form of system where you buy the indidivual features. While this might sound good (you just want the singleplayer you just pay for it anything else like a multiplayer part would need extrea money) it has the risk that you might end with a much more expensive product then it would be usualy. Microsoft at some point even played with the idea to charge money for online gaming on the PC. Luckily that never worked. Many games today though get already released without the support for dedicated servers. Online accounts that force you to be always online even for the singleplayer. Is it just me who thinks that this constant baby sitting by the companies is a bad thing ? Letz be honest, you cant really like the path it seems to take either. ~ Imagine where we might be in 5 or 10 years from now.

Sander said:
DLCs are *extra*. They're not required to make a game work.
Click to expand...
Not yet ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
I think you quite missunderstood me Sandy. What I mainly think about is the evolution, the intention and ideas behind DLCs. Com on dont you enjoy quality games as well ? Not even you can be THAT capitalistic to simply accept it cause its a part of the usual buisness or market.
Click to expand...
No, I just don't see why the existence of DLCs means games become worse.

Crni Vuk said:
The question is in what direction it will move. When you compare the usual content a few years back with addons and the trend of DLCs now there is a shift. And there seems to be as well the idea to eventually not even release full games anymore but offer them as form of system where you buy the indidivual features. While this might sound good (you just want the singleplayer you just pay for it anything else like a multiplayer part would need extrea money) it has the risk that you might end with a much more expensive product then it would be usualy. Microsoft at some point even played with the idea to charge money for online gaming on the PC. Luckily that never worked. Many games today though get already released without the support for dedicated servers. Online accounts that force you to be always online even for the singleplayer. Is it just me who thinks that this constant baby sitting by the companies is a bad thing ? Letz be honest, you cant really like the path it seems to take either. ~ Imagine where we might be in 5 or 10 years from now.
Click to expand...
You're confusing DLCs and anti-piracy measures here.

Crni Vuk said:
Not yet ...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure they'll be falsely advertising a game and then requiring you to pay more lately.

Oh wait, that's illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top