On disk DLC: what's with the controversy?

Laconic: I don't think it has to be that controversial. There's a reason why (at least, what I think).

Dlc is when, well, you download additional content from the creators. It may be free or it may ask you to pay more. On-disk dlc, however, isn't technically "downloaded" since it's there from the start, so it's more like Unlockable Content.

Thing is, people forget that there often is a good reason why a content is just locked on disc rather than really a downloadable one. In case of fighting games (where I see this often; other kinds of competitive games apply), playable character dlc is bound to be "on disc" (i.e unlockable) because, if you fight against an opponent that plays that character, your disc must have the data of that character. Same goes to downloadable weapons or outfit that change the appearance of the character. If your disc can ignore what kind of dlc other people buy (e.g a custom interface that may only show up on the people who purchase it), then it can be a true downloadable content.

Maybe it's wrong in the first place that a playable character is a dlc at all?

P.s I ask this out of simple curiosity, and what I said might be wrong. I love to be corrected.

While disc-locked content saves on bandwidth costs of downloading the extra content, I can't blame the average player for feeling entitled to the content that is "already there".

It is a matter of public viewpoint and impression. It is difficult for the dev/publisher to convince the buyer that for the retail price they are only being sold "THIS" part of the game, especially once the disc-locked content has been datamined. IMO, actually a fair business practice as long as all the items that the retail price entails, is clear-cut.

People have the impression that the DLC should only be developed after the base game has been done. Having the DLC on the disc only makes people accuse the publisher of locking content that should be in the main game via a pay-wall.

edited 10th Dec '15 1:44:05 AM by Malco

You've pretty much summarized its existence and flaws: it's created for pragmatic business reasons to help sell new or day-one copies, and also works as a counter against piracy. And while some may question the ethics of it, I personally find it negligible in most cases, especially if it's from a developer or franchise I trust or enjoy.

...well, the exception being how EA is currently handling DLC expansions, such as the $50 Battlefront stuff that hasn't even been announced yet.

edited 10th Dec '15 3:41:40 AM by SgtRicko

I have to agree. I generally have no problem with on disk DLC as long as I can get it eventually.

But yes, the $50 Star Wars Battlefront Season Pass is ridiculous.

And on top of that, they released such a bare bones game so they could fill in the empty spots later with DLC.

That is greed.

Super Smash Bros does DLC right. The game is complete enough so that you can have a complete experience without feeling like you're missing out on anything. Nintendo doesn't force you to buy the DLC and it's reasonably priced.

I love Call of Duty, and I like how they do DLC also. Black Ops 3 is a complete experience and I don't need the DLC to finish the game for me. But it's there if I want it.

The DLC for Smash was also created after they had completed the main game, which is how DLC should be handled.

One thing I've noticed for some games is DLC that's sorta included in patches. The content for the DLC is in the patch but you have to pay for the DLC to get the DLC stuff.

Which I don't mind, but I think it's interesting and wonder why more people don't talk about it.

edited 10th Dec '15 5:51:52 AM by unnoun

It's on the disc, I purchased the disc, I should have access to everything on the disc if it's in a complete state.

Not that hard to understand. It should be illegal.

edited 10th Dec '15 5:52:21 AM by Karxrida

^ That. It's like if I buy a Quarter Pounder Meal at Mc Donald's, everything it comes with I have for one time pay. If they say it comes with the burger, fries and a drink but when you get it the fries are locked in the container until you pay for some bullshit, that'd be a complete outrage.

I mean, with games it's also illegal to download the game on the disk and sell it.

You can sell the disk itself though.

Software is weird, what with not being an actual physical thing.

Because it's fundamentally different. DLC stuff added in a patch was developed after the game went gold, and is therefor not something that can not be reasonably expected to be included in the purchase price of the game.

To me on disk DLC feels like cutting up the game to sell you more stuff as by definition work on it must have been completed by the time the game was deemed ready for release.

edited 10th Dec '15 6:01:34 AM by BigMadDraco

Like, I don't like on-disk DLC, and I think it's immoral and unethical, but.

In some respects, I think the way people react to it is slightly more interesting to talk about.

Ah jeez, this got longer than I expected. This is my thoughts on on-disc DLC and why I don't like it.

I grew up with the PS 2, and I feel like everything on that disc was mine to explore. I can glitch it and break it, spend hours completing it or whatever I liked. Everything to access on the game disc was there to enjoy.

The thought of having stuff on the disc that is intended to be used and played with in a legitimate way, as opposed to cut content that's been dummied out, by paying a fee after buying a game - I don't like it. Like if there are remnants of incoming DLC in a patch to get the game ready for that DLC, alright. If there's a game with three or four completed characters, or missions to play, that have been there since day one and need to be bought? That's scummy and awful. There's no reason not to include them in the full game, or at least gouge them out and sell it as straight DLC. You know, downloadable content that you actually download.

That sort of stuff has been in games since at least Pokemon Red/Blue, or Gold/Silver, with the legendary pokemon events that you need to go to in order to help with 100% completion. That's similar, and I'm not a big fan of that either. At the same time, I see PS 3/4/whatever else uses on-disc DLC through the same lens as I see/saw PS 2 discs. I'm already bummed out about games like Destiny being so anal about getting outside the map, and on top of that there's completed content on the discs you can buy that you can't access without paying more for. It feels awful.

Do I feel entitled to on-disc functions and completed elements? Yeah. Maybe that's wrong, I mean your disc is basically a contract that you buy to use whatever publisher's "service", as opposing to buying the right to play with everything on the disc. But I feel like that's scummy and awful. I pay $80 for a game, and I expect it to come with everything. Not a fully accessible nugget of the game hidden by a pay wall.

A lot of the time, the On-Disk DLC is material that was clearly intended to be in the game to begin with. People take offense to being charged for something that was basically meant to be part of the game, or to being sold an "incomplete" game.

Take Warhammer Total War's decision to make Chaos, one of the faction, and the closest thing the series has to a Big Bad, a day 1 / on disk DLC. That's 20% of the game's factions that are now a DLC or preorder bonus. Of course people will be pissed.

What I don't understand is the problem: how is there any difference at all beyond just the content being on the disc already? Does it matter at all? Does everyone really want to have to download the DLC instead of it being there already when you buy it?

I'd rather buy additional content and have it added to the game I already have, at the expense of having to download it and wait for everything to install, instead of unlocking something that was already a part of the game I paid $80 for.

The issue isn't the "downloadable" part so much as "there is day 1 content you intentionally left off in order to get more money."

It being on-disk destroys any sort of excuse about "well, we added it later." The sole reason it exists is to sell us a game and then refuse to allow access to it unless we pay extra.

The controversy is whether you think they're entitled to do that or the consumer is entitled to their content.

If you can't access it, then clearly it wasn't an integral part of the game. They're not locking you out of anything, you can buy what you like. Just because it's on-disc doesn't mean you're entitled to it, that's the dev's decision.

Also, I'm quite sure that not all devs who do this are greedy bastards looking for more money. Why do people have problems with creators charging for creations?

edited 10th Dec '15 8:04:05 AM by Kyotor

Oh Hi strawman, how nice to see you jumping down this here slippery slope.

No one is saying creators shouldn't be paid. But there's a difference between paying for a game, and feeling like you're being charged extra for a game or content you already bought.

edited 10th Dec '15 8:11:51 AM by CobraPrime

I bought the disc, which means I have all the content on said disc. Charging me even more to access all the content I paid for is a crappy thing to do.

They're not charging you more for something you already bought, they're charging you for DLC that you decide to buy. You bought the disk, now buy the DLC if you want. It's not a "paywall," it's DLC.

The objection is that it's not actually "DL"C. You're not downloading anything if it's already on the disc, you're simply paying to remove the wall that keeps you from the content.

I think the level of anger is completely unwarranted (you'd think companies that do this murder puppies in the street the way people react), and I think the argument of "I own the disc and therefore I own everything on it" shows a lack of understanding of how software works, but I understand the concern.

edited 10th Dec '15 8:20:39 AM by BadWolf21

Because when done poorly, you end up with a game at released that doesn't feel like a finished product.

My best example of this would be something like Mass Effect 3 walling off the Javik DLC. You has to buy it separately if you did not purchase the Collector's Edition of the game. Not bad on its own, but Javik was actually pivotal to the lore of the entire trilogy, completely changing the perspective of the story.

edited 10th Dec '15 8:29:13 AM by Lionheart0

I have no issue with buying and downloading the same content if I really want it. I feel ripped off if I'm paying to access stuff that's on my copy of the game already. Let them price their content as they please, but don't sell me something that exists in my possession already. Like I know that the game's software doesn't belong to me, but if it's present on the disc then I already shelled out for it.

And this will be the last time I repeat this argument because it's repetitive and annoying - $80. That's how much a new game costs in Australia, if not more for bigger titles. That's a lot of money. I feel cheated if I have to pay more on top of $80 for a brand new, top-of-the-line vidya game, for content that always existed on that brand new, top-of-the-line vidya game.

Plus, DLC is usually specified in part by the publisher as well as the team. Not liking on-disc DLC doesn't mean I'm against supporting creators, or against creative freedom.

I personally have no major objections to on-disc game expansions in and of themselves. The problem I have is that too many games ship in an incomplete or unbalanced state, with bugs or design flaws. I'd rather it be a near-universal standard in game development to be thorough in testing for both bugs and other issues, giving that priority over game expansions.

I can't really object to it if the game is highly polished from the get go. However, I'd prefer it though if such things weren't common, so it couldn't set an example for other less careful (or more greedy) devs to follow.

While I don't like on-disk DLC myself, I think there's a side to it that many people don't realize.

My friend who's even more of a gamer than I am told me about this. The reason DLC is so common these days is because, aside from trying to make back the costs of development, after the base game is finished the development team has nothing left to do for the few weeks or months before the game's official release. In this scenario, there's normally two options - either keep them around and pay them (or don't) to do absolutely nothing, or release them and have them unable to do any more work for the company. Neither of them sound like good ideas, right? So instead, they're gonna put them to work on some new "bonus" content.

This is typically what becomes the day-one DLC that we're all familiar with. You'll notice that a lot of it is skins or outfits or other cosmetic items that don't affect the gameplay, because that's much easier and faster to make than something which requires some new programming to be added to a game that already went gold and can't be changed unless they restart the verification process with Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc.

So basically, in most cases, what on-disk DLC is is that bit of extra payment for the guys who continued to work after their game was already done and added some extra content. If they hadn't been working on that, they would've likely had to go with one of the options above, which wouldn't turn out so well.