Your thoughts on disc locked content and day one DLC

Discussion in 'Technology' started by Armadeadn, Oct 19, 2012.


    I've just been reading the above article about disc locked content, the stuff that's on the disc you bought but you have to pay extra for it anyway. I was wondering how you all felt about it. I know that although you own the disc you don't automatically own the rights to the files on the disc, you just bought a licence to use part of the content on the disc, I'm ok with that. My gripe with it is when companies make a finished game, and then lock some the content away just to charge us for it later, that's unethical.

    I have no problem with DLC, I think it can be great if done well. Rockstar are amazing when it comes to DLC in my opinion. They release a finished game like GTAIV. Then a few months down the line when they feel the game might be becoming a little stale they release an add on, The Lost and Damned, introducing more guns, more vehicles, more music, more GTA. It's a separate entity in it's own right (highlighted by the fact that you can buy and play it without GTAIV itself). It keeps the game fresh and it wasn't just something they cut out of the original title to cash in on.

    Then you have games like Street Fighter X Tekken, who have a wide variety of characters and stat boosting gems available for download. Only they're not available for download. You already have them on the disc, they came shipped with the "finished" product but you have to pay extra to be able to use them. Capcom could have very easily incorporated them into the main roster from launch but they purposefully decided to cut them from the finished game to sell on later as an "extra". Even the PS3 exclusives Pac-Man and Mega-Man are on the Xbox 360 disc, they're just locked.

    While this isn't illegal I find it to be a very underhand tactic and one more and more companies seem to be employing. Gears of War 3 was guilty of the same thing as the first map pack was on the disc from launch. Resident Evil 6 supposedly had disc locked content too, bringing the debate back again. Heck even Resident Evil 5 had it. Capcom seem to love holding back content from finished games and charging for it later. At the very least it's lying by ommision as they NEVER confess that the discs have content you have to pay extra for, it's always some hacker exposing it.

    Anyway what are your thoughts? Do you think game companies are perfectly in the right to do this? Do you think gamers have a legitimate argument? Do you even care about disc locked content?
  2. I don't see a problem with it as long as the game works well on it's own minus the disc locked material. If you started getting into situations where the developer intentionally gimped the game to push people to pay extra, that's where the ethical/consumer questions would come in.
  3. If it was developed in the normal development cycle and was ready to go on the disk then in my opinion it is part of what you are paying £40-£50 in the first place and should be included. Any time spent working on the game after initial development is there fair game as DLC.
  4. Devil's advocate question: what about locked disc content that doesn't require payment, but does require you to finish certain modes/goals etc. in order to unlock it? Shouldn't consumers who paid for their game have the choice to simply bypass those requirements and have access to everything from the start if that's what they prefer?
  5. Games have always had 'locked content' that you get as a reward for finishing them etc, it adds to the challenge and gives you something to work for and in the end it is included in the purchase price. It actually adds to the experience of the game because when you unlock this content you are getting more for your money.

    Being forced to pay for something that you fund in the initial purchase of the game is different to unlocking something as a reward.

    I say again, if they worked on the content during the games initial development stage then I feel that it should be included in the £40-£50 price tag as this is what you are paying for, the work they have done up until that point.

    It is like an electrician coming to your house to do a rewire, giving you an upfront cost and running all of the cable and then coming to you and saying "for an extra £xxxx I will connect it to all of the sockets".
  6. Exactly my devil's advocate point. Video games have a long history of locking consumers out of the content that is contained on the disc/cartridge they purchased, one way or the other. It's traditional within the industry.

    And some of it is not necessarily fair from the consumer point of view either, despite being "free". Can I play any Super Mario Brothers level that I want without having the skill to complete some of the preceding levels? No, but then why should my skill at using the software prevent me from access to it's content? Professional software doesn't require you to complete anything to access all it's tools or modes. Why is it okay for gaming software to require that of the consumer?
  7. It is a bit different to expect paying customers to pay twice for the same job, they have already completed the work and been paid for their time in the original development cycle.

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, we are talking about whether it is right to bill someone twice for the same amount of work not about how game progression has worked for the past 20+ years.

    To answer your point it isn't professional software, it is a game, a challenging source of entertainment purchased to be completed as a challenge. If you wanted to purchase a game for £40-£50 to simply skip the first 10 hours of content and kill the last boss you wouldn't be happy about paying so much for it. You don't play Mouse Trap and move straight to the final square, you don't play Monopoly and declare the others players instantly bankrupt.

    I think your just trying to make up arguments completely off point just to be difficult.
  8. This thread is asking people's opinions on whether it's ethical to charge consumers extra for locked content that is already present on the game disc, yes? And I'm pointing out that the video game industry already has a long tradition of locking consumers out of content contained on the disc they purchased simply because they might not have enough skill at that particular game. I'm questioning whether there's really much of a difference in terms of the "I paid for the disc, I should have access to all of it's contents regardless" argument.
  9. It doesn't matter if the content is on an Internet server, on the disc, or up your ass. It's all the same.

    It doesn't matter when the content was created -- before the main game, after, precisely at the same time. It's all the same.
  10. It's stupid and back-asswords but... that's just the way it is :( companys justify this douchebaggery because they need to put the textures on there or else you wouldn't be able to pay online with somebody else who HAS bought the DLC. I say if it was ready early enough they shoulda' just included it in the price! Make your GAME better maybe it'll sell better. Not just now but the sequals as well. A concept EA and Activision don't seem to understand.