×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BioShock 2's First DLC Already On Disc

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the read-the-rest-of-this-post-in-a-month-for-five-bucks dept.

PlayStation (Games) 466

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up: "Trouble is brewing in Rapture. The recently released Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack for BioShock 2 is facing upset players over the revelation that the content is already on the disc, and the $5 premium is an unlock code. It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small: 24KB on the PC, 103KB on the PlayStation 3, and 108KB on the Xbox 360. 2K Games responded with a post explaining that the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact, without splitting it between the haves and have-nots."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

466 comments

5 dollar patch (5, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486178)

Double dipping.

If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!

That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory.

When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release. Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.

Essentially, they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game; access to the existing content was broken. They have the right to choose to do business this way, but that doesn't make it any less bullshit and this practice isn't going to impress customers.

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

Re:5 dollar patch (5, Funny)

precariousgray (1663153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486268)

Yo, dawg! I heard you like DLC, so we put DLC on your DVD in case you can't access it via TCP/IP!

Re:5 dollar patch (4, Funny)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486292)

Dude, sweet! Can you even put DLC in my DLC so I can get boned while I'm getting boned?

Re:5 dollar patch (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487204)

Great idea, Princess! Diving into a pile of garbage! Hey, maybe when we get out of here, you can show us around your home planet of Alderaan-Ohhhhhhhhh, too soon???

Re:5 dollar patch (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486306)

It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.

I was following Cities XL when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people, and laughed when they pulled their "planet offer" for not attracting enough interest. Yeah, $5/mo for something like that's a little steep, guys, especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present (like mass transit: buses, trains, and such...) All in all, that was rather sad. (I found Societies to be more fun, and that's saying something.) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.

Re:5 dollar patch (4, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486430)

The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.

It really is shocking that anyone can appreciate when someone resorts to duplicity.

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money at all for me to take that lock off so you have a place to conveniently set your drink, would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

Re:5 dollar patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486656)

There was some game recently where a fair number of users on one of the forums were complaining that there wasn't add-on DLC available on the game's release day. In essence, they were practically begging to pay extra for something that many of us feel should be included in the final game if it's ready to be released at the same time.

Re:5 dollar patch (5, Insightful)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486894)

What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.

The fact that its on the game disk is irrelevant though. For example, when I buy Windows 7 Home Premium, that disk also contains Windows 7 Ultimate. I'm not given a key to unlock Ultimate, but I can buy a key from Microsoft to upgrade to it if I want to.

Re:5 dollar patch (3, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487162)

Dose not matter at all. As long as the game I was told I was paying for is the same as the game I received I can have no complaint. It scares me that I live in a world where people are pissed of that they are not getting something that they were never told they were going to get.

Re:5 dollar patch (4, Insightful)

steve buttgereit (644315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487250)

Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay. If I use it and then not pay, that's stealing and it is illegal.

Some other industries do this sort of thing, too. I'm working with a client right now that makes big machines that make stuff; they keep spare parts on the premises of their customers that pay for them as they use them. Some larger servers have things like unused disk or CPU capacity installed in them that sits idle; when you need to expand capacity all you do is call the vendor and they turn on the existing hardware... it's all there but you don't get to use it until you pay for it.

Referring to your original post, I don't think any of this is unethical... including what the game maker did (and, no, I haven't played the game, nor will I). Now is it consumer friendly? Different question and I probably wouldn't have made the same decision the game maker did if I were in their place; maybe sold the game as standard and premium editions or something like that. But there is no moral imperative that's being violated unless they said you bought everything on the disk and then failed to honor that.

Regards,
SCB

5 dollar game (4, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486426)

Heh, seems like only indy game companies get it right. About a year back I bought Defense Grid (TD) on Steam. Played through it - definitely worth the $5 I paid. A few days ago I fired it up again, and what do I find? More levels, and more game modes. The company just keeps on giving!

I guess what it comes down to is, indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game, while building up their name. Big game studios want your money, and want to figure out ways to get your money. Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals.

Re:5 dollar game (0)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486704)

Defense grid was awesome. I bought it on XBLA. Does anyone know if the new maps are available on xbox live?

probably cut features to make the deadline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486442)

It is possible that this is a very cynical attempt to cash in. But to be fair, it is also likely that this was content that was cut at some point. In addition, if they were planning all along to charge for the content, they could have just left it off the disk and forced a long download on you.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:probably cut features to make the deadline (2, Interesting)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486486)

This apparently isn't a patch, though. It's only a "key" to "unlock" the content already available and clearly capable of operating.

Re:probably cut features to make the deadline (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486650)

It is unlikely that the data required to complete those features would total a few hundred kilobytes. This seems planned to me.

Re:5 dollar patch (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486458)

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

So much for being allowed a difference of opinion...

I don't see this as being ethical or unethical - its simply another sales method. Were you promised the extra content and features in the original sale? No? Then whats the problem? Your purchase isn't faulty.

Re:5 dollar patch (2, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486694)

It's not about a promise. What 2K is doing is testing the boundaries by seeing what in addition they can charge you for, where it becomes less physical and more abstract, where the demarcation is between the consumer and the producer.

This is a matter of ethics because it tests the concept of what is right and wrong ("Ethics are for Everyone, Morals are for Me").

Re:5 dollar patch (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486560)

On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publisher will fund them that way'

Re:5 dollar patch (2, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486772)

On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publisher will fund them that way'

And that's cool, if that's what it takes to get the job done. This is different; the job was already done. They didn't even try to disguise it.

Re:5 dollar patch (1)

Genevish (93570) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486670)

"I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical" Dramatic much? Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will. Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business. Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.

Re:5 dollar patch (-1, Flamebait)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486874)

I hope your family is raped and murdered while you watch. And that's not be me being dramatic. I truly wish that fate on anyone who thinks that "basic business" precludes ethics.

Re:5 dollar patch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486924)

Dramatic much?

It's more fun that way.

Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will.

Don't be so presumptuous, I've already taken economics. I know very well they'll resort to most anything they can to make money; what that involves makes all the difference when it comes to PR.

Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business.

I assure you it has very much to do with ethics, and business is a realm that even in it's most primitive form surpasses anything describable as "basic".

Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.

Justified, hardly, but a little less arrogant.

Re:5 dollar patch (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486968)

Dramatic much?

It's more fun that way.

Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will.

Don't be so presumptuous, I've already taken economics. I know very well they'll resort to most anything they can to make money; what that involves makes all the difference when it comes to PR.

Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business.

I assure you it has very much to do with ethics, and business is a realm that even in it's most primitive form surpasses anything describable as "basic".

Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so people like you will think the extra cost is somehow justified.

Justified, hardly, but a little less arrogant.

I wish I could remove the checkbox for "post anonymously".

Re:5 dollar patch (1)

Ed Peepers (1051144) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486916)

If this content was already on the disc, didn't they fail at the new EA model? It should have been "DLC" that was free to owners of purchased versions of the game (via an unlock code) and $5 to owners of used copies of the game (via $5 unlock code). To charge everybody for something already on the disc is greedy and lazy. What's amusing is that people would apparently be less outraged if only greed were involved -- that is, if the content were withheld and you had to download it.

Re:5 dollar patch (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487128)

It wouldn't be so bad if I had any suspicion that it wasn't entirely their intent to, well, rip people off.

"I noticed there was a bit of confusion about our Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack file size, and I wanted to clear things up for you. The way our engine and game structure works is that people need to have the exact same content for people to play together. One of the challenges with post launch content for MP is that it can split the player base, and we want to avoid that whenever possible. For this content, creating the DLC package the way we did allowed for us to not split the player base – so whether you purchase the new content or not, you can still play with your friends."

No one was concerned about POST LAUNCH CONTENT. The whole reply made perfect sense if it were not for the context.

dont be silly (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487028)

They have the right to choose to do business this way

they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.

its selling an incomplete product. its basic fraud. these are now legal because we let them do so - they sell a 'game', but the definition of amenities in the game are not defined in detail, and also a shitty 'game experience may change' dropped into eula. this covers their ass from selling an incomplete product. it shouldnt happen.

Re:dont be silly (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487192)

Well, they did sell a functioning product, and what they essentially did was lock out an existing feature. No one really complained when GTA3 didn't have access to "coffee", but they didn't release a DLC the same day allowing you to unlock that "existing feature" in the game.

Re:dont be silly (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487246)

No, it's more like selling a car, and then directing you to the performance parts department where you can purchase add-on parts that were developed prior-to and available at the time of purchase.

My truck didn't come with a supercharger, but the manufacturer had a factory-produced, dealer-installed, covered-by-the-standard-100k-warranty option available as an extra. Is the supercharger necessary? No. Is it desirable? Depends on the buyer.

Re:5 dollar patch (3, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487266)

You were never promised that content and all the content that they promised you when you decided to buy the game is intact. You got everything you thought you were getting. Where you get the extra content from makes absolutely no difference. It should not matter to you whether the content is on the disk, on a server in a basement or hand delivered by gnome. You were given what you agreed to pay for. End of story. You can have a dull butter knife if you want.

Fragment the player base (2, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486204)

In other words, the real value here is the other people on the network, and not the game.

Sadly, this is not new practice in the print... (2, Interesting)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486338)

industry. I work with equipment whose speed and certain other capabilities are determined by the license codes you pay for. To me, this seems dishonest.

I'm sad to see software publishers embrace this model, but not terribly surprised.

If they could go subscription they would. (1)

Orga (1720130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486346)

This is reflected in the massive income MMO's and recieving and shitty income pay once and you're done games. If they could charge you .10 a minute to play they'd be all over it and would happily release new content to you for free. As it is these non-subscription based games have to wring every possible cent out of you and that's going to get you as screwed as possible int he end. The end result is going to be the smallest amount of front-end content they can get away with, and seeing how gamers jumped on horrible DRM games like AC2 well there are plenty of idiots out there who are going to bitch about this but you know they're still going to pick up the games and bend over for the "expansion"

I will never pay for DLC (3, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486382)

I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (3, Insightful)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486590)

DLC done right is not held back content. Instead it is developers working right up to the final code freeze (may be weeks to months prior to release) on the content you paid for and then saving money by developing new content with the same software. I have no problem with this additional content. How many people have there been that finished a good game and wished for more?

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486602)

I take a more value based approach.

I remember the days when you might shell out $80 for a 6 to 15 hour game. Would I pay for DLC when the core experience is only 10 hours long? I wouldn't because the DLC is likely to not be worth it.

But take a game like Mass Effect 2, where I spent upwards of 40 hours on my first play alone, and the game only cost $60. Sure, I'll buy the DLC, but because it's more likely to be worth it.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486628)

Right, so you feel entitled to playing these games. Good for you.

Do you also agree with other similar situations? For example, I'm aware of several GPL violations in commercial products I work on, in fact, I have worked quite a bit in these code bases and I have also used GPL'd code myself. These softwares aren't sold as services so they are in direct violation of the GPL. And no, you can't have the source, even if you paid for it. I also know for a fact that this company feel entitled to using GPL'd code, we have even had meetings about it. Our product manager more or less said the exact same thing as you, "I'll pay once, no more". And in this context of course meaning the developers' salaries, and the no more part about not paying for code that has already been written.

No, I don't respect the GPL and just as you a going somewhat for the troll moderation, I also get warm inside knowing that many Linux fanboys will be directly offended by my post, without being able to do anything about it (code from the Linux kernel has been used for example).

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486674)

The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Because you are entitled to play the game? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (4, Insightful)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486686)

Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?

Re:I will never pay for DLC (4, Insightful)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486688)

The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

That statement disturbs me. Yes, having to pay for "DLC" that was already on-disc is a total sham, a ripoff. But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it.

But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense. By extension, do you pirate other software?

Re:I will never pay for DLC (2, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486700)

I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Bingo. I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy). If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it. However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486742)

I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).

Or, you know, you could just avoid the game if you disagree with the practices of the person releasing it. You basically lose any moral or ethical high ground by then going out and pirating the game.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (2, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486804)

Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM. Since me pirating a game that I have no intention of buying (due to DRM) doesn't harm the company in any way, there's no reason why I shouldn't pirate it.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1, Insightful)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486956)

That's the shittiest logic. The ONLY reason that you have "no intention of buying it" is because you know that you can go out and obtain it illegally. Assholes like you, who feel entitled to play/listen to/watch other people creations on your own terms, are the reason we have shitty DRM shoved down our throats to begin with.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487048)

No, if you bothered to READ my previous post, you'd see that I buy tons of games that DON'T have DRM. I only have no intention of buying it due to DRM. If all the self-punishing DRM apologists like yourself would just disappear, then DRM would die much faster. You are the cause of DRM - the people who just bend over and take it up the ass and then bitch at those of us who refuse to be punished for buying a product.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (4, Insightful)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487222)

I understand that you buy games, but you also go and pirate games that you don't buy. That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software. You can't just NOT buy something, no no...you feel entitled to have it so you pirate it. The only message that sends to the developer is that they need to try harder to protect their games.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (3, Insightful)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486922)

"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for."

You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487130)

While I don't particularly agree with the OP's claim that "causes him to pirate games", your whopper metaphor is equally lousy because whoppers are not digital.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487244)

It's not lousy, you're being pedantic. It wouldn't be a metaphor if I used the same situation as an example.

Re:I will never pay for DLC (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487318)

I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

So pay once. You get the product you paid for.

If the publisher offers extra content, feel free to ignore them. They're not asking for more money to play what you already have.

Whether the content is already on the disc, or downloaded is a non-issue. You knew what content you were buying when you bought it. If the publisher left extra content on the disc, that's their perogative. Sometimes it leads to trouble ("Hot Coffee" anyone? Sure it was unlockable via a mod, but the only difference here is free mods vs. paid mods), other times it's assets that just aren't used period.

Or should we also hold Microsoft to account? After all, they ship a "Home Premium" version of Windows 7, but the "Ultimate" version ("content") is unlockable if you pay Microsoft some extra $$$. The "Ultimate" content is right there on the DVD!

How long until... (2, Interesting)

JMatopos (1768008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486386)

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it? At which point this becomes another way in which legitimate users get hurt. Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.

Re:How long until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486532)

Would it even be illegal for someone to do this? They bought a license to it already, is the publisher breaking the law by forcing someone to pay more to access something they already bought?

Re:How long until... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486626)

Would it even be illegal for someone to do this?

Most likely. But even if it's not it would be trivially easy for 2k Games to block people from their servers by trying to crack the game to access it.

They bought a license to it already, is the publisher breaking the law by forcing someone to pay more to access something they already bought?

Under what statutory or case law would constitute this as illegal? It's content that was disabled and never advertised as being part of the package.

Re:How long until... (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486984)

They bought a license to the game, not the DLC. The only thing that you own when you buy a game is the physical disk. You don't own the content of the disk.

Re:How long until... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486550)

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?

On the 360 or PS3? It probably will never. Maybe someone can try on the PC but I'm pretty sure they will be doing checks against such a crack when you log in to their servers. It would be trivially easy to detect if someone has done this.

Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.

What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it.

Re:How long until... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486566)

That was meant to be "wasn't absent".

Re:How long until... (1)

Naturalis Philosopho (1160697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486778)

Was it also mean to be an argument? DRM is what enables use of the media (or keeps it disabled), duh.

This pricing scheme is rotten. At least with DLC you could say to yourself, " well, there wasn't room on the disk or it wasn't completed yet, so I'll pony up $5 to cover costs". This is completed content, already on a disk which you've paid a license to use the content on. The cost of creation is already set, the media and license to content has been purchased, so it shouldn't be extra to use what's already been paid for.

Re:How long until... (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486992)

If I had not already posted in here I would mod this up. No precisely a DRM issue but still those who pay get the same thing that those who pirate get for free. Value added how?

DLC may refer to: (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486476)

        * Dalian Zhoushuizi International Airport, in IATA code
        * Delocalized coordinates, variant of internal coordinates in computational chemistry
        * Democratic Leadership Council, an American nonprofit political corporation
        * Development life cycle, the process of product development
        * Diamond-like carbon, a form of the chemical element carbon
        * Digital Liberty Coalition, a non-profit anti-censorship organization in Australia
        * Domestic and Light Commercial, a type of insurance policy
        * Driver License Compact, an interstate agreement within the United States
        * Dual-listed company, a corporate structure
        * Dubai Logistics City
        * Dioxin-like compounds
        * Data Length Code, a concept in computer bus protocol
        * Data Link Control, a concept in the OSI network protocol
        * Desktop Linux Consortium, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the Linux operating system
        * Digital loop carrier, a concept in electronic communications
        * Downloadable content, a form of digital media

2k (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486482)

After Borderlands I pretty much gave up on 2k. Sure the game was fun, but it was short. And within a couple months of release they were selling more content which didn't appear to add that much more to the length of the game.

I understand DLC is going to be more prevelant in the future, but I hope us gamers don't get hosed with unfinished games that the company requires an additional payment just to see all of the original content.

Re:2k (2, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486552)

DLC is a great idea, despite being unable to resell it. Expansions and sequels have always been a big deal, but clearly the producers don't want to play the same game that consumers do.

Some hard lessons are going to be learnt before DLC becomes a tool that is used fairly. Just wait until DLC becomes integral to gameplay instead of optional... THAT will piss off just a few people.

Re:2k (2, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486658)

It is integral now. Halo 3 multiplayer is a joke unless you continuously pony up money for new maps. Right now they are still selling $30 worth of maps for it.

Re:2k (2, Informative)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487006)

Not true. About a month ago they changed the map rotation. Most gametypes now only need the original Halo 3 disc without any DLC. It appears that if the game detects that all players have additional maps available, that they will be included in the rotation though.

I think that they are trying to make people really bored of Halo 3 so that when Halo: Reach comes out, people will be so sick of Halo 3 that they will hop on the new version right away.

Re:2k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31487290)

The ending to prince of persia was sold as DLC after the game came out.

Re:2k (2, Insightful)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486764)

This is one of the reasons I like Bad Company more then Modern Warfare.

When the first bad company came out multiplayer wasn't very good, I don't think it even had conquest mode. but today I pop in the game and it's pretty fun, I don't have to buy some crappy DLC to get the real online experience.

Compare this to CoD:W@W this game was actually pretty fun the day I bought it. But it only came with some of the content, Now there are 3-4 DLC's out and they want $10 bucks each. If I want to play a game today I have to wait in the Queue to get in a game for a map that I have, Also when the map ends you get a new random map from the DLC and you get booted back to the main window. I'm sorry the TCO(Total cost of owner ship) of this game is not worth $90!

The DLC issue is why I'll be buying bad company 2 instead of MW2

Speaking of being boned by DLC (5, Insightful)

zepo1a (958353) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486490)

Dragon Age:

I got boned by that "Keep" DLC with the storage box. I made it to the top of the Keep, killed everything, on the way out I notice that Picture you click to make a chest pop out of the wall..I'm overloaded so, Hey I'll just bop down to the storage box, unload and come back.

NOPE! Since I "Beat" the Keep , the doors now no longer open, Chest lost forever. I was so pissed.

They could have just dumped that damn storage box at camp since the door to the keep was closed forever after you beat it. I paid for that damn Keep and now I can't enter it? What Bullshit.

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486622)

there is a free dev made storage box mod for the camp

Re:Speaking of being boned by DLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31487012)

No Quicksave? Autosave? I mean that sucks, but who just runs through an RPG without saving? :p

"Trouble is brewing in Rapture" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486526)

How long has someone been waiting to start a submission with that line?

Not surprised at all (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486540)

I don't know why people would feel happier paying for DLC that they feel came out after the game's release. If that were the overwhelming opinion then all companies would do is complete the DLC before the game was released (on the same schedule as before) and then artificially delay it for a couple of months.

That said, I love DLC, as it's what's prevented me from paying $50 for any new title. Nowadays I just wait a couple of years for a gold/platinum/complete/game of the year edition and pay $5-20 for a large amount of gameplay. I look forward to playing Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 in 2012 :)

Re:Not surprised at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31487016)

Have you purchased your used flat panel tv yet?

Re:Not surprised at all (2, Insightful)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487226)

There's a long tradition of game sequels. These are additional content that come out after the game's release - not that much different than DLC is it?

A big difference between pre-release and post-release content is that post-release content can take feedback into consideration in its development. Even if it starts during QA of the final game, the post-launch DLC can incorporate gameplay and content that players felt was lacking. Sequels often take the chance to remove annoyances and add more of what people liked. DLC can do the same thing.

Otherwise DLC is double dipping, gaming players with more money (or interest) into paying more for the same game. Like the Windows Home / Professional analogy someone made further up in this thread. But pre-release content being sold as DLC feels dishonest.

If they want to segment the market by removing game features, they should do it on release day with "light" and "full" versions of the game. There have been many "collector's edition" game releases, and no one felt particularly gypped by those, despite often costing $30+ more than the base game.

Isn't everyone getting what they are paying for? (1)

bondiblueos9 (1599575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486634)

Everyone who bought the game bought it because of itself, not because some extra content might be on the disc. Then if they wanted the additional content, they paid extra for it and they were able to use it. How does it matter that the content was just unlocked instead of downloaded when they get the same result either way? I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't understand the problem.

Haves and have nots. (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486642)

Of course you want everyone to be able to play games with people who have downloaded the DLC! Obviously, you want them to see what they're missing by being a "have not".

This reminds me of the Descent 3 expansion pack, which introduced a new choice of ship to the existing 3 models, which was pretty much superior in every way. Even if you didn't buy the expansion pack, you could still play with people who had it and see their ship in all it's black and multi-missile-launching glory -- I can't remember if it utilized the content downloading system to get the model or what. The point is, they made sure not to "split the player base" because that way those without the expansion could get their asses handed to them by the new ship and go "I want that!"

Not splitting the player base is good for everyone, I'm just saying there's another motive here and it involves pushing the DLC.

Insanity and Profits. (1)

Kaldesh (1363017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486660)

This sort've thing drives me insane. DLC is a good idea in concept but in practice? You get results like this. You shouldn't have to pay any gaming company for additional content they included on the disc, it's madness, taken to another high level. I get severly annoyed with these gaming companies that release DLC 5 days after the game's out,a nd change 15 USD for it. Or the ones that release DLC that actually just fixes bugs in their game whilst adding very very little to the experience. Its one thing to add an expansion to your game, it's another thing to take content that should've been free that was already on the disc... and charge people to play it. I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.

Re:Insanity and Profits. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486786)

I don't say this often, but I hope the hacking community figures out a way to open up the extra content on the disc for free on the PC, because if I owned the game... I'd crack it.

And I'd be willing to bet that 2k Games will then block any person from their servers who have done this.

Nothing new here. Move along. (0, Redundant)

kriston (7886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486754)

Whether it's on the disc or downloadable, you're paying that money to license the software product.
I'm surprised that this could be news to anyone.

What, you say you didn't know that your Windows 7 disc has all five versions of Windows 7 on it, too?

You can't get blood out of stone. Pay your money or just don't play the game.

Re:Nothing new here. Move along. (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487256)

This kind of shenanigans is always done in the corporate world. You can buy servers that require a simple piece of paper to run more cores, but the components are already in place. The car example even covers this with the hooded gas tanks to change the amount of gas you can put in the car. The car company is actually physically adding something to the vehicle to place it in the "unupgraded" state. Companies do this all the time. What is ridiculous is that software would get special treatment under the law in these respects. I wonder if the license disallows cracking the DLC you have technically already purchased the code in a physical sense. The one that I think would stop that would be modification limitations, but maybe not?

Funny (3, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486756)

Is it just me or do I see more outrage than the time MS shipped all versions of Vista on a single disc, and it was only the product key you got (and the price you paid for it) that determined the edition it installed. If you skipped the product key it had to ask you which edition to install!

AFAIK they're still doing this with 7.

A lesson to be learned (4, Funny)

Carlos Rodriguez (136019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486818)

If customers succesfully manage to cause PR trouble for 2K over this, developers will have to take notice and they will never do this again with any other game: for subsequent releases, the 108kb key will be padded with 350MB of nothing. PR crisis averted!

Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31486850)

I installed Windows 7 Home Premium with a disc that had all of the bits for Windows 7 Ultimate. Was I ripped off because the bits for the Ultimate edition were on the disk but I don't get to access them until I pay more? I don't think so. While this maybe challenged what people think of in terms of DLC it certainly isn't new to require someone to pay to unlock a "feature" that they already had the bits to.

Re:Windows (2, Insightful)

Zarrot (1149415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487156)

Your analogy is a little off... They produce one disk with all the versions but openly advertise different features with different versions. DLC is supposed to be additional content produced after the game goes gold/is released. It violates the spirit of what DLC is...it's extra. It's not part of the game held back so they can charge extra for it. To use your Windows example it would be like after installing if you wanted a network two PC's and had to purchase an additional feature pack to do it. Games cost almost 60 buck...game companies are crossing a line trying to milk their customers.

Sidestep (2, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486854)

So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?

All this outrage is going to do is to force developers to move that content off-disc so they can pretend they developed it outside the standard development cycle. You don't really think company execs will say "gee, we'd better provide better value," do you? Particularly when every other company jumps aboard?

Re:Sidestep (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487280)

So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to /dev/null it would be ok?

They wouldn't have gotten caught and the question would never have concerned us. That makes it difficult to discuss what could have been.

In retrospect, it would have been the same bullshit, it just wouldn't have stirred the outrage.

Sheeple (2, Insightful)

Hohlraum (135212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486856)

will still pay for the damn thing. Gamers are some of the biggest mindless consumers there are right after the Apple fanatics :)

You get a few companies like Rockstar who release DLC which is basically the equivalent of an entire new game. That's the kind of DLC people want.

The funny thing is that DLC is a perfect way for publishers to make sure they will always get some $$ on used game sales. BUT savy people know that if you just wait 6-12 months you'll be able to buy the SE version of a game that includes all the DLC. Greed, it's what's for dinner.

Re:Sheeple (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486972)

I don't mind DLC usually. Like in the case of Borderlands. I liked the game, but it was enough for me. The bugs and the cheating really killed any hope of multiplayer that I had with the game. But the DLC idea was nice.

If they had tried to get me to pay for 'locked' areas that were already in the game, however, they wouldn't have gotten my money. Moreover, I would have returned the game if I could have and explained why. Games should NOT have DLC from day one unless it's a cheap game to begin with. Some free MMOs work on this system, and that's fine, because they're free to begin with. I'm not fucking paying $60 for a game and then realizing I STILL didn't get the complete game.

U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here. (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486884)

I see people feel bad about this.

I wanted to say i dont get that, and dont feel that way at all about this DLC X being stored on the disc Y.
Don't act all surprised and sad now. Nothing new here. DLC is for making money, and its quite efficient this way.

Rationale:
its just some dusty bits named X that happened to be in your physical proximity because you once bought Y.
Plus the fact you bought X and got X. No problem there, except incorrect feeling of already owning X in the first place.
Wrong. You previously bought Y, not X.

Pull yourself together trolls and whiners..

Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487064)

I'll repost Aphoxema's comment above, since it is the best Car Analogy for the scenario.

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money for me to take that lock off , would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

Can you understand it now? Can you understand that -having- content but being unable to use it as frustrating?

Complete scam (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486910)

Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk. Compatibility isn't a problem. An models that users don't have can default to something else just like the Quake games have always done.

It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.

If they can't afford to make these games then either their games aren't good enough of there is something fundamentally wrong with their business model and it needs to change so they don't have to nickel& dime people to death.

Let's not forget this game shipped some of it's development off shore to China where they almost certainly saved boats by paying those developers what is almost certainly a fraction of what they would have paid western developers.

I dont know... (2, Insightful)

Reapy (688651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486912)

who to be more angry with, the company, or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again.

How is this new? (1)

Amarantine (1100187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486944)

I seem to remember that the so-called DLC for EA games years ago (Madden NFL 06, Godfather, Need For Speed) also took 100KB to download on an Xbox 360. This was 4 years ago. Did nobody wonder back then how they fitted entire football arenas, weapon arsenals and sportscars in just a few thousand bytes?

Gamers' bill of rights? (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31486954)

Gamers are getting shafted more and more these days.

I think we should bond together and form some kind of consumer advocacy group, maybe offer some kind of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" type trade mark for compliant games.

Here's what I would put in my own bill of rights:

1)Right to resell games - either on virtual games or real, at a price that I set.

2)Ability to play my game at a friend's house without having to redownload (there are broadband caps, you know-and the next generation of consoles probably won't even have a disc player).

3)No DLC that is on the physical disk.

4)No DRM. That is not to be confused with copy protection measures as it so often is on Slashdot. I mean actual DRM, where the OS enforces whether or not a game is "pirated."

These are my rules, what do you think?

I'm sorry, what? (2, Interesting)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487054)

So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code? Sounds to me like your game is broken. Why the hell can't you make it work so that I can play with my friend who has the DLC when I don't? As long as we're not using the new DLC maps/weapons/whatever, that shouldn't be a problem. Admittedly, I haven't played Bioshock 2 and I don't know exactly how the multiplayer works, but that sure sounds like a bullshit excuse to me.

lsl:mcl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31487084)

this is nothing compared to how badly pre-order buyers of Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude got burned. first the pre-order was supposed to come with a bonus cd, instead there was just a little slip of paper where the cd should be saying to visit a web site that just had censored versions of the promo wallpapers. the much other thing they did was much worse, the game was promoted as having nudity which was why people pre-ordered, what the customers actually got (at least in america) was a hollow shell with most of the content stripped out and giant censored panels over what was left. shortly after they advertised an "uncut and uncensored" version for online purchase only. i don't know if that version lived up to the promise since i wasn't going to get burned again for a product i had already bought. scams like this, computer games with viruses (psychotoxic, anything touched by sony, etc), bad drm, and games that unnecessarily require net (beyond good and evil)(the money i now spend on net used to be part of my gaming budget) resulted in me finally giving up on purchased games. so when they burned me the industry lost a 100$ a week customer. now i mainly play pbbg's and flash games

I don't mind paying for expansions (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487146)

In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games. But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman. I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.

Hot Coffee Anyone? (1)

WebmasterNeal (1163683) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487312)

Ah, if the hidden content would have been the Hot Coffee portion of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas there would be a much different reaction to this. I guess its not the first time a product has been shipped 110% complete.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...