Exclusive DLC should be outlawed!!! Yay or Nay?!

Exclusive titles are one thing. But, it's an entirely different thing to release a game on multiple platforms and only offer one of them exclusive content.

We all know how exclusivity works. A developer is about to come out with a multi-platform game and either Microsoft or Sony approach them and say, "We would like to have it for just our system." The company says, "Well, we would like to make money off of everyone's downloads from all platforms." And then Microsoft or Sony say, "Well, we'll give you the money they would have paid up front, so you don't HAVE to release it for them."

Now, I understand that exclusive titles (and now exclusive content) helps to drive console sales in the long run. But, I feel that essentially, these companies are stripping us of the right to have content that would have (at some point or another) been available to us. It makes me upset and I'm actually amazed that such business decisions haven't been outlawed yet.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed to happen or should Microsoft and Sony be stripped of the right to financially force exclusive DLC?

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

xialon

Uhmmm... You don't seem to understand what I posted. Let me give you an example. I WANT to pay for extra content on GTA4 but only 360 users get it. I WANT to pay for Alone In The Dark add on content but that's also only for 360 users. Since both titles are for Both systems, I feel that I should have the right to pay for the same add on content that 360 users get. But Microsoft has blocked Sony consumers from having that option by making a "deal" with these third party developers. And that's just unfair for consumers.

I have no problems with exclusive games. But if a game is NOT exclusive, then the content shouldn't be either. Is no one going to agree with that? I think it's pretty cut and dry.

[QUOTE="xialon"]

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

Amir29

Uhmmm... You don't seem to understand what I posted. Let me give you an example. I WANT to pay for extra content on GTA4 but only 360 users get it. I WANT to pay for Alone In The Dark add on content but that's also only for 360 users. Since both titles are for Both systems, I feel that I should have the right to pay for the same add on content that 360 users get. But Microsoft has blocked Sony consumers from having that option by making a "deal" with these third party developers. And that's just unfair for consumers.

I have no problems with exclusive games. But if a game is NOT exclusive, then the content shouldn't be either. Is no one going to agree with that? I think it's pretty cut and dry.

This has become the NExt Gen War i guess you can call it, now that more games going multiplat the fight has moved to DLC to win the war, just look at it that way. You cant changed it, you have to deal with it and sooner or later it will reverse on certain games that only PS3 will get DLC

your complaining about it on the fourms are going to do NOTHING. How about you go and call sony and MS and tell it to themGoku87

Because THAT will do nothing too. However, if this forum became popular with people agreeing (which it obviously isn't), I may have been able to present the issue to a corporate attorney who would look us all up and take action.

The issue is that the internet is still an open field with many loop holes and laws missing. Only recently the government imposed on certain companies to start charging taxes on items shipped to certain states. If a large number of gamers were dissatisfied with exclusive DLC contracts, the courts would consider putting a stop to it.

If the PS3 got exclusive Dlc you would probably be wetting your pants with joy.Jigsaw9798

You're right, I would. And then there would be 360 owners that feel like I do, and THEY would post a forum complaining about it. So what's your point (besides praising your 360)?

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

xialon

[QUOTE="Amir29"][QUOTE="xialon"]

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

KurupSoldr

Uhmmm... You don't seem to understand what I posted. Let me give you an example. I WANT to pay for extra content on GTA4 but only 360 users get it. I WANT to pay for Alone In The Dark add on content but that's also only for 360 users. Since both titles are for Both systems, I feel that I should have the right to pay for the same add on content that 360 users get. But Microsoft has blocked Sony consumers from having that option by making a "deal" with these third party developers. And that's just unfair for consumers.

I have no problems with exclusive games. But if a game is NOT exclusive, then the content shouldn't be either. Is no one going to agree with that? I think it's pretty cut and dry.

This has become the NExt Gen War i guess you can call it, now that more games going multiplat the fight has moved to DLC to win the war, just look at it that way. You cant changed it, you have to deal with it and sooner or later it will reverse on certain games that only PS3 will get DLC

I'm aware of that. But, that's where the problem lies. For either side, when someone gets a game, its unfair if they can't get the most out of it. ESPECIALLY, if they're willing to pay for it.

Let's use an analogy for an example shall we?

Let's say you go to a diner, and get a burger. You see on the menu that a burger is $5. But, it also says that for $2 more, you can get fries and a soda. So, when your waiter comes to your table, you tell him you want to pay the extra $2. Now, how fair would it be if he said, "We only serve fries and soda to people in the smoking section. You can only have the burger."

With less and less third party exclusives the platform holders are just trying to find a way of making people buy their console and their version of the game. It works too. I bought GTAIV on 360 because of the exclusive DLC. I'll buy Mirrors Edge on PS3 because of the exclusive DLC.

And since when is Crysis coming out on PS3? I must have missed that bit of news. Link anyone?

[QUOTE="KurupSoldr"][QUOTE="Amir29"][QUOTE="xialon"]

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

Amir29

Uhmmm... You don't seem to understand what I posted. Let me give you an example. I WANT to pay for extra content on GTA4 but only 360 users get it. I WANT to pay for Alone In The Dark add on content but that's also only for 360 users. Since both titles are for Both systems, I feel that I should have the right to pay for the same add on content that 360 users get. But Microsoft has blocked Sony consumers from having that option by making a "deal" with these third party developers. And that's just unfair for consumers.

I have no problems with exclusive games. But if a game is NOT exclusive, then the content shouldn't be either. Is no one going to agree with that? I think it's pretty cut and dry.

This has become the NExt Gen War i guess you can call it, now that more games going multiplat the fight has moved to DLC to win the war, just look at it that way. You cant changed it, you have to deal with it and sooner or later it will reverse on certain games that only PS3 will get DLC

I'm aware of that. But, that's where the problem lies. For either side, when someone gets a game, its unfair if they can't get the most out of it. ESPECIALLY, if they're willing to pay for it.

Let's use an analogy for an example shall we?

Let's say you go to a diner, and get a burger. You see on the menu that a burger is $5. But, it also says that for $2 more, you can get fries and a soda. So, when your waiter comes to your table, you tell him you want to pay the extra $2. Now, how fair would it be if he said, "We only serve fries and soda to people in the smoking section. You can only have the burger."

i can see your analogy to a point but thats two different worlds, in the food industry that would not really happen becuase resturants would go out of business quick(Also Dessert at the end of your meal is extra right? thats your choice so thats like DLC in gaming) in the video game industry they know people will pay for it. Besides DLC is extra so y not pay extra its not like you get to the end of the level and pay 5$ so you can fight the boss or something. true i wish more companies would inherity Criterions ways with all the free burnout stuff we have been getting, but it wont happen like you want it. Most DLC is extra and it is a choice if you want you are not forced, its a thin line when you talk about this stuff and honestly it does not really bother me that much. now sure some DLC is rediculous to have to buy and some is worth it, nothing in life is ever free i guess you can say. sure you pay 60$ but thats just 10$ more and all your really paying for is the HD aspect IMO with that extra 10$ so.... take it how you want but complaining wont change anything

[QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]If the PS3 got exclusive Dlc you would probably be wetting your pants with joy.Amir29

You're right, I would. And then there would be 360 owners that feel like I do, and THEY would post a forum complaining about it. So what's your point (besides praising your 360)?

I'm not praising my 360, in fact, I couldn't care less which console gets exclusive DlC because I can just buy the game for whichever console has it.

listen to me,there is a war going on, and noone can stop it unless something crashes both consloes and computors, the war between these kinds of componies will continue bloodshed and all. CATERBIRD

[QUOTE="Amir29"][QUOTE="KurupSoldr"][QUOTE="Amir29"][QUOTE="xialon"]

Bioshock is coming out for PS3 (a formerly Microsoft exlusive). And so is Crysis.

Finaly Fantasy is coming out of Xbox (a formerly Sony exclusive).

Exclusivity is coming to an end. A game will come out for a specific console, but then about after 6-12 months the game is available on the other console.

Downloadable Content should stay as long as people are paying to download them. Those who are not willing to pay extra should not complain. Technically they are not losing anything. They are just feeling cheated.

It is a money driven business. Someone is going to have suffer for another person's benefit.

Sack up.

KurupSoldr

Uhmmm... You don't seem to understand what I posted. Let me give you an example. I WANT to pay for extra content on GTA4 but only 360 users get it. I WANT to pay for Alone In The Dark add on content but that's also only for 360 users. Since both titles are for Both systems, I feel that I should have the right to pay for the same add on content that 360 users get. But Microsoft has blocked Sony consumers from having that option by making a "deal" with these third party developers. And that's just unfair for consumers.

I have no problems with exclusive games. But if a game is NOT exclusive, then the content shouldn't be either. Is no one going to agree with that? I think it's pretty cut and dry.

This has become the NExt Gen War i guess you can call it, now that more games going multiplat the fight has moved to DLC to win the war, just look at it that way. You cant changed it, you have to deal with it and sooner or later it will reverse on certain games that only PS3 will get DLC

I'm aware of that. But, that's where the problem lies. For either side, when someone gets a game, its unfair if they can't get the most out of it. ESPECIALLY, if they're willing to pay for it.

Let's use an analogy for an example shall we?

Let's say you go to a diner, and get a burger. You see on the menu that a burger is $5. But, it also says that for $2 more, you can get fries and a soda. So, when your waiter comes to your table, you tell him you want to pay the extra $2. Now, how fair would it be if he said, "We only serve fries and soda to people in the smoking section. You can only have the burger."

i can see your analogy to a point but thats two different worlds, in the food industry that would not really happen becuase resturants would go out of business quick(Also Dessert at the end of your meal is extra right? thats your choice so thats like DLC in gaming) in the video game industry they know people will pay for it. Besides DLC is extra so y not pay extra its not like you get to the end of the level and pay 5$ so you can fight the boss or something. true i wish more companies would inherity Criterions ways with all the free burnout stuff we have been getting, but it wont happen like you want it. Most DLC is extra and it is a choice if you want you are not forced, its a thin line when you talk about this stuff and honestly it does not really bother me that much. now sure some DLC is rediculous to have to buy and some is worth it, nothing in life is ever free i guess you can say. sure you pay 60$ but thats just 10$ more and all your really paying for is the HD aspect IMO with that extra 10$ so.... take it how you want but complaining wont change anything

don't analyze his analogy, as it destroy's it's purpose. comparing realities with analogies doesn't work, too many variables. His analolgy represents the feeling of the consumer and not the merits of conducting business in different industries. The point is, whether it's an extra feature (desert, soda or DLC) or not, when you ask for it and DON'T you recieve it, it feels unfair when other's ask and do. this anology illustrates that brillianly. You're right about that it's a choice when it comes to DLC, and that we have to live with it if we can't have it, but if we want it and can't have it, It FEELS crappy, no thin line, just crappy.

completely agree with amir... i dont think it could b said any better..... if its and exclusive title its one thing but if its on all platforms the content should be for all platforms

Exclusive titles are one thing. But, it's an entirely different thing to release a game on multiple platforms and only offer one of them exclusive content.

We all know how exclusivity works. A developer is about to come out with a multi-platform game and either Microsoft or Sony approach them and say, "We would like to have it for just our system." The company says, "Well, we would like to make money off of everyone's downloads from all platforms." And then Microsoft or Sony say, "Well, we'll give you the money they would have paid up front, so you don't HAVE to release it for them."

Now, I understand that exclusive titles (and now exclusive content) helps to drive console sales in the long run. But, I feel that essentially, these companies are stripping us of the right to have content that would have (at some point or another) been available to us. It makes me upset and I'm actually amazed that such business decisions haven't been outlawed yet.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed to happen or should Microsoft and Sony be stripped of the right to financially force exclusive DLC?

Amir29

Exclusive titles are one thing. But, it's an entirely different thing to release a game on multiple platforms and only offer one of them exclusive content.

We all know how exclusivity works. A developer is about to come out with a multi-platform game and either Microsoft or Sony approach them and say, "We would like to have it for just our system." The company says, "Well, we would like to make money off of everyone's downloads from all platforms." And then Microsoft or Sony say, "Well, we'll give you the money they would have paid up front, so you don't HAVE to release it for them."

Now, I understand that exclusive titles (and now exclusive content) helps to drive console sales in the long run. But, I feel that essentially, these companies are stripping us of the right to have content that would have (at some point or another) been available to us. It makes me upset and I'm actually amazed that such business decisions haven't been outlawed yet.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed to happen or should Microsoft and Sony be stripped of the right to financially force exclusive DLC?

Amir29

Exclusive DLC is the new exclusive as game development costs so much now and to purchase an exclusive costs allot more than it used too, timed exclusives are also the new thing.

There's no reason for it to be outlawed, they are not breaking any laws, i agree it's a bummer for 1 console owners, for instant if i only owned a PS3 i would be pissed at not being able to get the dlc for fallout 3 as it will be huge going off bethesda's track record.

I own all systems so im not fussed about the matter but i understand where your coming from.

[QUOTE="Amir29"]

Exclusive titles are one thing. But, it's an entirely different thing to release a game on multiple platforms and only offer one of them exclusive content.

We all know how exclusivity works. A developer is about to come out with a multi-platform game and either Microsoft or Sony approach them and say, "We would like to have it for just our system." The company says, "Well, we would like to make money off of everyone's downloads from all platforms." And then Microsoft or Sony say, "Well, we'll give you the money they would have paid up front, so you don't HAVE to release it for them."

Now, I understand that exclusive titles (and now exclusive content) helps to drive console sales in the long run. But, I feel that essentially, these companies are stripping us of the right to have content that would have (at some point or another) been available to us. It makes me upset and I'm actually amazed that such business decisions haven't been outlawed yet.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed to happen or should Microsoft and Sony be stripped of the right to financially force exclusive DLC?

shadystxxx

Exclusive DLC is the new exclusive as game development costs so much now and to purchase an exclusive costs allot more than it used too, timed exclusives are also the new thing.

There's no reason for it to be outlawed, they are not breaking any laws, i agree it's a bummer for 1 console owners, for instant if i only owned a PS3 i would be pissed at not being able to get the dlc for fallout 3 as it will be huge going off bethesda's track record.

I own all systems so im not fussed about the matter but i understand where your coming from.

but it's sad that something like that is regarded to as legal and "normal" business decisions. I know me arguing this further doesn't accomplish anything but sometimes it feels noce to let loose a commnet or two. sigh.., business is a scary thing, but we're the ones who give it life. makes you want to do something about it... kind of.

i wish yay but its buisness but i think this will stop soonNuKkU

[QUOTE="Goku87"]your complaining about it on the fourms are going to do NOTHING. How about you go and call sony and MS and tell it to themAmir29

Because THAT will do nothing too. However, if this forum became popular with people agreeing (which it obviously isn't), I may have been able to present the issue to a corporate attorney who would look us all up and take action.

The issue is that the internet is still an open field with many loop holes and laws missing. Only recently the government imposed on certain companies to start charging taxes on items shipped to certain states. If a large number of gamers were dissatisfied with exclusive DLC contracts, the courts would consider putting a stop to it.

Exclusives are what make a console competitive. That goes for add-on content as well. There has been no violation of the rules of the internet.

The problem with this thread is a lot of people are using it as a M$ vs Sony debate. Frankly it isnt. It is a Consumer vs Big Business thread. We are all gamers and we love our games, and no matter what system we play it feels crap to see one side not getting what the other is. It is not about sides when we are all potential losers.

It isnt a keep up with the jones situation it is a matter of treating customers equally. Not trying to blackmail them into buying your system so you can sponge more money off them later.

Yes it may be that Microsoft are buying this extra DLC, however the companies making the games DO HAVE the option of saying thankyou but we want to do DLC but ALL our customers and fans are important not just ones with a Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo one.

People are saying "I bet if sony had DLC for so and so title you would be happy" but frankly NO I wouldnt because as a rational human being (or I try and be), I think its wrong for a gaming company who's fans are loyal to it should leave one lot of fans in the lurch while favouring another just for the potential for a quick buck.

Face it guys DLC is here to stay and it works for companies, but to me it seems to be a unfair playing field and one that does need to change or a lot of Game companies are going to feel the sting. Or I sadly hope they will.

This is the way I see it.This whole gaming business is about money these days so if M$ can pay out the big bucks to get some exclusive content then let them.The other company has the choice to say no to the deal.I am against DLC that you have to PAY for anyway.It is nothing more than a bunch of stuff that should have been in the game in the first place.......Battlefield bad company anyone?So my point is I hate the whole lets pay for extra content.I feel as if I bought the game I should get all of the extras no matter when they come.....for free.But then again this goes back to my first point it seems to be all about the money.K1LLR3175

^agree.

I think that some people buy their games on the promise of exclusive DLC. They don't know what the content is going to be or even if it'll be good. They just buy for the promise of content that isn't even free.

I have both a 360 and PS3. So, I just go where the exclusve stuff is. b11051973

To me that's stupid, but to each their own. Yeah it's a business, but I think it's dumb that people fall for these nickel and dime maneuvers. It's your money people and unless these companies don't make a profit off of these things they'll continue and may get worse.

Exclusives are becoming more and more rare in a world where games cost Millions to develop. This means that First Party games is where the console makers will need to distinguish themselves from the other.

I also belive that if your console is as good as you claim, you should never pay for Exclusive DLC on your console. This is a cheap way to drive sales to your console vs. the other. Just make good games, keep First party exclusives coming that make gamers want your console and let the games do the talking.

It is big money business, but I also think it says allot about the console maker when they don't think it's good enough on it's own.

Some have understood this thread, but most have NOT. Let me reillustrate my point. This is NOT about PS3 Vs. 360. This is NOT about what the laws are now (since there are none). This is about misrepresentation and poor business ethics.

It's quite simple: If you're going to call a game a "Multi-platform title". Then anything you add to that title should also be considered multi-platform!!

Now of you are saying "That's just buniss" or "That's just how it is". Well, the reason this is happening is because people are not realizing there is no law in place to stop them!! Let's not forget the topic, "Should exclusive DLC be outlawed?" The question is being asked to see if you agree that it should continue or if corporate laws be introduced to tell these developers, "Hey!! If you're going to say you're multi-platform then your DLC must represent that claim as well.

I'm basically saying that exclusive titles are fine. That's console wars. But, to advertise a game as multi-platform and then say you have something for sale for it that only applies to half of the buyers... Well, I feel that should stop and that if enough people would agree that t was unfair, it can easily be made into a law prohibiting exclusive DLC.

One more thing, its in this that I see a trend. Its simple math and business to see what's going on. Let's pick Microsoft. They beginto consider paying for exclusive rights to a title. They're prepared to offer $5,000,000 for a 2 year exclusivity deal. Then someone reveals that this title along with 6 others are offering Downloadable content. So, they make the decision to give them $500,000 each to make the DLC exclusive for 2 years. Thus, giving them an edge over the competition, paying less, and forcing the consumer on the other side to "feel" that he's not going to get the full experience from his own console.

The point is that WE as the consumers ALLOW this cause we don't feel we can stop it. But, the truth is that, this is new territory. There are no laws in place. And obviously, they've found a more cost effective way to take advatage. But, I feel its unfair and it's a misrepresentation of the "multi-platform" tag.

If the PS3 got exclusive Dlc you would probably be wetting your pants with joy.Jigsaw9798