I am against this....................!!!!!!

ok here what I am against that I buy a game for 60$ and then all the sudden I find the company put an add-on content and tell you buy it!

1st example fifa 10 you have to pay for

a-fifa 10 live season

b-fifa 10 ultimate team

I see thouse two things as free content or should be included in the fifa 10 version normal without any extra payment

2nd example wwe smack down vs raw 2010 you have to pay for players that should be in the game

a-stone cold steve austin a legend that u have to pay for him and in the past all the legends was inside the game normal.

3rd assassins creed 2 you have to pay for

a-extra levels or what ever they call it memory slots which the game should be all full with out asking u to pay for new levels

I read about assassins creed 2 add-on in the gamespot news.

please every one tell me your thoughts about it bec I am frustrating about this.

Totally agree.

However, whilst people are stupid enough to buy into this, companies are gonna gladly keep taking out money. Unless peolple start taking a stand then this practice will carry on

It's called DLC and it's a way for companies to continue earning money long after a game is released. A lot of the time it stinks, but people will pay for add-ons they want. If you don't support it no one is forcing you to buy the DLC.

It's called DLC and it's a way for companies to continue earning money long after a game is released. A lot of the time it stinks, but people will pay for add-ons they want. If you don't support it no one is forcing you to buy the DLC.

yokofox33

dlc is like online maps or some thing ,not main thing that should be in the game ,like what I said in the 1st I see these add-on's as main things in the game.

So people playing Assassin Creed 2 that dont have the internet for online gaming. Just for work with a small download limit. They wont get the full experience?

[QUOTE="yokofox33"]

It's called DLC and it's a way for companies to continue earning money long after a game is released. A lot of the time it stinks, but people will pay for add-ons they want. If you don't support it no one is forcing you to buy the DLC.

Deaho

dlc is like online maps or some thing ,not main thing that should be in the game ,like what I said in the 1st I see these add-on's as main things in the game.

Never said it didn't belong in the game in the first place. Companies do this because they know people will buy DLC or add-ons for the games they like. It's smart on their part, but it's obviously lame of them to do it.

[QUOTE="yokofox33"]

It's called DLC and it's a way for companies to continue earning money long after a game is released. A lot of the time it stinks, but people will pay for add-ons they want. If you don't support it no one is forcing you to buy the DLC.

Deaho

dlc is like online maps or some thing ,not main thing that should be in the game ,like what I said in the 1st I see these add-on's as main things in the game.

So people playing Assassin Creed 2 that dont have the internet for online gaming. Just for work with a small download limit. They wont get the full experience?

Guchari

yes!!!!!!!

1) You don't have to buy DLC. Most of it is content that wasn't ready, or thought of when the game was completed. It's always nice to have options once you completed a game instead of just letting it sit there.

2) It's not like the other console where you have to keep paying either monthly or yearly just to play against others online on a system that you bought, and not rented.

1) You don't have to buy DLC. Most of it is content that wasn't ready, or thought of when the game was completed. It's always nice to have options once you completed a game instead of just letting it sit there.

2) It's not like the other console where you have to keep paying either monthly or yearly just to play against others online on a system that you bought, and not rented.

brotherreese

again I am talking about main things and 2nd i pay 60 $ for the one game which is a lot of money for me and for a lot of other people.

I personally like the Add-ons to games.....they couldnt do it before this gen and now they can......dont like it dont buy it!!

Some other inexcusable "add-ons":

Fight Night Round 4's boxers. Those guys should be included from the get-go.
Street Fighter IV's costumes. Sure, they're not necessary, but come on. That should be a free add-on if I ever saw one.

Totally agree.

However, whilst people are stupid enough to buy into this, companies are gonna gladly keep taking out money. Unless peolple start taking a stand then this practice will carry on

-Grieves-

What he said. :(

I have no problem with the add-on content game companies put out. It's nice to know that a game you spent 60 bucks on might get a little love and get something extra to keep it fresh.

Lamest thing is with Dragon Age: Origins. You get free DLC codes with the game (even the regular edition), but if you're like me, you can't connect to EA servers!!! So why wasn't this content on the disc since it's free anyway? Bah...NotAFurry

I don't even look at games where you have to buy DLC just to have a satisfying experience with it. I only buy stuff that's complete - and great - just as it comes in the box.

Believe it or not, these games cost a ton of money to develope, and developers want to make as much money off of it as they possibly can to make it worth their precious time and resources. Its business. Some do feel like rip-offs, though.TheEldestGod

not only one person that buy the game!!!!!!!!,most of the companies get enough money from only selling ,in the past u was only buy a game and there was no online at this that time.

First of all I want to know why some of you are attacking the TC... He has a good point.

I think that some companies use DLC in a very annoying way...but when it is done right it is great. Burnout did it well and of coarse rockband and guitar hero are awesome. AC2 is just upsetting....but then again ubisoft seems to following the EA formula as of late

[QUOTE="NotAFurry"]Lamest thing is with Dragon Age: Origins. You get free DLC codes with the game (even the regular edition), but if you're like me, you can't connect to EA servers!!! So why wasn't this content on the disc since it's free anyway? Bah...BenderUnit22

[QUOTE="BenderUnit22"][QUOTE="NotAFurry"]Lamest thing is with Dragon Age: Origins. You get free DLC codes with the game (even the regular edition), but if you're like me, you can't connect to EA servers!!! So why wasn't this content on the disc since it's free anyway? Bah...NotAFurry

[QUOTE="NotAFurry"][QUOTE="BenderUnit22"]Because it creates incentive for buying the game new instead of getting a used copy of which developers don't make any money off of.BenderUnit22

People sell old games to buy new games. The used game market doesn't mean companies make less money.NotAFurry

I can't relate to all the griping about paying for DLC. Don't want it? Don't buy it. If you think a game short changes you based on their DLC, don't buy any more in the series or from that developer. Simple. I really resent the childish argument that some gamers are "too stupid to realize DLC is ripping them off." That is total self servng BS and is vastly over simplifed. Some DLC is absolutely worth it in my opinion, some is not. And I think it is hysterical that I often spot gamers who like to talk about how they torrent and pirate games, and then spot some of those same people acting all outraged about paying for DLC.

It's called DLC and it's a way for companies to continue earning money long after a game is released. A lot of the time it stinks, but people will pay for add-ons they want. If you don't support it no one is forcing you to buy the DLC.

yokofox33

Yeah I havent ever bought DLC for any game yet, but some of the stuff I must admit is a little annoying that its being charged for as its just little things. More specifically in my case the Madden "packs" but its not really anything highly desirable and doesnt take away from the core of the gameto begin with so no harm done really.

Oh look, a DLC hate thread. How new.

DLC is purely optional. Most people, including the TC, are under the false impression that games are incomplete if there is DLC available for them. In their point of view, a game would surely have all of that content if it was complete, and since it doesn't, we must be missing out on a large portion of the gameplay. Fail, that's wrong. Don't wanna pay $14.99 for Shale and some extra quests? Then don't. Are you missing out on an enormous portion of the game that has significant relevance to anything with the main story? No. It's optional, and purely to add a bit of extra content to a game. I myself think that particular DA:O DLC is too pricey, but I'm happy that Bioware made it available.

Some DLC is lame, true. But again, it's all optional. And for anyone to skip games that have DLC available because they think they're missing out...holy ignorance, batman. I myself welcome DLC with open arms and an open mind.

Eh, I agree with you to some point, but not all the way. I guess it depends on the game. One example is Resident Evil 5. I think the we shouldn't had to pay for the multi player on the game, which they were charging $5 for it when it's something it should had been in the game in the first place.

Eh, I agree with you to some point, but not all the way. I guess it depends on the game. One example is Resident Evil 5. I think the we shouldn't had to pay for the multi player on the game, which they were charging $5 for it when it's something it should had been in the game in the first place.

Zanthiago

A prime example of lame DLC.

I am against DLC abuse. I don't think people should be paying extra for in game content already on the disk. If it's there, just let the player have it. They've already paid $60 ~ $100 (depending on currency) for the game already, which was full price. Why should they have to pay for "the rest of it"?

But, keeping an up to date active current season roster in a sports game? Yeah, I could understand paying a little extra for. If it's being updated constantly on par with the real season, then I don't see anything wrong with that. You bought your Fifa '10 game with what was available when it was released.

Much like if they were to have an active roster/heel/face/music change for Smackdown vs RAW 2010. If Cena got a change in entrance music last week and some new character/guy just made a debut on Smackdown. If there was something that actively changed it on a regular basis. I could understand paying a little extra for something like that.

Eh, I agree with you to some point, but not all the way. I guess it depends on the game. One example is Resident Evil 5. I think the we shouldn't had to pay for the multi player on the game, which they were charging $5 for it when it's something it should had been in the game in the first place.

Zanthiago

yah that what I mean that they charge u for some thing should be in the game normal while it should be free,I didn't say that they shouldn't make us pay for dlc ,its fine for me if they make maps for online.

The thing is, DLC used to pretty much be used onlyas an alternateway to deliver expansion packs, but as graphics havegotten better, the size of the content has balloned massively and with bandwidth usage caps being so prevalent the expansion packs became add-ons, and from there its only natural for a company to want to make more money while spending less on production and other overhead so some unscrupulous companies started making things that should really have been included as part of the original package into paid DLC and people have really responded positively to this so they will probably continue doing this, and itwill also probably get a lot worse. I think it really started with preorder bonuses, like preorder this game and get the special weopon unlock, which they then starrted to sell as DLC for everyone after the games release.

ok here what I am against that I buy a game for 60$ and then all the sudden I find the company put an add-on content and tell you buy it!

1st example fifa 10 you have to pay for

a-fifa 10 live season

b-fifa 10 ultimate team

I see thouse two things as free content or should be included in the fifa 10 version normal without any extra payment

2nd example wwe smack down vs raw 2010 you have to pay for players that should be in the game

a-stone cold steve austin a legend that u have to pay for him and in the past all the legends was inside the game normal.

3rd assassins creed 2 you have to pay for

a-extra levels or what ever they call it memory slots which the game should be all full with out asking u to pay for new levels

I read about assassins creed 2 add-on in the gamespot news.

please every one tell me your thoughts about it bec I am frustrating about this.

Deaho

[QUOTE="Guchari"]

So people playing Assassin Creed 2 that dont have the internet for online gaming. Just for work with a small download limit. They wont get the full experience?

Deaho

yes!!!!!!!

Add-on content to full-priced Disc $40-$60 games is a joke and milkage of the gaming public. Funny because Supersonic Battlecars gives it's add-on maps free and the game only costs $10 and it's a great game.

The only game that I've thought was justified with it's add-on content pricing is Warhawk.

[QUOTE="Guchari"]

So people playing Assassin Creed 2 that dont have the internet for online gaming. Just for work with a small download limit. They wont get the full experience?

Deaho

yes!!!!!!!

No. The full experience can be found in the retail game. The DLC is only supposed to be a couple hours long. If that couple hours would've be the "make or break" moment of the game then maybe it wouldn't have been as good, but it's not. It's a great game and now it has extra content. That's all.

A lot of DLC is a rip off. Some developers are dumb like making you pay for extra difficulties or other small things. Blazblue while that game is awsome should not have DLC that can be unlocked in the game itself. No offense, but sports games are the worst for the kind of things you are complaining about. They come out with a new addition every year and then come out with DLC. This is also why sometimes it's better to wait a year to play a game. Look at all of the Bethesda games. They always come out with game of the year versions and include the DLC along with the original game. Sony did the same with Little Big Planet.

What's stupid is that for Madden 10 I apparently have to buy the AFL downloads for like 7 dollars so I can get all of the trophies for it... absolutely retarded.

all you can do is choose not to buy it. thing is alot of people do buy it so the people who don't buy it probably won't make too much of a difference :-/ rarely do i buy dlc, the only thing i really purchase online are games. of course free dlc is free so i'll grab that :D i really disdain having to buy a character to fill out a roster (soul calibur 4) and having the content already there but having to pay for a unlock key (RE5) thats terrible, its already on the disc. new maps, packs, sidescenes, upgrades, costumes or whatever feel free to sell those. but have the full content in the game. my thought is that if thiskeeps going in the direction its headed games willend up being pay to play "$5 per act for a 12 level/act/stage game"

1) You don't have to buy DLC. Most of it is content that wasn't ready, or thought of when the game was completed. It's always nice to have options once you completed a game instead of just letting it sit there.

2) It's not like the other console where you have to keep paying either monthly or yearly just to play against others online on a system that you bought, and not rented.

brotherreese