Bioshock 2 DLC already on the disc! Yeah...another one.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] no ms invented paid dlc, stop trying to deny it. ms stops devs from releasing free dlc. KukicAdo

No but like any less then forthcoming *so is microsoft:::click click click defused ya:::* they could have easily instead said look we want this game, but more content, heres the money.

Instead it was more like, we want this game...ready for gold yet? oh soon? well we won't okay it we want more content, And the developer has no choice they just sunk money and time into this project and they can't exactly refuse a company of Sony's stature anyways...

P.S: and before the people that come in and say but it wasn't that way, go and find the article where the one developer admits they were pretty much bullied this way into putting more content in and tell me the context by which he says it...its not all cheery yeah they were more then helpful we didn't have a problem...ect

*is looking up the article now, and it DOES exist.*
Edit: I can't find the article, but I stand by my words, I know the article exists where a certain Sqaure employee talks about how the game was withheld release till new content was made for it...IF any other fellow system warriors know the link please post it. It was either eternal sonata or Star ocean last hope....I am unsure at this point now.

*goes off searching knowing the exact search terms to find the article will escape him*

I used to be able to just type Sony Square enix Hostage into google and find it...now I can't so many hostage websites now.

As unethical and evil as it sounds, I have no problem with it. Theoretically, any developer could simply hold out on content to give the illusion that it wasn't already developed. It's just that with this method, content that was deemed 'too much to put into the game which will retail at $50' can be delivered with low bandwidth and time consumption.

Also...

So, as it turns out, the Sinclair Solutions DLC for BioShock 2 was already in the disc all along. Now, while that should have been a pleasant surprise, one can't help but wonder why, if it is already included in the disc, you have to pay for it twice. A post at the official 2K forums attempts to explain.

Said the publisher's official statement:

"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.

I know some of you have strong beliefs about DLC, and I'm not here to sway your opinion or convince you to buy our stuff - if you like what we're offering, I hope you get it and enjoy it. If it's not your speed, enjoy BioShock 2 as we released it.

I want to let you know that DLC is not interfering with our patching capabilities, which are a top priority and are still being actively worked on. We're committed to supporting you and making BioShock 2 the best experience possible.

I hope this clears up a lot of the questions and confusion in this thread!"

And there you have it. Are you sold with their explanation?

-----

LINK

:roll: I can't help but to think that this is a load of crap what with this becoming rather common these days.

killab2oo5

They aren't lying. Their net code consistency excuse is valid. In MMO's, players who own expansion pack content (e.g ridiculously fancy-looking and powerful armor) could be in non-expansion zones. Players in said zones might not own the content but must have it (Yes, in a legal sense, own and have mean two different meanings.) in order to avoid issues such as floating bounding boxes due to incapability to render models, if not worse things. This ties in somewhat with my previous point.

That said, from what I've read of Sinclair Solutions and know about BioShock 2 (I haven't played it. Hated the first.), this doesn't sound like it warrants the extra money.

As unethical and evil as it sounds, I have no problem with it. Theoretically, any developer could simply hold out on content to give the illusion that it wasn't already developed. It's just that with this method, content that was deemed 'too much to put into the game which will retail at $50' can be delivered with low bandwidth and time consumption.

Also...

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

So, as it turns out, the Sinclair Solutions DLC for BioShock 2 was already in the disc all along. Now, while that should have been a pleasant surprise, one can't help but wonder why, if it is already included in the disc, you have to pay for it twice. A post at the official 2K forums attempts to explain.

Said the publisher's official statement:

"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.

I know some of you have strong beliefs about DLC, and I'm not here to sway your opinion or convince you to buy our stuff - if you like what we're offering, I hope you get it and enjoy it. If it's not your speed, enjoy BioShock 2 as we released it.

I want to let you know that DLC is not interfering with our patching capabilities, which are a top priority and are still being actively worked on. We're committed to supporting you and making BioShock 2 the best experience possible.

I hope this clears up a lot of the questions and confusion in this thread!"

And there you have it. Are you sold with their explanation?

-----

LINK

:roll: I can't help but to think that this is a load of crap what with this becoming rather common these days.

Technoweirdo

They aren't lying. Their net code consistency excuse is valid. In MMO's, players who own expansion pack content (e.g ridiculously fancy-looking and powerful armor) could be in non-expansion zones. Players in said zones might not own the content but must have it (Yes, in a legal sense, own and have mean two different meanings.) in order to avoid issues such as floating bounding boxes due to incapability to render models, if not worse things. This ties in somewhat with my previous point.

That said, from what I've read of Sinclair Solutions and know about BioShock 2 (I haven't played it. Hated the first.), this doesn't sound like it warrants the extra money.

[QUOTE="KukicAdo"][QUOTE="svenus97"]

The campaign was developed by 2K Marin, 2K Australia and 2k China, with Arkane Studios as level design assistance.

The multiplayer however, was developed by Digital Extremes, so 2K did what they could with the campaign, and I liked it a lot.

I also can't see why is it such a problem to pay 5 dollars for something you like. You people are making it sound like someone is forcing you to buy it. Don't buy it if you don't want to, but I myself will gladly pay 5 dollars to continue supporting the developers.

svenus97

A good point, I maybe did buy the data, but I'm still missing one link, and thats the "key" we need to download. So no... I didn't buy it all, and although it may seem unfair for some, then I suggest you don't buy it, if some people hate it that much to boycott the next release here is a simple suggestion do not buy it:)

I am paying those 5 dollars more to support them, then to get the content.

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

[QUOTE="fastr"] It wasn't a tacked on MP, they hired a whole team separate from the SP team just to do MP. That shows commitment to quality. Of course.. now they show they're also **** svenus97

Bioshock was sole singleplayer experience, drive by its story and narrative. It didn't need multiplayer, yet 2K added it anyway. Those resources could have gone into better improving the campaign.

Dead Space 2 seems to be taking the same unfortunate route.

The campaign was developed by 2K Marin, 2K Australia and 2k China, with Arkane Studios as level design assistance.

The multiplayer however, was developed by Digital Extremes, so 2K did what they could with the campaign, and I liked it a lot.

I also can't see why is it such a problem to pay 5 dollars for something you like. You people are making it sound like someone is forcing you to buy it. Don't buy it if you don't want to, but I myself will gladly pay 5 dollars to continue supporting the developers.

I have no problem supporting good developers...as long theydon't exploit us.

I've never had a problem with DLC as long as it is something that was made after the game and it adds to the game's experience. To me that is stuff like add on levels or some kind of extra content packaged together. Charging for extra maps is just greed. Charging for extra maps that were made and installed on the game's disc is the worst kind of greed. Any kind of DLC that was made when the game was made should be included with the game, or at least do like Bioware and include a download code as a bonus for pre-ordering the game.

This new trend of developing DLC alongside of a game and then charging $60 for a partial game is getting really disturbing. I know I won't buy DLC unless it comes out at least two months after the game. I'm not going to encourage this trend. If you want to make an episode type game, then put it out as an episode game and charge less for each episode.

My thoughts in pictures

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

As unethical and evil as it sounds, I have no problem with it. Theoretically, any developer could simply hold out on content to give the illusion that it wasn't already developed. It's just that with this method, content that was deemed 'too much to put into the game which will retail at $50' can be delivered with low bandwidth and time consumption.

Also...

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

So, as it turns out, the Sinclair Solutions DLC for BioShock 2 was already in the disc all along. Now, while that should have been a pleasant surprise, one can't help but wonder why, if it is already included in the disc, you have to pay for it twice. A post at the official 2K forums attempts to explain.

Said the publisher's official statement:

"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.

I know some of you have strong beliefs about DLC, and I'm not here to sway your opinion or convince you to buy our stuff - if you like what we're offering, I hope you get it and enjoy it. If it's not your speed, enjoy BioShock 2 as we released it.

I want to let you know that DLC is not interfering with our patching capabilities, which are a top priority and are still being actively worked on. We're committed to supporting you and making BioShock 2 the best experience possible.

I hope this clears up a lot of the questions and confusion in this thread!"

And there you have it. Are you sold with their explanation?

-----

LINK

:roll: I can't help but to think that this is a load of crap what with this becoming rather common these days.

KukicAdo

They aren't lying. Their net code consistency excuse is valid. In MMO's, players who own expansion pack content (e.g ridiculously fancy-looking and powerful armor) could be in non-expansion zones. Players in said zones might not own the content but must have it (Yes, in a legal sense, own and have mean two different meanings.) in order to avoid issues such as floating bounding boxes due to incapability to render models, if not worse things. This ties in somewhat with my previous point.

That said, from what I've read of Sinclair Solutions and know about BioShock 2 (I haven't played it. Hated the first.), this doesn't sound like it warrants the extra money.

Yes, they do. :| Go download a free trial of World of Warcraft. You won't own the expansion pack (Well, you don't even own World of Warcaft) but you're capable of seeing and playing with all the 80's in their end-game gear for the sake of net code consistency.

I can't believe I actually vouched for WoW...

If you buy an expansion pack, you can play those extra maps and weapons with other people that have purchased them. If you haven't, then you can still play with the regular people, using the regular weapons and maps. What's so hard about this?

Your idea of separating the two now gets us to 2K's other point. Allow me to bold and colour it red for you...

2K is just doing us all a favor by not killing our bandwidth and time. Then again, we all spent our time discussing the DLC anyhow. :P

Don't like it don't buy it. They can't rip you off if your money stays in your pocket.

Wow. That explanation makes me wonder how many other publishers may have pulled the same **** where you wouldn't notice. Clear cut case of ripping stuff out of the game to charge extra for it. And they waited a month to release the keys, making it look like they were trying to cover it up and fool people to buy into their scam... Very poor form 2K.

If you're aware of the situation and still buy this content you are an idiot and I would punch you.

no that would be Bethesda and the horse armor that cost 400 MS points microsoft didn't start charging for DLC;developers of the games did.lawlessx

I also can't see why is it such a problem to pay 5 dollars for something you like. You people are making it sound like someone is forcing you to buy it. Don't buy it if you don't want to, but I myself will gladly pay 5 dollars to continue supporting the developers.

-----

A good point, I maybe did buy the data, but I'm still missing one link, and thats the "key" we need to download. So no... I didn't buy it all, and although it may seem unfair for some, then I suggest you don't buy it, if some people hate it that much to boycott the next release here is a simple suggestion do not buy it:)

I am paying those 5 dollars more to support them, then to get the content.

svenus97

You supported the developer when you bought the game. The only thing you would be supporting by paying for content you've already paid for is the publisher's continued greed and willingness to exploit consumers to satisfy it. Why would you want to do that?

-----

It's unfair to everyone. The only difference is that you for some bizarre reason are ok with giving money away and only getting more BOHICA'd as a thanks. You are the problem.

As unethical and evil as it sounds, I have no problem with it. Theoretically, any developer could simply hold out on content to give the illusion that it wasn't already developed. It's just that with this method, content that was deemed 'too much to put into the game which will retail at $50' can be delivered with low bandwidth and time consumption.

2K is just doing us all a favor by not killing our bandwidth and time. Then again, we all spent our time discussing the DLC anyhow. :P

Technoweirdo

What?

"Well they're scamming and ripping you off, but I have no problem with it because it won't take you long to download the unlock key. They're doing us a favor."

WHAT.

Or did I understand something wrongfully? I must have.

I blame MS, they startesd this, with Live fee's and forcing dev's to charge for content, dev's now see how ez you consolites are.

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

As unethical and evil as it sounds, I have no problem with it. Theoretically, any developer could simply hold out on content to give the illusion that it wasn't already developed. It's just that with this method, content that was deemed 'too much to put into the game which will retail at $50' can be delivered with low bandwidth and time consumption.

2K is just doing us all a favor by not killing our bandwidth and time. Then again, we all spent our time discussing the DLC anyhow. :P

InsaneBasura

What?

"Well they're scamming and ripping you off, but I have no problem with it because it won't take you long to download the unlock key. They're doing us a favor."

WHAT.

Or did I understand something wrongfully? I must have.

You missed the part where I said I didn't play BioShock 2, for one. Doing 'us' a favor doesn't seem right because of that. If anything, it makes me sound malicious as an outsider. :twisted:

You also missed my example of expansion packs in MMO's like World of Warcraft and, while you've quoted it, you seem to have overlooked the idea of simply witholding content and putting it into patches for everyone. The only difference from what they've done and what they could've done is knowledge. They were going to charge you either way for the content. Because of that, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of putting content on-disk.

In case you're wondering, while we're on the subject of DLC, my opinion on DLC in general is an entirely different story. Judging by the number of "DLC sucks" responses in this thread, I get the feeling that I'd get totally different responses if I didn't just give my opinion on DLC distribution ethics but rather DLC as a whole. Oh well...

As for the 'favor', the 'favor' is simply saving bandwidth, nothing more.

I guess $60 isn't enough for greedy (and lazy, since Bioshock 2 sucks) devs.

I guess $60 isn't enough for greedy (and lazy, since Bioshock 2 sucks) devs.

RawDeal_basic

You already bought it once. Why should you have to pay $5 more to get it again?KukicAdo

A good point, I maybe did buy the data, but I'm still missing one link, and thats the "key" we need to download. So no... I didn't buy it all, and although it may seem unfair for some, then I suggest you don't buy it, if some people hate it that much to boycott the next release here is a simple suggestion do not buy it:)

I am paying those 5 dollars more to support them, then to get the content.

[QUOTE="InsaneBasura"]

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

As unethical and evil as it sounds, I have no problem with it. Theoretically, any developer could simply hold out on content to give the illusion that it wasn't already developed. It's just that with this method, content that was deemed 'too much to put into the game which will retail at $50' can be delivered with low bandwidth and time consumption.

2K is just doing us all a favor by not killing our bandwidth and time. Then again, we all spent our time discussing the DLC anyhow. :P

Technoweirdo

What?

"Well they're scamming and ripping you off, but I have no problem with it because it won't take you long to download the unlock key. They're doing us a favor."

WHAT.

Or did I understand something wrongfully? I must have.

You missed the part where I said I didn't play BioShock 2, for one. Doing 'us' a favor doesn't seem right because of that. If anything, it makes me sound malicious as an outsider. :twisted:

You also missed my example of expansion packs in MMO's like World of Warcraft and, while you've quoted it, you seem to have overlooked the idea of simply witholding content and putting it into patches for everyone. The only difference from what they've done and what they could've done is knowledge. They were going to charge you either way for the content. Because of that, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of putting content on-disk.

In case you're wondering, while we're on the subject of DLC, my opinion on DLC in general is an entirely different story. Judging by the number of "DLC sucks" responses in this thread, I get the feeling that I'd get totally different responses if I didn't just give my opinion on DLC distribution ethics but rather DLC as a whole. Oh well...

As for the 'favor', the 'favor' is simply saving bandwidth, nothing more.

[QUOTE="KukicAdo"][QUOTE="svenus97"]

A good point, I maybe did buy the data, but I'm still missing one link, and thats the "key" we need to download. So no... I didn't buy it all, and although it may seem unfair for some, then I suggest you don't buy it, if some people hate it that much to boycott the next release here is a simple suggestion do not buy it:)

I am paying those 5 dollars more to support them, then to get the content.

Articuno76

That was very well put.

But lets say it like this: Imagine Bioshock 2 is a set number of safes, let's say 10. You payed 60 USD for 10 of those safes, but out of those 10 safes, nine were unlocked. The tenth safe wasn't unlocked because the people who bought the tenth key would be able to play with those who didn't. As I recall there was an update a few days before the release, and I assume that is when the data was put.

So, the data wasn't on the disc when you bought it, it was given free later so that those who buy the "key" would be able to play with those who don't, given the minimal ammount for date size.

This is only the beginning. I'm waiting for the first company to charge me $59.99 just for a single player experience, and another $15-20 for Multiplayer And then some more for maps. STOP TAKING PART IN YOUR OWN ABUSE!KukicAdo

Well I didn't even bother buying the game. The fact that they introduced some tacked on multiplayer turned me off.

That, and the fact Bioshock 2 is also one giant escort mission.

SpinoRaptor24

A giant escort mission? No.

Who are you escorting in the game? You don't have to get Adam from corpses.

Meh. I will buy anything for BioShock 2.

Gimme, gimme, gimme!

BioShockOwnz

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Meh. I will buy anything for BioShock 2.

Gimme, gimme, gimme!

aaronmullan

I knew that. ;)

I listen to you... sometimes. :P

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Meh. I will buy anything for BioShock 2.

Gimme, gimme, gimme!

BioShockOwnz

I knew that. ;)

I listen to you... sometimes. :P

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"] Meh. I will do anything to keep it away Do not want.aaronmullan

I knew that. ;)

I listen to you... sometimes. :P

I can't confirm or deny that.

That's total BS, I hate when devs do this. I'd almost think that should be an illegal practice. When I buy a game, I should have access to all the content on the disc, not have to buy it again.enterawesome

capcom seems to have started a trend that is going to continue to grow. I'll give 2k credit for atleast trying to come up with a reason for it

lawlessx

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]That's total BS, I hate when devs do this. I'd almost think that should be an illegal practice. When I buy a game, I should have access to all the content on the disc, not have to buy it again.Bread_or_Decide

Another point of why DLC is ruining this gen...

Its a shame companies can get away at offering lame DLC on consoles, while on PC there are modders who can literrally add a new game to a current one. Oblivion ya 2$ horse armor. Modded Oblivion; werewolves, vampire guilds, turning into a lych, flying, new enemies all for free. Same with Fallout 3. In some games developers just completely rip off modders without giving credit/ cough modern warfare 2. I would like to see DLC brought to an end and modding explode.