Is the 360 causing so much paid DLC?

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="HavocV3"]

KZ2, first party, 2 maps, ~$6

so no.

it's a universal practice.

HavocV3

KZ2 has a dwindling community. I've already seen that there is difficulty involved with just playing certain game modes. so I'm sure splitting the community through DLC only helps even more.

at least I'd get to play, and the modes I want.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] Yeah, but you don't have to pay 50 bucks a year to actually play those maps online... So in reality, who is spending more money?N00bTuber

KZ2 has a dwindling community. I've already seen that there is difficulty involved with just playing certain game modes. so I'm sure splitting the community through DLC only helps even more.

at least I'd get to play, and the modes I want.

umm, splitting an already SMALL community, like KZ2.....

~200k players still play H3 at a time. and the only locked playlists through DLC are MLG playlists, finding a game on my barebones H3 disc would be cake.

same as my MP disc of ODST.

People paying so much money for stupid DLC is causing so much paid DLC.

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"][QUOTE="HavocV3"]

KZ2 has a dwindling community. I've already seen that there is difficulty involved with just playing certain game modes. so I'm sure splitting the community through DLC only helps even more.

at least I'd get to play, and the modes I want.

HavocV3

umm, splitting an already SMALL community, like KZ2.....

~200k players still play H3 at a time. and the only locked playlists through DLC are MLG playlists, finding a game on my barebones H3 disc would be cake.

same as my MP disc of ODST.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"] You'll never have a problem getting a full server and the spliting the community over DLC started on Live.N00bTuber

umm, splitting an already SMALL community, like KZ2.....

~200k players still play H3 at a time. and the only locked playlists through DLC are MLG playlists, finding a game on my barebones H3 disc would be cake.

same as my MP disc of ODST.

I wasn't talking about how fast you get into a game. :? Halo Reach will say otherwise if you want to keep the irrelevancy train going.

back to '360 causing DLC' kay?

Like a previous poster said, 360 owners were the first guinea pigs to have DLC tested on. They took the bait and now the industry is all about gimped up games and DLC a month later.

Im just so pissed off at the little tweens that use mommy and daddys credit cards to buy useless DLC, causing us to have to deal with this BS because of supply and demand.

this cracked the top 10 dumbest things ive ever heard on these boards. with your logic, MAG should have a couple hundred mapsshadow8585

Yeah because MS first invented paid DLC. :roll:

They should ship the DLC on the disc. I will gladly pay $80 for it rather than pay $20 for DLC + $60 boxed game.Vadamee

[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"]

There are two differences...one game is total crap (It starts with Ever...) and the other one is awesome...
Crap games don't deserve attention anyhow and should be boycotted by default.

balfe1990

It still nullifies your point that only MS charge extortioate prices for DLC.

Or whatever you were trying to get across.

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"]

There are two differences...one game is total crap (It starts with Ever...) and the other one is awesome...
Crap games don't deserve attention anyhow and should be boycotted by default.

Locutus_Picard

It still nullifies your point that only MS charge extortioate prices for DLC.

Or whatever you were trying to get across.

EFLC.

and ironically, that game proves MS can do good, and with exclusive DLCs:|

I saw avatar stuff said by you. did you know MS offers a system for developers to make unlockable avatar awards from playing their games?

know who uses it? MS, across 4-5 games. the only other game is from Valve, L4D2. what do developers do?, they choose to profit from licensing fees on avatar items. instead of using said avatar system.

in no way am I trying to defend MS, it's just hilarious how it's always the game to pin everything on MS. it's like MS was the reason Sony charged for DLCs....'but, but' MS has them guinea pigs, they have proven this is an effective money sink'

what a joke.

and on the REAL topic of DVD capacity, Sony still pulls DLC as much as MS does, and at the same time, they fill their guinea pigs with tons and tons of crap about how Blu-Ray is the only way. and yet you have to pay for co-op modes (UC2) skins(UC2/LBP) map packs(KZ2) 3 map packs in 5 months mind you:roll:

wait, you don't have to, it's optional in the end:|

great job with the PC piracy and MMO addictiveness though, hilarious damage control right there.

[QUOTE="Vadamee"]They should ship the DLC on the disc. I will gladly pay $80 for it rather than pay $20 for DLC + $60 boxed game.Mystic-G

That makes me wonder too because it's like.... had they actually time to put that DLC in the game before release, would the game then be worth $75 or $80 boxed? Just something to think about.

Exactly my point!

These same opponents of DLC are ironically the same group that claims the 360's DVD medium is starved for space, so claiming that it should have shipped on disc negates one or the other claims made. Shipping a game on multiple DVDs probably isn't the best option because there are inherent royalty fees.

They then regress and blame the existence of downloadable content on 360's DVD drive.

'Microsoft couldn't use Blu ray because they launched early > They launched early because they're greedy > Launching early causes them to equip 360 with DVD drives > 360 is the cause of DLC because of DVD medium is too small > DLC is over priced because it can't ship on disc because MSFT went with inferior DVD because MSFT launched early, because MSFT is greedy....because MSFT bought DOS in the 90s'

This infinitely regressive logic is quite hilarious and narrow-minded.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="Vadamee"]They should ship the DLC on the disc. I will gladly pay $80 for it rather than pay $20 for DLC + $60 boxed game.Vadamee

That makes me wonder too because it's like.... had they actually time to put that DLC in the game before release, would the game then be worth $75 or $80 boxed? Just something to think about.

Exactly my point!

These same opponents of DLC are ironically the same group that claims the 360's DVD medium is starved for space, so claiming that it should have shipped on disc negates one or the other claims made. Shipping a game on multiple DVDs probably isn't the best option because there are inherent royalty fees.

They then regress and blame the existence of downloadable content on 360's DVD drive.

'Microsoft couldn't use Blu ray because they launched early > They launched early because they're greedy > Launching early causes them to equip 360 with DVD drives > 360 is the cause of DLC because of DVD medium is too small > DLC is over priced because it can't ship on disc because MSFT went with inferior DVD because MSFT launched early, because MSFT is greedy....because MSFT bought DOS in the 90s'

This infinitely regressive logic is quite hilarious and narrow-minded.

They want to have their ownage cake and eat it too :lol:

Do you guys think that the the 360s limited space with the DVD format cause more developers to push content to DLC?

JustinCredibleJ

if this was the case why didn't we see it more last gen?

the abbility was there, Xbox had a hard drive, and you could buy a seperate ps2 hard drive...

No. With that logic, Sony games would be filled with content in the discs, but in reality it's around the same as Microsoft games. DLCs are mainly just game expansions (the unlocked ones are a different story, but we won't go there).

Not the dinosaur hardware format DVD.
Nor the 360 itself.

It's the 360 user base, since most of them are willing to be robbed of 40$ to 60$ anually for online gaming (redundant since you already pay for broadband internet access alread) they are pretty much willing to be robbed of money on other things. Like content that was supposed to be on the disc already but cut out and sold seperately as DLC to make more profit out of it. All those gimmicks like EXCLUSIVE DLC!!, lemming cry's for more content, ''avatar clothes'', day 1 DLC caused this mess nowadays. I really hope the next iteration of a M$ console will be digital distribution consisting of ''Purchase level/chapter 2 to continue'' at prices of car rental fee's with offcourse the propriatary M$ HDD's. (360) gamers who buy DLC already shot themselves in the foot.

Locutus_Picard

[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"]

Not the dinosaur hardware format DVD.
Nor the 360 itself.

It's the 360 user base, since most of them are willing to be robbed of 40$ to 60$ anually for online gaming (redundant since you already pay for broadband internet access alread) they are pretty much willing to be robbed of money on other things. Like content that was supposed to be on the disc already but cut out and sold seperately as DLC to make more profit out of it. All those gimmicks like EXCLUSIVE DLC!!, lemming cry's for more content, ''avatar clothes'', day 1 DLC caused this mess nowadays. I really hope the next iteration of a M$ console will be digital distribution consisting of ''Purchase level/chapter 2 to continue'' at prices of car rental fee's with offcourse the propriatary M$ HDD's. (360) gamers who buy DLC already shot themselves in the foot.

locopatho

That's some of the weakest damage control I've seen on these forums tbh. Imo ofc.

N00bTuber

[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"]

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

It still nullifies your point that only MS charge extortioate prices for DLC.

Or whatever you were trying to get across.

HavocV3

EFLC.

and ironically, that game proves MS can do good, and with exclusive DLCs:|

I saw avatar stuff said by you. did you know MS offers a system for developers to make unlockable avatar awards from playing their games?

know who uses it? MS, across 4-5 games. the only other game is from Valve, L4D2. what do developers do?, they choose to profit from licensing fees on avatar items. instead of using said avatar system.

in no way am I trying to defend MS, it's just hilarious how it's always the game to pin everything on MS. it's like MS was the reason Sony charged for DLCs....'but, but' MS has them guinea pigs, they have proven this is an effective money sink'

what a joke.

and on the REAL topic of DVD capacity, Sony still pulls DLC as much as MS does, and at the same time, they fill their guinea pigs with tons and tons of crap about how Blu-Ray is the only way. and yet you have to pay for co-op modes (UC2) skins(UC2/LBP) map packs(KZ2) 3 map packs in 5 months mind you:roll:

wait, you don't have to, it's optional in the end:|

great job with the PC piracy and MMO addictiveness though, hilarious damage control right there.

i dont think you have to pay for coop modes but just skins.

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"]

That's some of the weakest damage control I've seen on these forums tbh. Imo ofc.

locopatho

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"]

That's some of the weakest damage control I've seen on these forums tbh. Imo ofc.

N00bTuber

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"][QUOTE="locopatho"] Well he shouldn't whine about OPTIONAL stuff, blaming it on 360 when it's on both consoles, and ignoring the milking stuff Sony have done as well. "DLC is evil o no!" Ok so Shivering Isles on a disc is great, Shivering Isles as a download is awful???

locopatho

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="N00bTuber"] Selling a console at a loss, and then offering an optional periferal because the fanbase asked for rumble is milkage? No. Charging for Live, forcing dev's to charge for content on Live, overpricing for accesories etc is milking. DOn't confuse the 2.N00bTuber

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] Yes it is. Selling for 600 when you have 95% the same library as your 300 competitor is silly. Ripping out rumble, claiming it was impossible to have in Sixaxis at the time, then later releasing it is milkage. And I've gotten plenty of FREE content off live as well thanks very much. Not defending paying for Live or 100 euro net adapters, that's crap too, but trying to paint Sony as saints when they are just as big scumbags as MS is stupid.locopatho

You clealry don't know what your talking about, it's cool not to like Sony, but get your words straight... Your using words that don't have the meaning you think they have and it ends up making no sense at all...N00bTuber

[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"]

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

It still nullifies your point that only MS charge extortioate prices for DLC.

Or whatever you were trying to get across.

HavocV3

EFLC.

and ironically, that game proves MS can do good, and with exclusive DLCs:|

I saw avatar stuff said by you. did you know MS offers a system for developers to make unlockable avatar awards from playing their games?

know who uses it? MS, across 4-5 games. the only other game is from Valve, L4D2. what do developers do?, they choose to profit from licensing fees on avatar items. instead of using said avatar system.

in no way am I trying to defend MS, it's just hilarious how it's always the game to pin everything on MS. it's like MS was the reason Sony charged for DLCs....'but, but' MS has them guinea pigs, they have proven this is an effective money sink'

what a joke.

and on the REAL topic of DVD capacity, Sony still pulls DLC as much as MS does, and at the same time, they fill their guinea pigs with tons and tons of crap about how Blu-Ray is the only way. and yet you have to pay for co-op modes (UC2) skins(UC2/LBP) map packs(KZ2) 3 map packs in 5 months mind you:roll:

wait, you don't have to, it's optional in the end:|

great job with the PC piracy and MMO addictiveness though, hilarious damage control right there.

Do you guys think that the the 360s limited space with the DVD format cause more developers to push content to DLC?

JustinCredibleJ

Do you guys think that the the 360s limited space with the DVD format cause more developers to push content to DLC?

JustinCredibleJ

Yes. Assassin's Creed 2 is a perfect example. But I don't think it's just down to disk space, it's also because companies are incredibly greedy and will try anything to lure in susceptible gamers.

In my opinion, anyone who pays over the top for such a small amount of DLC (such as AC2, or MW2's map packs) have something wrong with them. Not because of the price, I mean parting with £10 isn't a big deal, but when you are parting with £10 for 3 maps and 2 cop and pasts, yes it is a big deal. The point is people shouldn't support such marketing techniques because in the end, it will ruin gaming.

Lemms will just hate on the topic. I'd say yes they pushed it much more than Sony. Sony said they like having everything on the discKokuro_Kun

Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.

Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.

DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.

For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.

People are still proclaiming their "should have been on the disc" propoganda, so I'm going to reiterate. Production schedules and budgets for what can be created within a time frame and at a certain cost are realities which limits all developers. This is not to say they use DLC to recoup their initial overhead, but that many levels, missions, chapters and what not, are ordinarily cut out of games due to time and budget constraints.

People compare DLC to the extras on movie DVDs. The difference is that those deleted scenes were actually filmed when the movie was originally made and then cut for what ever editing reasons, then later included on DVD. The game DLC is produced after the final game and as part of a seperate work schedule and budget, and released accordingly. Tomb Raider Underworld's two extra chapters and ME2's Kasumi mission being examples.

I guess you would say that I'm saying most of the time, people crying "it should have been on the disc" are just coming from a sense of self entitlement. It's a shift of perception, where something meant to be extra content to add new life to an old game can be convenientlly spun around as "missing from the original release", even when it was produced after the games initial completion. Their only rationalization is simply, they want it, so they complain how the devs "should have released it" to justify their entitlement.

There are of course the cases where the DLC is released the same day as the core game, which does lead to suspicious practices. This clearly shows the content was worked on during the initial development cycle. But many extras that come months later can't be treated as such. They took extra time, effort, and cost to manufacture that at a later time.

More recently there has been another motivation for DLC, one which I support. And that's Day 1 DLC which is FREE, and simply placed as DLC for incentive to buy new instead of used. All devs want revenue from the games they made and not to lose that potential income to the 2nd hand market where its the middle man *coughgamestopcough* who co-opts that profit. This is fair and reasonable for all sides.

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"]Lemms will just hate on the topic. I'd say yes they pushed it much more than Sony. Sony said they like having everything on the discsonicmj1

Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.

Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.

DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.

For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.

For your first statement the truth is that LBP is a game where you use content given to you to make levels. LBP is filled with content on the disk, it's enough for many people. Now, some people want MORE content to make BETTER levels, LBP is a perfect way for DLC and money, there is a PURPOSE for the DLC and it is REASONABLY PRICED therefore it is a smart way of making money without completely ripping off customers. Microsoft on the other hand releases DLC that is overpriced and is completely unnecessary. They waste money of timed exclusivity and they actually support the MW2 dlc! $15 for 5 maps, that's $3 per map, don't give me the excuse "your not forced to buy it" or "it's for the fans" because no matter what it IS milking and it is a rip off. Sony does not support DLC as much as Microsoft, and just like NOOBtuber said Sony is losing some profit from their game division but anyone can tell that they take pride in Playstation from their actions, and just the way they present it in conferences and such, they pay extra to have games like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit released. Those 2 games could have failed miserably and probably weren't going to sell all that well but they put them out there because they were great games with great stories.

What you stated about Oblivion and EA, that's all individual companies, not Sony nor Microsoft. Also, again he didn't mean ALL DLC are because of Microsoft, he was asking people if they thought that the limited space in a DVD can possibly be a cause of DLC, if GTA4 had been a PS3 exclusive would Ballad of Gay Tony be included in the disk? Rockstar complains about the 360s limited space, the only thing keeping them from making the next GTA a ps3 exclusive is Microsoft's constant bribing, apparently it's going to be on multiple disks for the 360. DLC is a way to make money but the main selling point or purpose of DLC is for replay value, many people don't realize that. The siege pack for Uncharted 2 included a new co op mode, new maps, new skins, a new mode, and new trophies, that was to make people who had left Uncharted 2 to go back to it, it was $5.99, did it sell well? YES. Did people go back to Uncharted 2 because of this? YES. Therefore was it successful? YES. Is it an example of how DLC should be like? YES. The same goes for the Pirates of the Caribbean DLC in LBP. That's what DLC is meant for, when the CoD4 map pack was released it wasn't reasonably priced, PC gamers were smart enough to avoid it while Lemmings quickly bought it as fast as possible. End result? The CoD4 remains in XBL and PSN to this day as a paid DLC and it is completely free for PC. When Microsoft said PC users would have to pay for LIVE, they avoided it meanwhile xbox users rushed out and payed $60 for LIVE, end result? Online is free for PC while Live is still $60 a year for xbox. I think I've proved my point here.

[QUOTE="gammon56"][QUOTE="N00bTuber"] Are you going to twist Sony evolving gaming into an evil thing because they ultimatly get money(sometimes) out of it? MS doesn't even risk it, heres a new halo and DLC for a popular multiplat... N00bTuber

Meanwhile Sony has been buying studios like Media Molecule, and bolstering their support from 2nd party devs like Insomniac, sucker punch, and 3rd party pulbhisers like Atlus. Apparently Sony treats their 2nd party so good that they don't want to go multiplat. Innovative new ideas and taking risks on new ip: Little Big Planet, Warhawk, Infamous, Heavy Rain, Uncharted, Resistance, Heavenly Sword, MAG, Mod nation racers, Motorstorm, Patapon, Locoroco, Pixel Junk, etc.. Sony could of just had developers make sequels to last gen games Sly 4, Jak 4, etc... but it had these devs make new ip and took risks with an entire new genre in lbp. Sony is doing a lot to move gaming forward and they are treating us gamers with respect by not milking us for hard drives, wifi, or online play.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"]Lemms will just hate on the topic. I'd say yes they pushed it much more than Sony. Sony said they like having everything on the discXVision84

Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.

Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.

DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.

For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.

For your first statement the truth is that LBP is a game where you use content given to you to make levels. LBP is filled with content on the disk, it's enough for many people. Now, some people want MORE content to make BETTER levels, LBP is a perfect way for DLC and money, there is a PURPOSE for the DLC and it is REASONABLY PRICED therefore it is a smart way of making money without completely ripping off customers. Microsoft on the other hand releases DLC that is overpriced and is completely unnecessary. They waste money of timed exclusivity and they actually support the MW2 dlc! $15 for 5 maps, that's $3 per map, don't give me the excuse "your not forced to buy it" or "it's for the fans" because no matter what it IS milking and it is a rip off. Sony does not support DLC as much as Microsoft, and just like NOOBtuber said Sony is losing some profit from their game division but anyone can tell that they take pride in Playstation from their actions, and just the way they present it in conferences and such, they pay extra to have games like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit released. Those 2 games could have failed miserably and probably weren't going to sell all that well but they put them out there because they were great games with great stories.

What you stated about Oblivion and EA, that's all individual companies, not Sony nor Microsoft. Also, again he didn't mean ALL DLC are because of Microsoft, he was asking people if they thought that the limited space in a DVD can possibly be a cause of DLC, if GTA4 had been a PS3 exclusive would Ballad of Gay Tony be included in the disk? Rockstar complains about the 360s limited space, the only thing keeping them from making the next GTA a ps3 exclusive is Microsoft's constant bribing, apparently it's going to be on multiple disks for the 360. DLC is a way to make money but the main selling point or purpose of DLC is for replay value, many people don't realize that. The siege pack for Uncharted 2 included a new co op mode, new maps, new skins, a new mode, and new trophies, that was to make people who had left Uncharted 2 to go back to it, it was $5.99, did it sell well? YES. Did people go back to Uncharted 2 because of this? YES. Therefore was it successful? YES. Is it an example of how DLC should be like? YES. The same goes for the Pirates of the Caribbean DLC in LBP. That's what DLC is meant for, when the CoD4 map pack was released it wasn't reasonably priced, PC gamers were smart enough to avoid it while Lemmings quickly bought it as fast as possible. End result? The CoD4 remains in XBL and PSN to this day as a paid DLC and it is completely free for PC. When Microsoft said PC users would have to pay for LIVE, they avoided it meanwhile xbox users rushed out and payed $60 for LIVE, end result? Online is free for PC while Live is still $60 a year for xbox. I think I've proved my point here.

[QUOTE="N00bTuber"][QUOTE="gammon56"] How is making money evil lol? They are both companies thats what a company does make money its not a bad thing and you know that 360 has more AAA's than ps3 right?Midnightshade29

Meanwhile Sony has been buying studios like Media Molecule, and bolstering their support from 2nd party devs like Insomniac, sucker punch, and 3rd party pulbhisers like Atlus. Apparently Sony treats their 2nd party so good that they don't want to go multiplat. Innovative new ideas and taking risks on new ip: Little Big Planet, Warhawk, Infamous, Heavy Rain, Uncharted, Resistance, Heavenly Sword, MAG, Mod nation racers, Motorstorm, Patapon, Locoroco, Pixel Junk, etc.. Sony could of just had developers make sequels to last gen games Sly 4, Jak 4, etc... but it had these devs make new ip and took risks with an entire new genre in lbp. Sony is doing a lot to move gaming forward and they are treating us gamers with respect by not milking us for hard drives, wifi, or online play.

I don't understand the problem with DLC. If you don't want it, don't buy it.

[QUOTE="Vadamee"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

That makes me wonder too because it's like.... had they actually time to put that DLC in the game before release, would the game then be worth $75 or $80 boxed? Just something to think about.AdobeArtist

Exactly my point!

These same opponents of DLC are ironically the same group that claims the 360's DVD medium is starved for space, so claiming that it should have shipped on disc negates one or the other claims made. Shipping a game on multiple DVDs probably isn't the best option because there are inherent royalty fees.

They then regress and blame the existence of downloadable content on 360's DVD drive.

'Microsoft couldn't use Blu ray because they launched early > They launched early because they're greedy > Launching early causes them to equip 360 with DVD drives > 360 is the cause of DLC because of DVD medium is too small > DLC is over priced because it can't ship on disc because MSFT went with inferior DVD because MSFT launched early, because MSFT is greedy....because MSFT bought DOS in the 90s'

This infinitely regressive logic is quite hilarious and narrow-minded.

They want to have their ownage cake and eat it too :lol:

Lol The ownage-cake is not a lie, let them have it and eat it too!

Yup, it was MS's plan all along, that's why they force dev's to charge for content on live, and charge to play online, and over charge for accessories. They are breaking in the market to milk their costumers as much as possible. They don't care about making great games or pushing the medium forward, they just want to make money. They have no vision whatsoever.

N00bTuber

People are still proclaiming their "should have been on the disc" propoganda, so I'm going to reiterate. Production schedules and budgets for what can be created within a time frame and at a certain cost are realities which limits all developers. This is not to say they use DLC to recoup their initial overhead, but that many levels, missions, chapters and what not, are ordinarily cut out of games due to time and budget constraints.

People compare DLC to the extras on movie DVDs. The difference is that those deleted scenes were actually filmed when the movie was originally made and then cut for what ever editing reasons, then later included on DVD. The game DLC is produced after the final game and as part of a seperate work schedule and budget, and released accordingly. Tomb Raider Underworld's two extra chapters and ME2's Kasumi mission being examples.

I guess you would say that I'm saying most of the time, people crying "it should have been on the disc" are just coming from a sense of self entitlement. It's a shift of perception, where something meant to be extra content to add new life to an old game can be convenientlly spun around as "missing from the original release", even when it was produced after the games initial completion. Their only rationalization is simply, they want it, so they complain how the devs "should have released it" to justify their entitlement.

There are of course the cases where the DLC is released the same day as the core game, which does lead to suspicious practices. This clearly shows the content was worked on during the initial development cycle. But many extras that come months later can't be treated as such. They took extra time, effort, and cost to manufacture that at a later time.

More recently there has been another motivation for DLC, one which I support. And that's Day 1 DLC which is FREE, and simply placed as DLC for incentive to buy new instead of used. All devs want revenue from the games they made and not to lose that potential income to the 2nd hand market where its the middle man *coughgamestopcough* who co-opts that profit. This is fair and reasonable for all sides.

AdobeArtist

depends on game

perfect dark zero i dont think itwas thedisc

it was the developers

now games like gta ,, yes 360 is pushing dlc ,

obviously or rockband, ,

i remember in the nes-gc era we had bigger levels more of them , and on a smaller disc/cartridge then what 360 offers,

look at wii ,

i dont see gamesgimped of content

and it uses 8.4 gig disc -if dual layered 4.7 gig single layered

360 uses mostof the time 6 gig-8 gig discs

highest dvd does is 9 gig

so ya theres about 1 gig left in mostof these discs if not more

so you can pretty much say itscontent that is supposedto be on thedisc- re5 any one

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"]Lemms will just hate on the topic. I'd say yes they pushed it much more than Sony. Sony said they like having everything on the discXVision84

Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.

Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.

DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.

For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.

For your first statement the truth is that LBP is a game where you use content given to you to make levels. LBP is filled with content on the disk, it's enough for many people. Now, some people want MORE content to make BETTER levels, LBP is a perfect way for DLC and money, there is a PURPOSE for the DLC and it is REASONABLY PRICED therefore it is a smart way of making money without completely ripping off customers. Microsoft on the other hand releases DLC that is overpriced and is completely unnecessary. They waste money of timed exclusivity and they actually support the MW2 dlc! $15 for 5 maps, that's $3 per map, don't give me the excuse "your not forced to buy it" or "it's for the fans" because no matter what it IS milking and it is a rip off. Sony does not support DLC as much as Microsoft, and just like NOOBtuber said Sony is losing some profit from their game division but anyone can tell that they take pride in Playstation from their actions, and just the way they present it in conferences and such, they pay extra to have games like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit released. Those 2 games could have failed miserably and probably weren't going to sell all that well but they put them out there because they were great games with great stories.

What you stated about Oblivion and EA, that's all individual companies, not Sony nor Microsoft. Also, again he didn't mean ALL DLC are because of Microsoft, he was asking people if they thought that the limited space in a DVD can possibly be a cause of DLC, if GTA4 had been a PS3 exclusive would Ballad of Gay Tony be included in the disk? Rockstar complains about the 360s limited space, the only thing keeping them from making the next GTA a ps3 exclusive is Microsoft's constant bribing, apparently it's going to be on multiple disks for the 360. DLC is a way to make money but the main selling point or purpose of DLC is for replay value, many people don't realize that. The siege pack for Uncharted 2 included a new co op mode, new maps, new skins, a new mode, and new trophies, that was to make people who had left Uncharted 2 to go back to it, it was $5.99, did it sell well? YES. Did people go back to Uncharted 2 because of this? YES. Therefore was it successful? YES. Is it an example of how DLC should be like? YES. The same goes for the Pirates of the Caribbean DLC in LBP. That's what DLC is meant for, when the CoD4 map pack was released it wasn't reasonably priced, PC gamers were smart enough to avoid it while Lemmings quickly bought it as fast as possible. End result? The CoD4 remains in XBL and PSN to this day as a paid DLC and it is completely free for PC. When Microsoft said PC users would have to pay for LIVE, they avoided it meanwhile xbox users rushed out and payed $60 for LIVE, end result? Online is free for PC while Live is still $60 a year for xbox. I think I've proved my point here.

Ballad of Gay Tony is practically a different game than GTAIV, with a different story arc and everything. Of course it wouldn't be included in the disc.

Also, please provide a link for your claim that the next GTA game is going to be on multiple discs on the 360.

Lemms will just hate on the topic. I'd say yes they pushed it much more than Sony. Sony said they like having everything on the discKokuro_Kun

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"]Lemms will just hate on the topic. I'd say yes they pushed it much more than Sony. Sony said they like having everything on the discXVision84

Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.

Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.

DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.

For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.

For your first statement the truth is that LBP is a game where you use content given to you to make levels. LBP is filled with content on the disk, it's enough for many people. Now, some people want MORE content to make BETTER levels, LBP is a perfect way for DLC and money, there is a PURPOSE for the DLC and it is REASONABLY PRICED therefore it is a smart way of making money without completely ripping off customers. Microsoft on the other hand releases DLC that is overpriced and is completely unnecessary. They waste money of timed exclusivity and they actually support the MW2 dlc! $15 for 5 maps, that's $3 per map, don't give me the excuse "your not forced to buy it" or "it's for the fans" because no matter what it IS milking and it is a rip off. Sony does not support DLC as much as Microsoft, and just like NOOBtuber said Sony is losing some profit from their game division but anyone can tell that they take pride in Playstation from their actions, and just the way they present it in conferences and such, they pay extra to have games like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit released. Those 2 games could have failed miserably and probably weren't going to sell all that well but they put them out there because they were great games with great stories.

What you stated about Oblivion and EA, that's all individual companies, not Sony nor Microsoft. Also, again he didn't mean ALL DLC are because of Microsoft, he was asking people if they thought that the limited space in a DVD can possibly be a cause of DLC, if GTA4 had been a PS3 exclusive would Ballad of Gay Tony be included in the disk? Rockstar complains about the 360s limited space, the only thing keeping them from making the next GTA a ps3 exclusive is Microsoft's constant bribing, apparently it's going to be on multiple disks for the 360. DLC is a way to make money but the main selling point or purpose of DLC is for replay value, many people don't realize that. The siege pack for Uncharted 2 included a new co op mode, new maps, new skins, a new mode, and new trophies, that was to make people who had left Uncharted 2 to go back to it, it was $5.99, did it sell well? YES. Did people go back to Uncharted 2 because of this? YES. Therefore was it successful? YES. Is it an example of how DLC should be like? YES. The same goes for the Pirates of the Caribbean DLC in LBP. That's what DLC is meant for, when the CoD4 map pack was released it wasn't reasonably priced, PC gamers were smart enough to avoid it while Lemmings quickly bought it as fast as possible. End result? The CoD4 remains in XBL and PSN to this day as a paid DLC and it is completely free for PC. When Microsoft said PC users would have to pay for LIVE, they avoided it meanwhile xbox users rushed out and payed $60 for LIVE, end result? Online is free for PC while Live is still $60 a year for xbox. I think I've proved my point here.

The question wasn't whether the DLC was good or not. The question was why it existed. I'm a big fan of what LBP did with the MGS4 and Pirates DLC packs. Doesn't mean they didn't cost money. Whether the DLC is appropriately priced or a total ripoff (always a subjective assessment anyways), it's still a way for publishers to get more money from consumers after they've bought a product. Fundamentally, there's no difference at all between the Uncharted Siege Pack and MW2's Stimulus Package.

Sony supports DLC just as much as Microsoft does. I can't think of a significant difference between how Halo 3 and Gears were treated and how Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 were treated. They charge for maps, they charge for modes, they charge for shiny new themes for your console. They give you replay value in exchange for money, just like every other publisher on the planet. DLC plans have nothing to do with hardware manufacturers, and everything to do with publishers.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a full campaign package that Rockstar released a year after their game launched would have shipped on disk had it been PS3-exclusive content. It's ludicrous to act like Sony's DLC is a wonderful gift to gamers, unlike the DLC of other publishers, when everyone is still charging money. It's ludicrous to compare the PC market, where people have had free DLC and online access for years, to the console market, where many gamers are accepting of DLC (need I remind you of the millions of dollars in digital sales Sony acquired from Home?).

DLC is a fact of life in the industry now, and if you don't like it, you can go play on the Wii where Nintendo's online infrastructure makes it impossible to distribute. Both Sony and Microsoft wanted to sell DLC going into the generation, every game publisher on the two consoles has been gleefully producing content, and gamers on both sides have been lapping it up.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

Is that why most of the first-party games they put out have DLC? LittleBigPlanet's been putting out new Sackboy outfits and sticker packs weekly for a year and a half. Pain was a concept created by their marketing department for the express purpose of selling DLC.

Microsoft probably got the ball rolling early, considering that they were doing this on the Xbox, but every publisher is a part of this, and it's because they like money. EA doesn't sell cheats because they can't fit on the disk. Oblivion's legendary horse armor wasn't released online for lack of space. Street Fighter 4's outfits were available in arcades, yet Capcom charged money for them on consoles.

DLC is all about getting more money out of people that already like your game. Just like collector's editions, DLC is a way of effectively raising the retail price of the product. The $60 retail price bump hasn't been enough for publishers this generation, so they've been getting more and more creative with their monetization.

For most publishers this generation, there's no point in giving away something that you can make people pay for.

sonicmj1

For your first statement the truth is that LBP is a game where you use content given to you to make levels. LBP is filled with content on the disk, it's enough for many people. Now, some people want MORE content to make BETTER levels, LBP is a perfect way for DLC and money, there is a PURPOSE for the DLC and it is REASONABLY PRICED therefore it is a smart way of making money without completely ripping off customers. Microsoft on the other hand releases DLC that is overpriced and is completely unnecessary. They waste money of timed exclusivity and they actually support the MW2 dlc! $15 for 5 maps, that's $3 per map, don't give me the excuse "your not forced to buy it" or "it's for the fans" because no matter what it IS milking and it is a rip off. Sony does not support DLC as much as Microsoft, and just like NOOBtuber said Sony is losing some profit from their game division but anyone can tell that they take pride in Playstation from their actions, and just the way they present it in conferences and such, they pay extra to have games like Heavy Rain or Fahrenheit released. Those 2 games could have failed miserably and probably weren't going to sell all that well but they put them out there because they were great games with great stories.

What you stated about Oblivion and EA, that's all individual companies, not Sony nor Microsoft. Also, again he didn't mean ALL DLC are because of Microsoft, he was asking people if they thought that the limited space in a DVD can possibly be a cause of DLC, if GTA4 had been a PS3 exclusive would Ballad of Gay Tony be included in the disk? Rockstar complains about the 360s limited space, the only thing keeping them from making the next GTA a ps3 exclusive is Microsoft's constant bribing, apparently it's going to be on multiple disks for the 360. DLC is a way to make money but the main selling point or purpose of DLC is for replay value, many people don't realize that. The siege pack for Uncharted 2 included a new co op mode, new maps, new skins, a new mode, and new trophies, that was to make people who had left Uncharted 2 to go back to it, it was $5.99, did it sell well? YES. Did people go back to Uncharted 2 because of this? YES. Therefore was it successful? YES. Is it an example of how DLC should be like? YES. The same goes for the Pirates of the Caribbean DLC in LBP. That's what DLC is meant for, when the CoD4 map pack was released it wasn't reasonably priced, PC gamers were smart enough to avoid it while Lemmings quickly bought it as fast as possible. End result? The CoD4 remains in XBL and PSN to this day as a paid DLC and it is completely free for PC. When Microsoft said PC users would have to pay for LIVE, they avoided it meanwhile xbox users rushed out and payed $60 for LIVE, end result? Online is free for PC while Live is still $60 a year for xbox. I think I've proved my point here.

The question wasn't whether the DLC was good or not. The question was why it existed. I'm a big fan of what LBP did with the MGS4 and Pirates DLC packs. Doesn't mean they didn't cost money. Whether the DLC is appropriately priced or a total ripoff (always a subjective assessment anyways), it's still a way for publishers to get more money from consumers after they've bought a product. Fundamentally, there's no difference at all between the Uncharted Siege Pack and MW2's Stimulus Package.

Sony supports DLC just as much as Microsoft does. I can't think of a significant difference between how Halo 3 and Gears were treated and how Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 were treated. They charge for maps, they charge for modes, they charge for shiny new themes for your console. They give you replay value in exchange for money, just like every other publisher on the planet. DLC plans have nothing to do with hardware manufacturers, and everything to do with publishers.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a full campaign package that Rockstar released a year after their game launched would have shipped on disk had it been PS3-exclusive content. It's ludicrous to act like Sony's DLC is a wonderful gift to gamers, unlike the DLC of other publishers, when everyone is still charging money. It's ludicrous to compare the PC market, where people have had free DLC and online access for years, to the console market, where many gamers are accepting of DLC (need I remind you of the millions of dollars in digital sales Sony acquired from Home?).

DLC is a fact of life in the industry now, and if you don't like it, you can go play on the Wii where Nintendo's online infrastructure makes it impossible to distribute. Both Sony and Microsoft wanted to sell DLC going into the generation, every game publisher on the two consoles has been gleefully producing content, and gamers on both sides have been lapping it up.

I couldn't have said it better myself (and that's not just a turn of phrase, I truly couldn't have offered a better response). This is the response of somebody who is looking at this without their bias clouding their analysis.

Do you guys think that the the 360s limited space with the DVD format cause more developers to push content to DLC?

JustinCredibleJ

[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"] This whole DLC crap was tested on 360 users first...and they took the bait. Whay maybe began as an honest way of providing more ACTUAL content that wasn't planned for in the disk...turned into content that should have been on the disc in the first place. It's the 360 users fault for not noticing they're slowly but surely being scammed and robbed of content that should have been on the disc. You see what happened now. 360 users were the labrats and now it's also distributed Did Sony ever market EXCLUSIVE DLC untill now? Sony did not support this in any way, they left it to the developers. Though the first sign of Sony picking it up is with RD:R. M$ massively shifted focus to DLC DLC DLC!!!! in a poor attempt to combat Sony. Result is that developers can now get away with DLC because M$ actually supported this kind of thing. If no one was to buy DLC from the very start...things would have been VERY different now.

So you would have expected every 360 owner to rally together and fight against the oppressive MS and their evil DLC?

Get a grip mate, DLC was headed our way ever since the console has launched and its been happening on the PC for YEARS...its a wee little thing that just might shape media distribution and playback of the future - Digital Distribution...Jesus, we'll be lucky if DVDs and even the mighty(?) Blu - Ray are still around in ten years..

And DLC is actually a very good thing if its not exploited ( a la Stimulus Package ).

The Elders Scrolls DLC Shivering Isles was nearly a full game unto itself..