The fact that the game hasn't been fully released yet and they are including a DLC if you buy the premium version, is just asking me to pirate it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, and I'm tired of pretending that there is. If you think the base game is over-priced, then by all means complain about that - but if both the base game and the DLC are worth the price they're asking for it, then there is no harm done (and some advantage) in having modular buying options.
Sure, if the DLC isn't cut content from the game. That's the problem. If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game. DLC, should it be developed at all, should be an expansion beyond the original scope of development funded by the excess profit from the game.
I dont think you’re thinking about this right. Stuff like DLC has never been funded from profits of a specific game, that’s not how company finances work. They may decide to create an expansion or extension of a product they weren’t planning if a product does better than expected, but a lot of time, it’s too late by then and you’ve missed the wave to capitalize on the success. Most things like this are planned pretty early on based on the projected success. The base game and the DLC might even have separate budgets.
And all that to say, the DLC shouldn’t factor into your evaluation of a game at all. If you would like the amount of content in the game if the DLC never existed, then they added enough. You aren’t owed more content because of when they developed it, that’s absurd thinking. And if it for some reason got coded into law, it wouldn’t make anyone add more content to the base game, they’d just wait until after the game is released to start developing it. Which would make for a worse experience for both the company and consumer.
I agree with the person you replied to: if a game feels incomplete, then that’s the problem. I’m not going to pay for an incomplete game, regardless if it has DLC or not. But if a game is complete and I enjoy it, I’ll pay for DLC to get more experience from it and it doesn’t matter to me when the DLC is developed.
Yeah I don’t understand this mindset. It’d be like saying it shouldn’t be allowed for cars to have different versions with more features because they were developed together. DLC is supposed to be an additional feature like lane assist or something. You can get just the base version for cheaper or you can get a version with more features but you pay more. If the product sucks without the extra features than the problem is an incomplete product.
I get that we want to pay less and get more, but they can’t give away stuff for free.
If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.
Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?
If the point you're actually trying to make is "if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it", then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn't justify the price of a full game. That's my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn't have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.
Day 1 DLC, no matter how optional it might be in practicality, is 100% a tactic to make people feel like they need to pay more to get the "complete" version of the game.
"_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _" does not imply "_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _". That's a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.
EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is "we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn't work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we'd kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay"
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing; but zero day one DLC released for any game has been anything but carving up a complete product into an incomplete main product and several DLCs to increase the price without increasing the price. Oblivion was the first example of this. Horse Armor was already developed.
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing
No, that's precisely the point I'm trying to make - "every example of X that has existed so far is Y" does not imply "by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y".
You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can't conclude "because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well".
As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!
Reading all the comments defending a $70 game with zero day DLC is just bewildering. I mean, HOW MUCH of a fucking cuck do you have to be to not only accept it, but to DEFEND it? You people deserve all the shit you get for being peasants. The rest of us sail the high seas, YARR!
You clearly don't understand development if you are so worked up over day one DLC.
Development has always worked in stages.
Imaging being so tilted over a small DLC meanwhile games like BG3 get "released" after 4 years of development which the largest team seen on any one game and it was still basically unfinished mess.
I understand greed perfectly well. I mean, you could write a comedy sketch about it at this point. "No Sir, we absolutely did not create these absolutely fabulous pieces of gear during the development of the game. Nope, not even a pixel! And this gun? This terrific looking and powerful gun that makes all the guns in the game seem meek? Totally something our gun designer thought of when he was taking a piss the SECOND after we stopped development. And this quest line that perfectly fits together with most of the game and completely changes the introduction of our sequel? Well..that's just us being VERY good writers and not at all greedy bastards who cut off important bits of the story so we can nickle and dime you for it!"
Then you would have someone coming in and smack them around with a trout, because reasons.
Oh and in case you think I'm hyperboling, the examples in the sketch are all taken from actual bullshit that's happened already.
I'm just pirating it ahead of time to make sure my PC can run it
gotta make sure every part until the end works properly btw
Yeah as long as you don't play more than 2 hrs, Is that long enought to really benchmark it? I've been hearing it takes a few hours at least to really get into the open areas
It was just a joke, for most games is hard to know if they are good or not in just 2 hours, in some jrpgs you are still in the tutorial in that point, at least is really usefull if the game is not running well or at all
Eh. By the time I have hardware that can actually play Starfield, it'll be a GoG giveaway.
If you don't want to sail the high seas you can also get it on xbox game pass for like $10 for the month once it's out for the plebs in like a week.
The real cost isn't the game. It's the new computer you'll need to play it.
Somehow not even bothering to play games became even more satisfying than pirating them. They're not getting my money OR my time haha! Edgy
Apparently it's bundled in with AMDs new cards. I've been itching for an upgrade for a while now, and I could finally get away from Nvidia
The issue is with the size of the game (120gb + patches later) and with the other (graphics card, cpu and ram) requirements.
Can you define theft in any way that includes digital copying?
Actually, more accurately: 'Theft' is when capitalists could make more money fucking you over, but couldn't. *Actual *theft is when capitalists make more money by fucking you over and then pay the fines for it as a cost of business.
Redefining theft from "taking a physical object that isn't yours" to "right click copy, right click paste" has got to be one of the best psyops of all time.
I was never going to give Todd Howard the money for this regardless, after FO76. He would have received $0 for this game regardless of if I downloaded it or not.
This is so fucking stupid. If you steal a physical item, say, a block of cheese, it is no longer in the possession of the shop, and can't be sold to someone else. The cheesemonger will have to make another block to sell.
If you copy and paste a bunch of 1's and 0's, the original is still there. How was that theft? Does the original still exist?
Is watching a movie at a drive in from outside the lot with a pair of binoculars theft? If you can hear a copyrighted song from your neighbours yard, is that theft? Taping a movie when it airs on TV with a VHS, is that theft?
If you tell a joke and I start to word for word retelling your joke then I haven't stolen your joke? After all the joke still exists in your head.
If you have an excellent idea, for the sake of scale let's say it's a million dollar idea, but you don't have the means to realize that idea. Now let's say I heard of your idea and I can realize the idea and make millions off it. Have I stolen your idea? The idea still exists in your mind but it's no longer a million dollar idea because I already made millions from it.
If someone scrapes the web for your activity to create a profile of you (which is for instace what Facebook does) is that stealing your data? After all none of your data goes missing
Similarly if someone hacks your bank and takes your financial and personal data the bank holds, is it not stealing? Does it magically turn into stealing if after taking your data they delete all the data from the banks system? What if they encrypt it without deleting, effectively making the data impossible for the bank to use?
... Do you think workers in a car factory don't get paid until someone actually buys the car they helped build? All the devs have already been paid!
And how do these companies make the money required to pay the salaries of their employees?? 🤔
Record-breaking profits usually suggest that even when they have all the money, they will not pay the devs much.
If you carjack someone else, commit actual grand theft auto, does that mean the workers in the car factory that produced the car get their pay retroactively revoked?
That's actual theft, you stole it from the owner, and even then it doesn't affect the factory workers' salary at all.
If I get a copy of Starfield from a friend after they're done playing it, does that count as stealing the devs' salary?
As if they do lol. All the money goes to the high level managers/shareholders.
The ones doing all the work get paid a small flat amount.
Shit, just spend $1200 on a new PC and it's freeeeeeeee...I'm so poor now....
