Spent an hour at the local electronics store looking at PC and PS3 games trying to find something amusing.

One trend I noticed: Now games are sold with "DLC included" as "Premium Packs" or such. For example Dirt3.

So basically the publishers have now perfected the DLC ripoff:

*) The game is designed and created as a whole
*) Part of the already created game is locked away behind a DLC purchase (files being on original install disk)
*) Customers buy DLC extra trough the main sale span of the title just to activate what is already on their harddrive.
*) Eventually the unlock code for DLC that always was on the disk gets included as "premium package" with the box sale to keep the price of the game from dropping rock bottom after a few months.

So in the end you buy a box that includes a disc with DLC on it and already a code that unlocks this DLC. What this really means is you have then purchased the game as originally designed before being broken into DLC pieces. Not only are they withholding content from you but then they make it a marketing/price point to "give that to you" what was already yours.

It is nothing but a very transparent attemp to bring the price of full level games up to 80USD or more.

The DLC is really to discourage the 2nd-hand market, mainly for consoles (that PC boat has long sailed). If publisher A sells to you through Shop A for $60 new and then you sell the game to Shop B after 6 months for $30 then publisher A gets no money - hence the DLC activation is tied to your original purchase. It's a form of connected DRM for console disks.

As for it being a rip-off, then it's a market thing. If people don't buy it then it will fail and be changed (or overtaken by something else), but if they do get bought then it'll continue. It's not mandatory to buy it.

The physical act of owning of a disk is (from a legal standpoint) irrelevant, as the terms of use of the software is granting you usage and not of whole ownership. That's the way games/software licenses have worked for a long time, and something that would be hard to change unless the market shifted radically.

Not saying it isn't annoying, but it is interesting to understand some of the underlying motivation other than just a simple cash grab. This console generation cycle is longer than most and publishers that usually have the opportunity to 'sell you the same game on the new platform' are looking for ways to people to keep people buying things, albeit in smaller chunks.

Your arguments make technical sense, ethically I can still see no reason why publishers should be allowed to get away with blocking second hand sales. So they made a game with a six hour SP campaign and people are selling it within the first week after release? Their fault.

As you know I like to compare similar items within the same market, and if we look at digital entertainment - DVDs, BluRay, Music - no one else is trying to pretend that the second hand market is invalid.

I generally don't mind DLC (I used to buy "Expansion Packs" when they were still boxed) but only if

1) DLC is generated extra and not already during development cycle of the game to be removed before release date
2) DLC is shipped extra (i.e. not already on game disk).

I simple find it highly unethical that marketing is now selling you an "addon" which is in fact part of the original game and already on disk/installed after purchase.

As for people not buying - that's the old sheep discussion, you know my standpoint on such.

Yep, and that's fair enough. The psychology is interesting though, in that if you didn't know it was on the disk and didn't know it was produced at the same time then would it be any more palatable?

The DLC (and even expansion packs of old actually) are often done during the main production time, basically because it's cheaper while everyone is already being paid/tooled up. It also used to be a good way to extend development team time while the game enters QA, certification and the mastering i.e. keep them around 'on title' before they switch teams, especially if issues are found and art/sound/coding production schedules don't line up.

I agree it does seem bad to 'trim off' good meat just to sell later, but then that's a risk few publishers can get away with, i.e. Mass Effect 3 was highly desired and sold well, so they felt braver/eviller on how much they could cut out and sell separately.

If the music industry could do it, they would and probably the nearest analogy would be making money through concerts and just using the album to shift tickets. The 'interactive entertainment' of games just makes it more possible to slice in different ways.

The ethical part is really on the balance of operating a business for maximum profitability versus hitting your sales by acting too much a douche. A balance a lot of publishers struggle with..

Take a look at the Mx Atv series. The last one they released was darn near half of the content when you bought it new and had to shell out 2.99 here and 2.99 there to get everything you wanted or go big and buy the whole add on pack for 14.99.

The game was a Good game but the attempt to hold us hostage for unlock codes is what led to it's downfall and hence it being shelved so no more additions will be available as they promised at launch.

They are trying to force us all to Direct play through set top boxes just like the 3DO promised so many years ago. To many of us has been burned by paying 60.oo for a game that's sucks and now we wait for it to be out for a bit and pick it up used for 20.00.

For them to say if you wanna play our stuff use our servers is growing more day by day and is why Microsoft lost money when they first sold the 360's but got rich on X Box Live.

But for us the real racers The Live thing is ruined by to many kids who don't race like we do and think it's cool to scream cuss words in your ear when you winning or running backwards on the track so that they can cause a big crash but the roots are set for these boxes and the development is beyond the thinking stage and is moving to testing. Time will tell what happens but for them to survive they are gonna have to do something.

The game industry to me from what I have seen is like the Us Government. Instead of making do with what they have they think it's ok to gaff the consumer for they feel they are the only one's who matter. A cartridge game back in the day averaged 6 dollars to make and sold for 50 bucks. A new game on a disc cost 60 bucks but cost 3 dollars to manufacture and they still lose money by the bucket full.

Greed Greed and more Greed how many Sports cars do these guys need anyway?

With Nintendo's new marketing plan for developers I predict you will see FEW if any Non Nintendo based games in the future for most of them cannot wait for their units to sell b4 they get paid. In other words once we sell 6000 copy's of your game we will pay you for those 6,000 no matter how many you sent us.

This is the future and is why Set Top Boxes are coming and greed is simply the main reason plain and simple.


Be Well
Mr Wags

I'm very much not a fan of "relatively minor" DLC. That should have been part of the original package (charge more money if necessary). I don't buy DLC -- having been left out of the original release (regardless of when the DLC was developed) it is not really "part of the game " to me -- so, not fun. Rather, its a "money grab".

I do pay for extensive game Expansion packs -- that effectively form 20 hour games in themselves.

Normally, I buy the original game. Then, a when the "gold edition" comes out (containing all the DLC an expansions at the price of the original game or less) I wait a bit longer. Then, when the gold edition goes on sale for $20 or less -- I buy it -- I now have a complete game with all patches installed (usually)