Day 1 DLC... yay

[Sir_Bee]

Just because it isn't the worst thing in gaming, it's still an middle finger to every gamer who buys the game at launch, they will come home and find out they bought an game that ins't complete and you have to pay for the rest of it. So just because there are worse things to complain about doesn't make it wrong to complain about this.

That is a very good point.  I wasn't trying to say don't complain about this, I was more saying complain about everything else too.

 

That being said, you are still under the impression that people need to buy the DLC.  You could very easily enjoy the content you have and not buy the extra DLC.  If everyone were to do that, the practice would stop, but again, the masses are willing to fork over the extra money for the content, so the companies will continue to sell it that way.

[acasser]

I'm missing those days where you bought a game and got the full version of it, and when DLC's got released then it was additional stuff, not stuff which was cut from the original game. 

 

The price of games hasn't increased by a substantial amount in a very long time, whereas inflation dictates that the costs of making that game have.  Given inflation and the depreciation of the dollar -- plus every other currency whose government has been printing non-stop for years, which is just about all of them -- spending the same figure of money now as you did 10 or 20 years ago means you're really spending less money.  If you're spending less money, why shouldn't you get less game?

 

Would you be happier if all that DLC was included with the main game but you were paying $99 or $119 for the game instead of $59 or $69?

 

I'm not wild about the idea, either, but I can see why game companies feel they have to do it this way.

[Phoenix8387]

So, all the Day 1 DLC is for pre-ordering or just buying the game.

 

Harley Quinn Story pack: Pre-order bonus

Red Hood Story pack: Gamestop pre-order bonus

Scarecrow Nightmare Missions: PlayStation exclusive missions, likely free with purchase.

 

I'm actually happy they even added Trophies for them, usually the stuff is just treated as non-existent as far as trophies are concerned.

 

Edit: Somehow I missed the 'A Matter of Family' DLC, but I doubt this will actually be available on day 1.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Phoenix8387

[Neme-ita]

Give me this masterpiece atm i don't care for trophies, nothing. I want the game. 

[savageamusement]

I have the Redhood edition pre-ordered at Zavvi so will be able to get the trophies anyway.

 

The Batgirl DLC I don't care about - Batgirl has no place in my Gotham City!!

[Kittens Are Awesome]

I work for a certain communications division as a contractor for WB. They are cocksucking leeches that will sink to any low to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the little guys that do all their work. It doesn't surprise me they are the same way in every other aspect of their company.

[Mcbeanstr]

Now that I see this list on the site the first story add-ons trophies are on their as well hmmm. I doubt that's coming out on release day there is no way they'd do that would they?

[MeteorHawk]

Day-1 DLC is bollocks. Look at Mass Effect 3- From Ashes. The character of Javik and his story were very obviously cut from the main game to be sold as DLC. 

[Happy]

Quite surprising they added trophies to all their preorder shenanigans, you don't see that happening much. As for the DLC itself, i already decided not to support these practices by not preordering or buying the season pass (not like i would've done that anyway). Can't bring myself to not buy the game though.

[EpicNogg4]

ARKHAM KNIGHT ALMOST HERE !!!

[Mr_Freaker]

The big problem here is the feeling that we - consumers - are not recieving a complete and finished product.

And day one dlc is the best example of not recieving a complete experience.

 

DLC is justified - for me - when it's clear that the main game doesn't require it.

Play a non-dlc Skyrim and you will enjoy it just as much.

 

Like who was happy about the two missing chapters in AC II?

It was clear from the start that wanted to sell something seperate, that something didn't feel normal.

 

DLC should be something completely new.

Day one DLC will never be something completly new.

Day one dlc will never equal a broken steel expansion or freedom cry stand alone.

It's always something that should have been included at release

 

 

I don't care about missing out on 5 trophies,

I care about not recieving a complete experience for the normal edition.

[SaltyCat]

They planned and add DLC before the game is even out, they could of easily added it in.
Buuuut then again companies are mostly about getting more money at any cost. 
All we can do is just deal with it.

[Sir_Bee]

The price of games hasn't increased by a substantial amount in a very long time, whereas inflation dictates that the costs of making that game have.  Given inflation and the depreciation of the dollar -- plus every other currency whose government has been printing non-stop for years, which is just about all of them -- spending the same figure of money now as you did 10 or 20 years ago means you're really spending less money.  If you're spending less money, why shouldn't you get less game?

 

Would you be happier if all that DLC was included with the main game but you were paying $99 or $119 for the game instead of $59 or $69?

 

I'm not wild about the idea, either, but I can see why game companies feel they have to do it this way.

 

Last I checked, games have gone up in price 33% in the last 2 years, and on top of that, there are expansions and DLC that never existed 10-20 years ago.  So your comment of "if you're spending less money, why shouldn't you get less game" makes no sense.  We aren't spending less money, in fact we are spending more.  Because games these days cost $150+ when all is said and done.  There aren't many games that come out not that have as much content in their original package as any ps1 era final fantasy game, super mario 64, or zelda ocarania of time.  And those games didn't cost me $79.99 to buy plus all the DLC to bring it up to equal levels of content.  

 

As for costs, they have not gone up for the company that isn't stupid and spends 25 million to make big budget games that sell 8 million copies and are considered "failures".  You can make your game digital and sell it to WAY more people for much less cost than what it would have taken back in the N64 era.  This is demonstrated by how easy it is for little Indie developers to make money by making games.  That would have been next to impossible for them to do back then.

 

I think that there is a misunderstanding here, when you think that things should be getting more expensive.  Costs are not what are causing prices to go up, it is need for higher profits.  There is no need for things to be more expensive.

 

The big problem here is the feeling that we - consumers - are not recieving a complete and finished product.

And day one dlc is the best example of not recieving a complete experience.

 

DLC is justified - for me - when it's clear that the main game doesn't require it.

Play a non-dlc Skyrim and you will enjoy it just as much.

 

Like who was happy about the two missing chapters in AC II?

It was clear from the start that wanted to sell something seperate, that something didn't feel normal.

 

DLC should be something completely new.

Day one DLC will never be something completly new.

Day one dlc will never equal a broken steel expansion or freedom cry stand alone.

It's always something that should have been included at release

 

 

I don't care about missing out on 5 trophies,

I care about not recieving a complete experience for the normal edition.

 

I still don't understand why you would expect the Red Hood or Harley Quinn story packs to have been part of the normal edition, or you somehow aren't getting a complete experience without them?  They are very clearly add-ons, and have no part in the original game.  You don't need them to get a "complete experience" as you put it.  Those are 2 examples of day 1 DLC that is completely new.  They are not required at all for a full Batman game, in which I would only ever expect to play as Batman.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Sir_Bee

[acasser]

Last I checked, games have gone up in price 33% in the last 2 years, and on top of that, there are expansions and DLC that never existed 10-20 years ago.  So your comment of "if you're spending less money, why shouldn't you get less game" makes no sense.  We aren't spending less money, in fact we are spending more.  Because games these days cost $150+ when all is said and done.  There aren't many games that come out not that have as much content in their original package as any ps1 era final fantasy game, super mario 64, or zelda ocarania of time.  And those games didn't cost me $79.99 to buy plus all the DLC to bring it up to equal levels of content.  

 

When I say game prices haven't increased appreciably, I'm referring to U.S. currency.  The Canadian dollar has lost a lot of value relative to the U.S. Dollar in the last two years; therefore, American products being sold "north of the border" are going to be substantially more expensive based solely on the exchange rate fluctuation.

 

A significant number of newly-released games here in the United States have been in the $49-59 range for the longest time.  And I imagine that the U.S. figures are the baseline used by most companies when figuring out prices because of market size and because the dollar is generally the "reserve currency of the world" and all that rot.  This isn't meant to denigrate Canada in any way, but it's probably not a large enough market to matter to most of those companies or for them to stabilize prices within that market.

[Brawler]

You don't understand? Pre-order incentive DLC is commonplace now. They're trying to get you to buy their game day one with the incentive of extra content, hoping you won't think "Hey, shouldn't this be in the game anyway?". Then, if you don't get it by pre-ordering they'll just make their money off of you by putting it up on the Playstation Store later in hopes you'll buy it. 

 

TL;DR: They want more money.

[Sir_Bee]

When I say game prices haven't increased appreciably, I'm referring to U.S. currency.  The Canadian dollar has lost a lot of value relative to the U.S. Dollar in the last two years; therefore, American products being sold "north of the border" are going to be substantially more expensive based solely on the exchange rate fluctuation.

 

A significant number of newly-released games here in the United States have been in the $49-59 range for the longest time.  And I imagine that the U.S. figures are the baseline used by most companies when figuring out prices because of market size and because the dollar is generally the "reserve currency of the world" and all that rot.  This isn't meant to denigrate Canada in any way, but it's probably not a large enough market to matter to most of those companies or for them to stabilize prices within that market.

 

That is always there excuse, but video games were never priced higher here before 2008, and our dollar is doing better now than it was for many years back then.  When our dollar was actually better than the American dollar (for over a year in fact) we didn't see any decrease in the cost of game, so I call bullshit on the reason.

 

But prices aside, my point about costs still stands.  You can get your product to way more people now, for way less money, than they ever could pre-digital.  So there is no appreciable reason for costs to go up, especially when content is being divided up among DLC to create games that are far more expensive now, even in the American dollar.

[cornhed]

To this point, I have refused to buy day 1 because of the "DLC sales model" (why buy a game day 1 [often full of glitches] for $60 then pay $40 for a season pass when you can wait 8 months and buy a GOTY for $50?) but I was going to make an exception for this game... Until I read all this.  Massively disappointing.  I guess its back to catching up on PS3 classics for the time being (brand new off amazon for ~$15 a pop).

[Bonofifa]

If you don't like it, just don't buy it.

 

He is allowed to critize developers for realising dlc on day 1 instead of just including it in the game as a side mission or just a part of the story. 

Edited June 19, 2015 by Bonofifa

[Mr_Freaker]

I still don't understand why you would expect the Red Hood or Harley Quinn story packs to have been part of the normal edition, or you somehow aren't getting a complete experience without them?  They are very clearly add-ons, and have no part in the original game.  You don't need them to get a "complete experience" as you put it.  Those are 2 examples of day 1 DLC that is completely new.  They are not required at all for a full Batman game, in which I would only ever expect to play as Batman.

 

I don't know how long you are a gamer, but some of us are used to "free DLC" back with PS2.

Remember when you beat RE4 you got the Ada Wong perspective with a few new locations, unique weapons, ...

Nowadays this would be easily a 15$ expansion.

 

The idea is that if you have content ready at launch, it could have been part of the original game.

Therefore we feel entitled.

 

If the same DLC that you mention would be released in 4 months, nobody would care because this would feel as something new, something fresh.

But if it's ready on day 1, it might as well be implented in the original game.

 

But keep in mind that I mention a feeling. We are not actually entitled to this dlc being part of our original game, we just feel this way

[damon8r351]

He is allowed to critize developers for realising dlc on day 1 instead of just including it in the game as a side mission or just a part of the story. 

 

Just as I am allowed to tell people that rather than impotently complain on the internet, you can let the developers know what you think about the policies you dislike by not buying it and hitting them in their sales. See, this internet communication thing is a two way street. I don't know why it is people on here automatically think that whenever I fire back with an opposing viewpoint that I'm saying it to shut them up. It's to get you to consider another way of looking at things, or in this case, how to tell developers what you think about them past whining on a forum about it. If I really wanted to stop people from saying things I didn't like (which I don't), I'd become a moderator and lock the topics I don't like. But that's not how it works. So I'll continue operating under my usual maxim: don't bring up a problem and then bitch when I suggest a solution.

Edited June 19, 2015 by damon8r351

[PleaseHoldOn]

The big problem here is the feeling that we - consumers - are not recieving a complete and finished product.

 

This also comes with the assumption that just because something exists, and that it adds to something else that you bought, that you're entitled to it.

 

I was surprised when my new bike didn't come with a kickstand, but I didn't throw a hissy fit when I had to pay extra for it.  It's a luxury, a nicety, the bike would've "biked" just fine without it.  People just love to play the victim though.

Edited June 19, 2015 by PleaseHoldOn

[Xionx]

I don't know how long you are a gamer, but some of us are used to "free DLC" back with PS2.

Remember when you beat RE4 you got the Ada Wong perspective with a few new locations, unique weapons, ...

Nowadays this would be easily a 15$ expansion.

 

 

Yeah thats true , but see it from the company side :  You see every one who is interested in your game download the free dlc for your hard developed game-> nice !  Than you see that every one who are interested in your game pay for a dlc you have released-> very nice.

What do you choose as a company boss? companys want to make money, of cause they choose they 15$ dlc , because ppl buy it.

 

Ok, and now lets see for the day one dlc .  Companys develope contet for whole game and want to sell it for 100$  . Now they have to ways to do that :

1) Sell the full content in the game for every one for 100$

2) Rip the content and sell the main part for 70$  and rest in 3 parts 30$ (summ is still 100$)

 

Now company see how costumer react on both situations ,:

1) many ppl they are not that interested dont buy it because it is to expansive , many ppl they are interested dont buy it because to expansive , few very interested ppl buy it .

2) few not interested ppl buy it because 70$ is ok (they dont buy dlc)  , almost all interested ppl buy it +  they buy dlc because at home they feel like -> oh i have payed 70$ but the 10$ for one dlc dont hurt me ,

 

so more ppl buy ripped version because it feels not that expansive than a 100 $ game.

Now you are the boss again , you can make with second option way more money , and you sell your game way more often (importend stat for a company). Ofcause you choose second option

 

I dont say that everythink here im ok with , but this is reallity . Company see that ppl buy dlc´s so they continue with that.

And dont tell me they can sell game 60$ with all content because this is nice for everyone of us , but not nice for the companys view.

 

Im not ok with all the dlc system so i dont buy most dlcs , but if im very interested in a game i support the company and enjoy the dlcs+game.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Xionx

[acasser]

That is always there excuse, but video games were never priced higher here before 2008, and our dollar is doing better now than it was for many years back then.  When our dollar was actually better than the American dollar (for over a year in fact) we didn't see any decrease in the cost of game, so I call bullshit on the reason.

 

But prices aside, my point about costs still stands.  You can get your product to way more people now, for way less money, than they ever could pre-digital.  So there is no appreciable reason for costs to go up, especially when content is being divided up among DLC to create games that are far more expensive now, even in the American dollar.

 

The Canadian dollar has lost a substantial amount of value against its American counterpart the last two years -- I follow this in specific because of how this situation impacts the National Hockey League's salary cap (given roughly one-third of the NHL's revenue comes from Canada).  I know the Canadian dollar was incredibly strong for several years before then, and if you didn't see the benefits from "imported goods" I can't even begin to speak to why that might be the case and who might have been feathering their own nest at your expense.  Nor can I speak for why prices were the way they were around 2008, or between then and the last two years.  Maybe it's bullshit, and maybe there really is something there.  I don't know enough to say more than that.  I do know that I -- personally -- have been paying $49 and $59 for new titles for a very long time; not just during the PS3 era but the PS2 era as well.

 

As for the distribution angle, I have another hypothesis:  the increase in "Day One DLC" and "on-disc DLC" is a reaction to the retailers of the world who have a robust "used game" market and this is the attempt to undercut that.  If you've got to give the developer (or Sony to pass to the developer) a chunk of change to get the full game, that's guaranteed money to said developer even if you bought the game secondhand in a fashion that doesn't pass any revenue to whomever created the game.  Just as a guess, I imagine that a company like BioWare or Rockstar or whomever isn't particularly pleased about that secondary market because it frequently means people are enjoying their product "for free" from their point of view.  We consumers don't have to like it, but companies are in business to make money and aren't likely to continue to create goods and services for you if there isn't a financial incentive for them to do so.

 

Ultimately, the solution has to be for the consumer base to "vote with their wallets".  Companies are liable to react in ways that please their stakeholders, and most of their stakeholders likely want to see revenues and dividends before they worry about whichever segment of that consumer base gets vocal in one fashion or another.