bit-gamer.net

BioShock 2 DLC already on disc

BioShock 2 DLC already on disc

Rumours are circulating that 2K's latest batch of DLC for BioShock 2 may already have been on the retail discs.

Rumours are circulating that 2K may have already been included on the disc at launch, meaning that players are essentially buying content they already own when they purchase the new DLC. Kind of, anyway.

The DLC in question is called Sinclair Solutions and is a multiplayer expansion for the game, which was released earlier this year. It costs 400 Microsoft Points - that's about £3.50.

According to VG247 fans caught on to the fact that the DLC may have already been on the disc when the spotted the size of the download - just 24k for PC, versus 108k for Xbox 360. Either 2K is using some amazingly effective compression then, or the file simply unlocks content that's already included on the disc.

2K Games has yet to confirm or deny the rumour.

Sinclair Solutions brings a few new things into BioShock 2's multiplayer, raising the level cap and adding new characters, achievements and weapon upgrade slots. Personally, we think it'll take more than that to make BioShock 2's multiplayer worth our time though.

You can check our out BioShock 2 review for more information, then let us know what you think in the forums.

60 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
DriftCarl 12th March 2010, 15:55 Quote
sneaky b*stards

I guess its a good way to save bandwith and pretend that they are selling you newly created downloadable content.
Could this be classed as false advertising as DLC?
FelixTech 12th March 2010, 16:00 Quote
Great so we now have a situation where companies are making a game, then working out what content they can lock away again so that they can charge you for it later. I can't help but think that if they had time to burn the DLC onto the disc then they should have just included it in the game.
Project_Nightmare 12th March 2010, 16:03 Quote
I'm fine with them doing this if it is an incomplete part of the game and the dlc is the final touches to get it working. However, if it is already completed on the disc and just needs to be unlocked, than that should count as stealing if it isn't free.
TurtlePerson2 12th March 2010, 16:04 Quote
The thing that should upset people is that they're paying for content that was created before the game was released.

Personally, I don't mind if developers pull stunts like this as long as the core game that they sell is finished.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 16:15 Quote
So what? Content is content, what does it matter when it was made or how it's technically delivered to you? This is certainly not something to feel cheated about. If anything, the developers should get kudos for saving bandwidth.
MaverickWill 12th March 2010, 16:21 Quote
They're charging you extra to use what's on a disc you've bought. How is that good, in any way???
Greentrident 12th March 2010, 16:29 Quote
You're licensing some of the content of that disc and then purchasing a licence for another part - it's done all the time by other data/software industries. Imagine you wanted to buy a route map of the UK for your satnav and then decided you wanted the whole of Europe at a later date - you simply buy a licence to unlock that part of the disc. You don't own the game - you own a licence to play that game.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickWill
They're charging you extra to use what's on a disc you've bought. How is that good, in any way???

Let's put it this way. The Windows Vista retail install disc contained the install files for all editions as far as i know. Would you expect to be able to use all of them, including Ultimate if your license was for Home Premium? Just because they're all on the disc?

Physical media is just a means to deliver the files and holds little to no value. What you pay for is the license.
Jamie 12th March 2010, 16:58 Quote
This is just the beginning. I expect publishers will be asking developers to lock away parts of games before it's shipped so they can make you pay for it later.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 17:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
This is just the beginning. I expect publishers will be asking developers to lock away parts of games before it's shipped so they can make you pay for it later.

In the end, what's the difference between unlocking or downloading the same content? Can i have some response to that? It's starting to feel like you guys are completely ignoring me.
rollo 12th March 2010, 17:01 Quote
this whole DLC will only end one way ( DISASTER) people will either boycot with there wallots or pirate the dlc. Its crazy to expect people to pay for stuff thats on a disk.
MaverickWill 12th March 2010, 17:06 Quote
So, anyone here offering up any 24KB hash-check files for download? ;)

EDIT: Explanation
shigllgetcha 12th March 2010, 17:07 Quote
this is no different than having DLC available on release day or two weeks later. im not defending it, it should be included if it has been made before the game is released.

sad truth is it works
thehippoz 12th March 2010, 17:17 Quote
they can do whatever they want.. the pieholes are always open and will gobble up burn the rope if you sold it to them

I didn't play bioshock 2.. but it didn't get a good review.. if you have a game like mass effect or dragon age which already has a lot of content.. then sure it might be worth it
Veles 12th March 2010, 17:30 Quote
I don't see a massive problem TBH, when you buy a game you're buying the rights to play bits of content, not the contents of the disk. People knew what they were getting when they bought Bioshock 2 so there's not really massive grounds for complaint here.

But then I don't own BS2 so I'm not really bothered, I don't think I will buy it either TBH, I'd probably feel a bit gypped if I did
Zurechial 12th March 2010, 17:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
In the end, what's the difference between unlocking or downloading the same content? Can i have some response to that? It's starting to feel like you guys are completely ignoring me.

The difference is that 10-15 years ago we were getting this stuff for free from developers who themselves were passionate gamers, making games for likeminded people without the massive 7-figure amounts of money involved and the kind of pressure that comes from publishers in such a lucrative industry.
In the past the industry was small, passionate and driven more by artistry and fun than it is today, where greed is the prime motivation for everything.

The publishers of today have turned into the music labels of the 80s and we've all seen how that worked out for the best for everyone in the meantime.

...Oh wait.

The difference is that what we used to get for free as thanks from developers for supporting them we now have to pay for.
The difference is that we have to pay twice for content that we used to only pay once for if at all.
The difference is that the content being on the disc already means that there's absolutely no excuse for charging us extra for content that was developed as part of the game's standard development cycle and no excuse for artificially prolonging the game's longetivity or spotlight in the market at the customer's expense.

This entire DLC fiasco of the past couple of years (from ridiculous 'Horse Armor' in Oblivion to content artifically held back in Bioshock 2) is yet another symptom of the dominance of big money and big names in the industry, fuelled by greed both from publishers and consumers (since the pirates are half the problem in all of this) and a market who are either ignorant or apathetic about what they get for their money.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 17:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
DLC rant snip

Thanks for the lengthy answer that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. I didn't ask what the problem with premium content is, i asked why one method of delivering said content is okay while another is treated as some sort of scam.
smc8788 12th March 2010, 17:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Thanks for the answer that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. I didn't ask what the problem is with premium content, i asked why one method of delivering premium content is okay while another is treated as some sort of scam.

It's the principle of it. DLC released after the game suggests you're paying for content which the developers have made after the game has been released, i.e. they've spent more time working on it so should be compensated for that. If they do, then I don't a problem with them charging for it whatsoever.

Here, however, the content has already been made and included on the disc before the game is even released, but we can't use it until we give them more money. So we're paying extra for content which should have been included in the original release, as they haven't done any extra work to warrant charging for it. It's a sneaky, underhanded tactic designed to milk more money from consumers without creating a public backlash which would inevitably result from increasing the price of the game itself, as well as losing sales. Here, people have already paid for the game, but paid DLC is so prevalent now they don't think about paying another £5 on top for it, yet they would probably be quite angry if they charged £45 instead of £40 for the game itself.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 17:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
It's the principle of it. DLC released after the game suggests you're paying for content which the developers have made after the game has been released, i.e. they've spent more time working on it so should be compensated for that. If they do, then I don't a problem with them charging for it whatsoever.


And what if they make the DLC along with the game and release it like 2 weeks later? They do that AFAIK.

They've spent more time working on it, you say? If they model and texture a horse armor 2 weeks after the game is released, do you think that takes any more effort than creating the same item at the same time as the rest of the game?
MaverickWill 12th March 2010, 18:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
*snip*

What he said. It's not the delivery method that we're questioning here - it's why this content included on the disc is unavailable for use.

I know I posted the official 2K response up there, but I don't like it. If the content was developed after the release of the game, it'd be easy enough to release a patch for the game including the DLC for the multiplayer compatibility etc, and then have a charge for unlocking the extras, that'd be better. Not perfect, but better. At least then, we'd get the impression that the content was developed after the game was released.

A lot of people are arguing that the extra content was demoed in videos like this one, and all the characters from the "DLC" were included in the artbook that came with the limited edition. That, to me, smells of money-grabbing.
Zurechial 12th March 2010, 18:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Thanks for the lengthy answer that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. I didn't ask what the problem with premium content is, i asked why one method of delivering said content is okay while another is treated as some sort of scam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
The difference is that the content being on the disc already means that there's absolutely no excuse for charging us extra for content that was developed as part of the game's standard development cycle and no excuse for artificially prolonging the game's longetivity or spotlight in the market at the customer's expense.

My relevant and pertinent response is right there. If you think that has nothing whatsoever to do with what you asked then maybe you should just go back to acting like everybody was ignoring your point, since you seem determined to claim that.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickWill
What he said. It's not the delivery method that we're questioning here - it's why this content included on the disc is unavailable for use.

That sentence seems a bit contradictionary to me. It's unavailable because that IS the delivery method. So you are questioning the delivery method after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
My relevant and pertinent response is right there

Sorry, i didn't notice that part between the other parts of your post. I stand corrected.

What do you mean they have no excuse to charge for it? It's a company that sells product for christs sakes, what more excuse do you need?
Fizzban 12th March 2010, 18:12 Quote
Pretty sneaky. But its no different to what other company's are doing really. When I bought Dragon Age it came with some DLC content as I'd pre-ordered it. Content that others had to pay for, yet was ready at the time of release. So they could have easily just left it in as part of the game. We are going to see a lot more of this happening.
Zurechial 12th March 2010, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN

What do you mean they have no excuse to charge for it? It's a company that sells product for christs sakes, what more excuse do you need?

I think it's a matter of precedent, really. We're being offered DLC as though it's 'extra', when we know damn well from the fact that it was already on the disc that it was an existing part of the game that was artificially cut out and made into DLC so that they could get more money from us on top of the original price of the game.

The reason I ranted about this whole practice of charging us for DLC is that the precedent of getting it for free was set years ago and it felt like we were really getting value for money because the initial asking price of a game generally gave satisfactory value for money and the chance of continued after-sales extras and service (such as patches to add/fix non-gamebreaking features).
Nowadays we get games that are unfinished on release (though admittedly that's nothing new) AND we're expected to pay for the stuff some of us are used to getting for free, just because the ignorant masses are willing to stump up extra for their "LOLOL HORSE AMORSZ".

Whether it's a valid or shady business practice is up for debate, but whether we feel justifiably pissed off about the paradigm shift isn't even questionable in my view.

Believe me that I was equally pissed off when I encountered the NPC in the camp in a stock retail Dragon Age installation who harped on about an epic quest, then I find myself facing a dialog "You must connect to BioWare servers to pay for and download this DLC".
The basic framework for the content was in the game and created ahead of release, yet I have to buy it seperately after already buying the game. It just stinks of money-grabbing, as MaverickWill said above.
barndoor101 12th March 2010, 18:35 Quote
i think dragunov is playing devils advocate here - and he makes good points.

i especially liked the Windows 7 version analogy (where a disc can install any version).

except for one thing. MS said when released 'this disc contains every version of windows, and which version you install depends on which key you use'. fine. MS did NOt do this - release home premium, then 2 months later sell a DLC to upgrade to Professional for an extra fee.

if 2k had released a 'limited edition' (i know they did but run with me), which had the DLC already activated as part of the features, NO-ONE would mind, people with standard editions could buy the DLC later, people with special editions would have it due to the higher price they paid initially. but the uproar is because they try to pass off content which is already developed as an "extra", when it clearly is not.

imagine if MW2 made you pay for the prestige mode - something that was clearly already in the game to begin with, but the devs want to extract more money from you to unlock it.
airchie 12th March 2010, 18:53 Quote
Typo-tastic.
Quote:
Rumours are circulating that 2KDLC may have already been included on the disc at launch,

Quote:
According to VG247 fans caught on to the fact that the DLC may have already been on the disc when the spotted the size of the download
needs a comma after VG247 or something.
Ninja_182 12th March 2010, 19:01 Quote
Did anyone with DoW2 notice the 2.something GB update over Steam the other day?

Same thing? I already now own the data for Chaos Rising.

I also got a letter from Sky saying they have taken it upon themselves to upgrade my package to one thats £5 more a month because of it and its automatically come out of my bank account :)
Sloth 12th March 2010, 19:02 Quote
As kind of a general response to Dragunov, it's all about the dishonesty of the issue. "Downloadable Content", in my mind at least, means things that I don't have. Extra content, not extra licenses to use existing content. Like Barndoor101 put quite well, Microsoft never implied that you were getting anything less than a license to use part of a disk and never charge additional fees on top of the original purchase in order to gain additional licenses. 2k Games, on the otherhand, sold Bioshock 2 under the guise of being a license to use every bit of content you are given.

Since I love examples, let me make one. You go to the car store. Immediately one of the gnat like salesmen is offering you a great deal on a fantastic car which they have on site, hooray! You look and see a beautiful, sporty new car with a stunning red paint job and keys already in the ignition. "You can have that car for only $10,000!". You gladly agree, thinking you've just got a nice little bargain. At this point kind Mr. Salesman promptly removes the keys and offers to sell them to you for an extra $2,000 extra. Afterall, he said you can have that car, and only that car, for 10k.

This is en exaggeration of what 2k Games has done. Sold gamers what they thought was rights to everything they saw in the box, only to tell them it isn't so and that everything else will cost extra.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja_182
Did anyone with DoW2 notice the 2.something GB update over Steam the other day?

Same thing? I already now own the data for Chaos Rising.
That's because you can play against others online who do own the Chaos Rising pack. It might not include the added singleplayer aspects, but I'm really not sure. Also, you got that update for free so it's not exactly sneaky for them to prevent you from accessing it. (though perhaps annoying that you are subjected to downloading additional data which only takes up space... assuming the singleplayer data is included)
FeRaL 12th March 2010, 19:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by barndoor101
i think dragunov is playing devils advocate here - and he makes good points.

i especially liked the Windows 7 version analogy (where a disc can install any version).

except for one thing. MS said when released 'this disc contains every version of windows, and which version you install depends on which key you use'. fine. MS did NOt do this - release home premium, then 2 months later sell a DLC to upgrade to Professional for an extra fee.

if 2k had released a 'limited edition' (i know they did but run with me), which had the DLC already activated as part of the features, NO-ONE would mind, people with standard editions could buy the DLC later, people with special editions would have it due to the higher price they paid initially. but the uproar is because they try to pass off content which is already developed as an "extra", when it clearly is not.

imagine if MW2 made you pay for the prestige mode - something that was clearly already in the game to begin with, but the devs want to extract more money from you to unlock it.

^^^What he said^^^

That dudes Windows analogy was all off. To make the analogy right in comparison to BS2's DLC, it would much more be something like MS releasing Windows 7 without the ability to say install other non MS software (which every previous version on Windows already had the ability to do), and then saying oh we have this new feature that you can download that will enable you to install non MS software, when in fact that ability was already included on the disc, probably already installed, and only needed to be unlocked via a tiny download...
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 19:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

Since I love examples, let me make one. You go to the car store. Immediately one of the gnat like salesmen is offering you a great deal on a fantastic car which they have on site, hooray! You look and see a beautiful, sporty new car with a stunning red paint job and keys already in the ignition. "You can have that car for only $10,000!". You gladly agree, thinking you've just got a nice little bargain. At this point kind Mr. Salesman promptly removes the keys and offers to sell them to you for an extra $2,000 extra. Afterall, he said you can have that car, and only that car, for 10k.

But in the case of BS2 there was no key visible. They never said anything that would make you think you are getting that content, and not being able to use that content does not hinder the game's functionality, unlike taking the keys out of a car. People wouldn't even KNOW the files were there if it wasn't for the few people who get their kicks out of looking at game files.

FeRal: Read the above, my response covers your analogy aswell.
sheninat0r 12th March 2010, 20:01 Quote
I like how we are beginning to accept that we do not own video games we buy with our money. In my opinion, the argument that we pay for the "license to play" a video game is preposterous - my money was given to the publisher and developer so I could own a copy of their video game, not rent it until they decide I cannot play anymore (Ubisoft...).
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 20:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheninat0r
until they decide I cannot play anymore

I still miss Freelancer multiplayer :(
MaverickWill 12th March 2010, 20:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
But in the case of BS2 there was no key visible. They never said anything that would make you think you are getting that content...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickWill
A lot of people are arguing that the extra content was demoed in videos like this one, and all the characters from the "DLC" were included in the artbook that came with the limited edition. That, to me, smells of money-grabbing.
FeRaL 12th March 2010, 20:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

Since I love examples, let me make one. You go to the car store. Immediately one of the gnat like salesmen is offering you a great deal on a fantastic car which they have on site, hooray! You look and see a beautiful, sporty new car with a stunning red paint job and keys already in the ignition. "You can have that car for only $10,000!". You gladly agree, thinking you've just got a nice little bargain. At this point kind Mr. Salesman promptly removes the keys and offers to sell them to you for an extra $2,000 extra. Afterall, he said you can have that car, and only that car, for 10k.

But in the case of BS2 there was no key visible. They never said anything that would make you think you are getting that content, and not being able to use that content does not hinder the game's functionality, unlike taking the keys out of a car. People wouldn't even KNOW the files were there if it wasn't for the few people who get their kicks out of looking at game files.

FeRal: Read the above, my response covers your analogy aswell.

You know what this crap was probably already spelled out to the consumer in the 9000000 word EULA what is there for the consumer to read that would take hours to make sense of even with the aid of a legal professional...

This whole thing stinks of that old Ebay scam where they have a picture an Xbox360 and make it look like you are getting the whole system and in teeny tine .00001 point font is the disclaimer that you are only getting the box that the Xbox360 came in.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 20:41 Quote
Will, as far as i can understand (i haven't played BS or BS2 so i had to do some research) that trailer is for the Sinclair Solutions pack (hence the intro) and thus, WHAT ELSE would it demonstrate? I can see that it's mislabeled on youtube as a multiplayer trailer for BS2 but surely that's the uploader's fault. I've found the same video with the correct title.

FeRal: Now you're simply not making any sense.

EDIT: I just checked the official site. It's simply labeled multiplayer trailer there aswell.

Dishonest *******s.
Sloth 12th March 2010, 20:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
But in the case of BS2 there was no key visible. They never said anything that would make you think you are getting that content, and not being able to use that content does not hinder the game's functionality, unlike taking the keys out of a car. People wouldn't even KNOW the files were there if it wasn't for the few people who get their kicks out of looking at game files.
You're right, they keys aren't shown at all. You don't even know that the content exists, nor that you would need an extra key for it. It's even more deceitful than my example.

I honestly don't understand how that doesn't bother you. Knowingly selling people a product which is intentionally crippled (without the buyer knowing) only for the sake of selling the full fledged version at an additional fee.

Small note, yes I believe crippled is the correct term. Since this content was complete at the time of the game's release it can be considered as part of the full game. Not allowing access to it would be denying the game's full potential.
DragunovHUN 12th March 2010, 20:54 Quote
^The reason it doesn't bother me is that this car runs without the keys. The keys are optional.

But as i've discovered in my previous post, this release is well messed up. Just for a different reason than what we're arguing about.
Sloth 12th March 2010, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
^The reason it doesn't bother me is that this car runs without the keys.
I did say it was an exaggeration :D

Though only part of the game is running without the keys since the content which is now a DLC is disabled, it's not entirely off.
FeRaL 12th March 2010, 20:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
But in the case of BS2 there was no key visible. They never said anything that would make you think you are getting that content, and not being able to use that content does not hinder the game's functionality, unlike taking the keys out of a car. People wouldn't even KNOW the files were there if it wasn't for the few people who get their kicks out of looking at game files.
You're right, they keys aren't shown at all. You don't even know that the content exists, nor that you would need an extra key for it. It's even more deceitful than my example.

I honestly don't understand how that doesn't bother you. Knowingly selling people a product which is intentionally crippled (without the buyer knowing) only for the sake of selling the full fledged version at an additional fee.

Small note, yes I believe crippled is the correct term. Since this content was complete at the time of the game's release it can be considered as part of the full game. Not allowing access to it would be denying the game's full potential.

LoL yeah, The "car" in question can get 30mph but the way the manufacturer has it tuned it only gets, and is advertised as getting 20mpg. Now we can make a small teach to its computer chip that will make it run more efficient for you at an additional charge of course...
MaverickWill 12th March 2010, 21:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
EDIT: I just checked the official site. It's simply labeled multiplayer trailer there aswell.

Dishonest *******s.

Not only that, but it was the trailer shown off at PAX, back in September 2009. This content has been ready for 6 months. Fun times, huh?

The game still works, but as consumers, once again, we got the shaft. Good to know.

I bet the pirates' eyes are lighting up with their torrents only having to be 24KB for the DLC...

EDIT: A quick Google reveals the pirated "DLC" size clocking in at 18KB. So, they've compressed it? xD
Star*Dagger 12th March 2010, 23:53 Quote
Get used to paying for episodes, DLC, and games in general on a regular basis or find another hobby that doesnt require a regular outlay of cash. Report back when you find said hobby, I cant imagine one that is free of cost.

S*D
erratum1 13th March 2010, 00:22 Quote
I'm worried about this dlc trend, companies are specially putting content to one side in the games creation to release later as dlc which is not the way it's supposed to work. Basically your paying for content that you should have got when you bought the game.
FeRaL 13th March 2010, 00:30 Quote
Yeah, wait until motherbaord manufacturers start charging for BIOS releases to support new hardware that the motherboards hardware has the ability to support. Or, how about CD/DVD burner firmware updates? Even better video card driver updates that you get charged for...
Elton 13th March 2010, 00:53 Quote
DLC was okay back in the day, The Mehrunes stuff and the Shivering Isles..all good.

Hell even the Burnout Paradise stuff and the GTA IV was good.

But this?? It's miserable.
DriftCarl 13th March 2010, 09:37 Quote
Content that you dont download is not downloadable content, and shouldnt be marketed as such.

It should be marketed as unlockable content, but I guess that wouldnt go down well with gamers, so they have to lie and cheat to get us to pay for it.
Aterius Gmork 13th March 2010, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
DLC was okay back in the day, The Mehrunes stuff and the Shivering Isles..all good.

Hell even the Burnout Paradise stuff and the GTA IV was good.

But this?? It's miserable.

Yeah, but those were expansions. Shivering Isles was a full fledged campaign. DLC was the horse armor or the thiving lair - which were ridiculous tbh. That's why they don't do expansions anymore. - They make far greater profits on DLC. Shivering Isles added several hours of gameplay, yet was only the price of 4 or 5 horse armors.
SoulRider 13th March 2010, 11:46 Quote
I still prefer the Valve TF2 way of doing it. Release a game that works fully, then release FREE DLC over time. If I was a software house, that would be the way I would run it. Increases longevity of game and loyalty of customers. Seems everyone is too concerned with money these days...
barndoor101 13th March 2010, 13:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aterius Gmork
Yeah, but those were expansions. Shivering Isles was a full fledged campaign. DLC was the horse armor or the thiving lair - which were ridiculous tbh. That's why they don't do expansions anymore. - They make far greater profits on DLC. Shivering Isles added several hours of gameplay, yet was only the price of 4 or 5 horse armors.

mehrunes dagon was a DLC, and a decent one at that - tbh, the wizard tower and theives lair were good addons which gave you something. unlike the damn horse armour.

and i just thought of another analogy with windows - imagine if MS charged for win7 SP1 - but it turns out that SP1 only unlocked stuff already on the disc. there would be rioting in the streets (maybe not but still, ppl would be pissed).
GiantStickMan 13th March 2010, 13:06 Quote
A lot of people seem to see DLC in a negative light, using arguments that 'they paid the game so they are entitled to it'.
I don't think stunts like this do much to wash away that impression.
If DLC is handled well, it can be quite effective allowing those who enjoyed the game to play on a little more (i.e Point Lookout for Fallout 3) but it isn't required to fully enjoy the experience. When it makes the game feel half-finished without it, or lacking features it should have had from the start though, that's when it becomes a cynical marketing ploy. Including things that shipped on the original disc? Well, no wonder people get bitter about DLC.
Spuzzell 13th March 2010, 13:52 Quote
I don't get the anger people.

If you bought BioShock 2 you got BioShock 2. Now you can buy extra shiny bits to add to BioShock 2. Why does it matter that the extra content is already on the disc rather than stored on a server somewhere? It's still extra content to the original game.

You still have what you originally thought was worth buying, where exactly is the problem?
Showerhead 13th March 2010, 14:51 Quote
I'm sure the pirates are delighted that 90% of the workhas been done for them.
GW42 13th March 2010, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
I don't get the anger people.

If you bought BioShock 2 you got BioShock 2. Now you can buy extra shiny bits to add to BioShock 2. Why does it matter that the extra content is already on the disc rather than stored on a server somewhere? It's still extra content to the original game.

You still have what you originally thought was worth buying, where exactly is the problem?

The way I see it, the anger is because the "extra shiny bits" are really the sort of stuff that would have been included in the standard game a few years ago. In this particular case (and I don't know whether this is true or not) it would seem that the impression was given in pre-release videos that these additional elements were part of the standard game. & then there is the more technical/pedantic point that this isn't really "downloadable" content, and shouldn't be marketed as such.

There's been a few attempts at analogies above, so here's mine:- I see this as akin to what's happened with the budget airlines. You used to always get a free meal with the flight but they decided that should be an optional extra and started charging for it. They also starting charging for a myriad of other things like checking in >1 bag (and now charging for any hold luggage at all??), giving the option of paying to board before other people, etc... The big difference being that the tickets were supposed to be cheaper in the first place.

Here though, they're still charging the same for the games, and then charging for things that people feel are not actually additional content and should have been included from the get-go. That impression is of course strengthened massively when people find out that the content was already written many months before the game was released and was even included on the CD.

For what it's worth, I have no objection to DLC. whilst the horse armour was obviously laughable, the rest of the Oblivion/Fallout 3 seemed reasonable. You could argue about it's value, but then the DLC got reviewed and you could choose whether to buy or not. Crucially for me, both Oblivion and Fallout 3 had loads of content in the basic game, making the DLC actually feel like additional content. I applaud Valve's approach to DLC, and long may it continue. It really would make me more inclined to buy a Valve game, though equally I understand why others charge if they have done additional work after a game was released.

However, from BT's original write up of this Bioshock DLC:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bit-Tech
The pack will focus entirely on updating the multiplayer portion of the game, bumping the level cap in multiplayer up to 50 and introducing a bunch of new rank rewards, as well as new characters and customisation options.

The Sinclair Solutions Test Pack looks like it may give those who buy it a gameplay edge as well as some extra bling too. It'll open up a third weapon upgrade for each and every weapon in the game.

I would feel very, very annoyed if I had to buy DLC in order to maintain competitiveness in multi-player. None of this sounds like additional content really, just tweaks and rule changes. Why should you have to pay for that??
cybergenics 13th March 2010, 22:42 Quote
The stuff is there buy you can't have it unless you pay. Like the Hotel Minibar.
MusicGamesDVD 13th March 2010, 22:55 Quote
I have enjoyed Bioshock 2. a lot. Just do not see the point of offering any DLC to online game play. Considring the few that are online. It would have been much better to improve the overall game play by offering new areas to explore and even more enemies to fight. I have started the game and completed it a second time, but Bioshock 2 just did feel the same second time round with nothing. I welcome any DLC for offline game play.
Ravenheart 13th March 2010, 23:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
I didn't play bioshock 2.. but it didn't get a good review.. if you have a game like mass effect or dragon age which already has a lot of content.. then sure it might be worth it

I've played it and no matter if it got a good review or not, for me it was well worth it (even playing with keyboard and mouse!) because I just loved the 1st game and the 2nd game as well, it's nowhere near as bad as people make out, in fact far as i'm concerned it's not bad period! But that's a whole other topic (one that's probably already been made) cya later.
nakchak 14th March 2010, 13:41 Quote
Seriously what is the problem?
You have a license to play the game the DLC is a second license to unlock additional content.
that is NO different to a sky/virgin/freeview settop box, which all contain additional functionality which requires additional licenses to function. so what if the content came on a disc you only have a license to use part of the content. that is a VERY common practice in the software industry, admitadly not so common in the home user market, but server stuff is very common, just look at oracle, or windows 7 version upgrades

As far as i can tell all the bitching is over the fact its a tiny download to unlock additional features on a disk, that makes as much sense as crying about the fact you didnt have to redownload a bit of software a second time once you bought the license for the full version (think avg, avast, winrar etc.)

As for DLC not being developed after the fact so what, most multiplayer mods will be created during the main build phase, maybe not finished in time for launch but they are almost certainly not conceived of after the game has been released. So sersiously wtf is the problem???

Or it just some wingeing little bitches thinking that they OWN the game not just license the right to play what the publisher sees fit to cover in the EULA, if you dont like it grow up, dont buy it and read the smallprint
barndoor101 14th March 2010, 18:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by nakchak
Seriously what is the problem?
You have a license to play the game the DLC is a second license to unlock additional content.
that is NO different to a sky/virgin/freeview settop box, which all contain additional functionality which requires additional licenses to function. so what if the content came on a disc you only have a license to use part of the content. that is a VERY common practice in the software industry, admitadly not so common in the home user market, but server stuff is very common, just look at oracle, or windows 7 version upgrades

As far as i can tell all the bitching is over the fact its a tiny download to unlock additional features on a disk, that makes as much sense as crying about the fact you didnt have to redownload a bit of software a second time once you bought the license for the full version (think avg, avast, winrar etc.)

As for DLC not being developed after the fact so what, most multiplayer mods will be created during the main build phase, maybe not finished in time for launch but they are almost certainly not conceived of after the game has been released. So sersiously wtf is the problem???

Or it just some wingeing little bitches thinking that they OWN the game not just license the right to play what the publisher sees fit to cover in the EULA, if you dont like it grow up, dont buy it and read the smallprint

the analogies you gave - all those companies were up-front about the fact that there were additional features available for an additional fee.

people are pissed because its almost like a stealth fee - you cant argue that the DLC is developed before the game is released, as this DLC had already gone gold with the main game
mrbens 14th March 2010, 19:44 Quote
this takes the piss, if it's on the disk you bought, you shouldn't have to pay extra to use it.
GiantStickMan 14th March 2010, 21:40 Quote
Quote:
Seriously what is the problem?
You have a license to play the game the DLC is a second license to unlock additional content.

The problem as I see it is that it's already on the disc, which makes it seem more like they said 'how about we just gimp the multiplayer mode out of the box, and ask for money to unlock features that are already on the disc?"
If the DLC had been available for free in this case, I doubt very much that anyone would be complaining.
Like i said earlier, I have no problem with paying for DLC get additional content when it just adds to the games experience, but not when it just unlocks features that should have been included in the first place.
This seems more like they chopped part of the multiplayer component off because they wanted to get more money for it. That's greed.
iggy 15th March 2010, 01:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_Nightmare
I'm fine with them doing this if it is an incomplete part of the game and the dlc is the final touches to get it working. However, if it is already completed on the disc and just needs to be unlocked, than that should count as stealing if it isn't free.

we call those patches.

id like to not that in the uk at least, a compaines EULA is easy to make sense of. you just go 'oh hey, an illegal contract' and IGNORE IT.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums