2K explains BioShock 2 on-disc DLC

By Tom Bramwell Published 15 March, 2010

Didn't want to "split the player base".

2K Games has seemingly confirmed that the Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack premium downloadable content is stored on the BioShock 2 disc, arguing that it had to be this way to avoid splitting the player base.

"The way our engine and game structure works is that people need to have the exact same content for people to play together. One of the challenges with post-launch content for MP is that it can split the player base, and we want to avoid that whenever possible," a spokesperson wrote on the official forum (thanks Kotaku).

"For this content, creating the DLC package the way we did allowed for us to not split the player base - so whether you purchase the new content or not, you can still play with your friends."

2K also said that the DLC "is not interfering with our patching capabilities, which are a top priority and are still being actively worked on".

The content, which went live for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 last Thursday, costs just over three quid but only requires a 108KB download on Xbox Live or 24KB on PC, despite consisting of two new characters, 20 new trials, weapon upgrades and other tweaks.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (126) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • vegard #1 2 years ago

    oh, that makes it ok then!

  • crazyhorse174 #2 2 years ago

    Two words Mr. Spokesman - Fable Two.

    This game had content that online players who didnt pat for it could download a 'free' version to allow them to play with other players who had paid. It wasnt included on the disk and was a full standalone download.

    Including 'extra' content on the disk and then selling what for all intents and purposes, is an unlock code, is wrong. Go and stand in the corner.

  • Emth #3 2 years ago

    This new trend is frankly disgraceful.

  • doulema #4 2 years ago

    That's so fucked up or the dude that replied for them was just such an ignorant. So how do you split the community by not having it on the disk and DLing it? Still they have to pay to access it so wtf is different by having it on the disk or DLing it? You still cant access it unless you pay for it. Meh after such cheap reply I find them more pathetic than before.

    Respect for 2K = 0
    Grats,

  • TeaFiend #5 2 years ago

    Oh ok, that makes it fine. You had it all working but we pay to unlock it. That is totally better.

  • Sanxo #6 2 years ago

    @crazyhorse

    Yes, but bioshock2 is not fable 2 - bioshock's engine (multiplatform) is not the fable engine (single platform).

    Honestly such a pointless storm in a miniscule teapot.

    - Sinclair Solutions is not part of the main game and was never intended to be part of the main game
    - You have paid for the main game
    - You pay extra for extra content
    - Yes, it should be called 'unlockable content' not 'DLC'.

    Is this really so hard to understand?

  • DFawkes #7 2 years ago

    I have to agree with crazyhorse, there are plenty of instances of developers not splitting the community by offering a free version so you can play against people that have, including Fable II, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Crackdown and Forza 2 & 3.

    It can even work in your favour - I played Crackdown with someone that had the DLC and had so much fun with it I bought it myself.

  • glottis0 #8 2 years ago

    When you download/pick up a Photoshop trial version, the full software is in there (on the disk!) - you just need a serial to unlock it. That's how software works - it's a different kind of ownership from buying a car or a pair of shoes or dog food. You are paying for the right to use it - the license - not the disc or data itself.

    I really, really don't understand why everyone is so angry about this. If you didn't think the game was good enough value for money in its released state, then that's one thing - but I can't fathom why people think they have an automatic right to everything the company made during the game's development cycle, after paying their £35 or whatever.

    If the customers push back too hard on this, they won't start giving us everything for free next time - all that will happen is that they'll not put the content on the disk - and then on top of paying for the content, you'll have to wait for it to download as well.

  • kratos-i-am #9 2 years ago

    Haha someone should facepalm this guy on the definition of "DLC!" I mean isn't it extra content that's supposed to be downloaded and can be sold as a way to extend a gaming experience?
    But seriously does anyone actually play this game for multplayer?

  • nickthegun #10 2 years ago

    A more appropriate comparison would be paying for photoshop then having to pay further cash to use the filters.

    Even then, its a little tenuous...

  • TeaFiend #11 2 years ago

    I would much rather the content not being on the disc. Even if it is just an illusion, that way it looks like they have worked on something after the game is released.

  • UncleLou #12 2 years ago

    Here we go again. *sigh*

    I really, really don't understand why everyone is so angry about this

    Neither do I, but then this is the internet.

  • glottis0 #13 2 years ago

    @nickthegun - well actually, you often do pay for extra filters, plugins etc. And what about Enterprise/Premium editions of Windows, office etc - that's the same.

    Anyway that wasn't even my point - I brought up Photoshop to illustrate how software licensing is a different kind of ownership to physical goods - it doesn't matter what data is in your hand - the money you give is for the legal right to use it.

  • TeaFiend #14 2 years ago

    @UncleLou:
    People are angry as the content is on the disc. People paid for that. Now after the game has been out they have announced some new DLC, turns out the DLC is just a code to unlock what is on the disc. Nothing new is added so to speak.

    It would be like going for a meal but part of the dinner is in a locked box. You can pay for a key to open the box and get your curly fries. Or not.

  • VicViper #15 2 years ago

    Burnout paradise, everyone had to download the DLC for this reason. It was slighty annoying having to wait fir the downloads to finish but it was more reasonable than this.

  • Slipstream #16 2 years ago

    The content is still capable of splitting the player base regardless, is it not?

  • photoboy #17 2 years ago

    I see they've deliberately missed the point to mis-direct people. If it's on the disc and you don't want to split the player base, then the simple answer is it should have been free and part of the game to start with!

  • INSOMANiAC #18 2 years ago

    Absolutely scummy thing to do and the future of DLC, robbin people blind then trying to justify it !

  • vegard #19 2 years ago

    f**k you guys saying "what's the big deal"?

    when i pick up a game, i expect to have ownership of all the contents on the disc. if there is dlc locked away on the disc i want to know BEFORE I BUY THE GAME, so i can make a decision not to buy it.

  • UncleLou #20 2 years ago

    Glol.

  • SpaceViking #21 2 years ago

    This is lamest excuse I have ever seen, it doesn't explain why they're making us pay for something we have already bought.

    "so whether you purchase the new content or not, you can still play with your friends"

    If it's on the disk it isn't new content.

  • UncleLou #22 2 years ago

    making us pay for something we have already bought.

    You haven't bought a license to use the DLC yet.

  • Cpl.Hicks #23 2 years ago

    Yeah the reason for people outrage is that the "DLC" clearly wasn't created after the game was finished as extra content, rather it was content that was already there and finished and should have been unlocked from the word go. Instead thay just locked a bunch of stuff and charged you to access it.

  • ignatiusjreilly #24 2 years ago

    Agree with the few dissenters here. I've posted many anti-DLC rants here, and I believe a large majority of it is just more of the nickel-and-diming that the games industry is becoming increasingly fond of, but getting annoyed because it is already on the disc is completely missing the point in my eyes.

    I get this weird feeling that many people here would be perfectly happy if this DLC was a 100MB download instead of a 100KB one, which truly makes no sense at all. The DLC is good or bad value whether it's on the disc or not, and the source for your content will have made zero difference to the way 2K budgetted and planned for this content.

    It's sad for me that while finally people are starting to speak up about the whole DLC trend, the argument they've decided to run with is completely the wrong one IMO. It's like people are saying: "It's fine if you want to rip me off - just don't make it obvious".

  • UncleLou #25 2 years ago

    was already there and finished and should have been unlocked from the word go

    /gives up

  • menage #26 2 years ago

    I think the only problem here is that I had to pay for it. Something obviously finished at the time of release.

    I disagree with it's on the disc content so it's mine though, if you buy something you agree to take the disc as it is.

    But a scam nonetheless.

    I'd rather have it on the disc even because my harddrive will flood otherwise:D

    I much prefer EA's new ways of doing stuff than shit like this. Give me shit if I buy new.
    Edited by 3 at 15/03/10 @ 09:54

  • UncleLou #27 2 years ago

    It's sad for me that while finally people are starting to speak up about the whole DLC trend, the argument they've decided to run with is completely the wrong one IMO. It's like people are saying: "It's fine if you want to rip me off - just don't make it obvious".

    THANK YOU. That is exactly the point. It means bugger all when the DLC was created, and how it is delivered, what counts is if the full game is worth its money, and if the DLC is.

    Yet the angry internet men decide to pick the silliest nonsense argument of them all and decide to run with it. It's frustrating in all its idiocy.

  • Steroyd #28 2 years ago

    When you download/pick up a Photoshop trial version, the full software is in there (on the disk!) - you just need a serial to unlock it.

    poor example, at least before I get the photoshop trial, I know well in advance that it's a trial version and will have to pay a lump some for the whole thing sooner or later.

    The reasoning as to why it's already on the disc is poor to, even if we take the ethos of buying the right to use software (that's already on the disc), at least do it like Everybody's Golf where EVERYONE downloads the new DLC disguised as a patch, then sell the unlock key to that, that way people can play with other people who have paid for the new content, and comments like his actually have substance.

    Right now from where I'm looking at, they just locked the software out and selling it just because...

  • X3Entente #29 2 years ago

    oh no because imbalancing the game by increasing the max player level and weapon upgrades wont split the player base at all

  • pinchofsalt #30 2 years ago

    Shocking.

  • chukcyQ #31 2 years ago

    You just did.

  • Chazmeister #32 2 years ago

    Yeah, this whole "day one dlc" thing doesn't sit very well with me. Why would anyone need extra content on the first day your game is released, is your game not complete?

    To me good DLC is all about expanding the core game to either keep you playing that bit longer or to give you a good reason to revisit it if you have already finished. The best Fallout 3 DLC was the stuff that came out some time later, after the fans had a chance to give the devs some feedback and input about what they wanted, like raising the level cap and open ending the game etc. So putting in DLC from day one just seems to me to be a rather obvious money grab.

  • Timbercottage #33 2 years ago

    This really doesn't make it any better. They developed this at the same time as the main game. All they are doing is saying "hey, we can sell this game for £55 instead of £50 if we sell this bit later!" There really is no excuse, in the past, before DLC was available it would have been free, developers are just abusing the term DLC for their own diabolical financial schemes.

    Edit - P.S stop talking about photoshop
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 10:29

  • vegard #34 2 years ago

    @UncleLou

    i get your point on how it doesn't matter where the DLC is stored in the first place. and bioshock 2 is worth the money, i'm not saying anything else. it's just the business practise in itself, with hidden content already done when the game is released that bothers me. like mentioned elsewhere, if we accept this we better be ready for bigger chunks of dlc turning up this way in the future. my concern is that this will affect future games in a way where they cut more from the main game.

    sorry for the english, hope i got my point across anyhow:)

  • bad09 #35 2 years ago

    "I much prefer EA's new ways of doing stuff than shit like this. Give me shit if I buy new. "

    Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of project 10 dollar if I'm honest as while the free stuff on ME2 is cool I see it as hurting the people who can't afford new retail in the first place (the biggest reason for buying 2nd hand). However, stuff like this and the MW2 map pack makes EA looks like bloody heroes.

  • actionfitz #36 2 years ago

    ""For this content, creating the DLC package the way we did allowed for us to not split the player base - so whether you purchase the new content or not, you can still play with your friends."

    you know another way to not split the player base guys?
    Seeing as its on the disc I already own, about including the cost in the fucking retail price I paid?

  • GiarcYekrub #37 2 years ago

    Personally the important part about DLC to me is the content however it's delivered. I don't really have a problem with it. I think if the money ran out to include stuff in the main game I do think its fair to offer it up in a DLC package. It certainly seems to be a problem about games going over budget I guess this is a way of keeping as much content as possible for those that choose to pay for it.

    Perhaps modularisation of games is the way forward? If more games were sold in packages that separate things for instance I didn't much care for the RE5:versus content, it was on the disk but I didn't pay for it, I don't play it, I think the same mechanism could posibly be offered for those that don't fancy Co-op and other multiplayer modes. I admit I'm only talking as a consumer perhaps the numbers don't add up and the single player modes I adore will be marginalised...

  • Sanxo #38 2 years ago

    So, the message I get here is that everybody would have been happy if

    a) 2K had kept quiet for 2 months and
    b) Stuffed 200Mb of junk down their internet connections.

    Neither of which are ideal for anybody! Am I missing something?

  • zuljin #39 2 years ago

    @TeaFiend
    "People are angry as the content is on the disc. People paid for that. Now after the game has been out they have announced some new DLC, turns out the DLC is just a code to unlock what is on the disc. Nothing new is added so to speak."

    No. If they had finished the code at the exact same time, but left it on the server that would be ok? Location, doesn't matter.

    "It would be like going for a meal but part of the dinner is in a locked box. You can pay for a key to open the box and get your curly fries. Or not."

    No it would be like going for a meal. Then having to pay extra for desert. At no point did 2K mislead you into buying the game and finding parts locked off. You chose (or not) to buy the game. And you are now contemplating whether or not to buy the expansion based on the features and the price.

    By all means if you think the extras are not worth the price, great. Don't buy it, noone is forcing you to. But the location of this content does not matter one bit.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #40 2 years ago

    Am I missing something?

    Yes, like the blindingly obvious possibility to make the extra content available from the get go, while factoring its price into the game's full price. In an age where people are willing to spends hundreds on collector or special editions, or buying a steady trickle of DLC, how would another 3.99€ on top of the 50-60€ range be any different?

    Doing so would be more advantageous for 2K Marin since it wouldn't, y'know, actually split the fanbase by introducing stealth content that shafts those who don't buy it, while generating their intended revenue from the initial sales instead of hoping someone will buy into the "you don't own it so pays us some more" doctrine.

  • vegard #41 2 years ago

    @zuljin

    put it this way: i'd rather have the entire team working on the game itself untill release. didn't take long untill bioshock needed a patch. who knows, maybe with the extra manpower they could have shipped a "finished" game (widescreen issues etc).

  • DrizztP #42 2 years ago

    My gripe with this is that we pay good money for these products in good faith that the developer wants to give the customer the best experience possible.
    We are now buying a product that is deliberately withholding content with the intention of charging the customer more money for content that could have been included in the game by simply not being greedy.
    glottis0 stated that it is licensing you are paying for but his example of photoshop does not seem entirely justified you are not trying out Bioshock 2 - there is no trial period, you have paid money for the item. Better example is you buy a car that is meant to come standard with a radio - but there is an unlock code you have to pay over and above the price of your car to actually turn it on. How happy would you be then?...

    This has always been my issue with DLC and it's instances like this where it is given a bad name. How many developers intentionally withhold content they are now charging you for. Why not withhold content added during the development process and charge for it later. It's a simple way to take advantage of your customer base, I can appreciate the tactic I just don't like being the victim of it. There's no point getting angry about it either because people won't know if they did or didn't.

  • Sanxo #43 2 years ago

    @Diogo

    Yes, but remember the mass of internet-rage about the MW2 pricing!?

    IMO, 2K did the right thing which is offer extra stuff for an relatively small amount of cash.

    Extra stuff requires extra effort which needs to be paid for. Don't want it? Don't pay for it.

  • Murton #44 2 years ago

    Most companies that release a premium DLC that includes skins and weapons for MP just release a patch the same day to ensure compatibility.

    Desides, the playerbase is still split as this DLC enables access to more powerful weapons, extra ranks (not sure if there's a perks system or other benefit to rankings) and other "tweaks" to those willing to pay for it, meaning that those who don't buy the DLC are at a competitive disadvantage.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #45 2 years ago

    @Sanxo:

    Yes, but remember the mass of internet-rage about the MW2 pricing!?

    Yes, but remember how it went on to sell millions anyway? Remeber several videogame boycotts regarding the same issues which turned up in absolute nothing?

    That's kind of the issue: balancing player satisfaction with what the developers consider fair pricing for their work. By splitting content this way, 2K now have in their hands a fanbase split between paying 3.99 on top of the 50-60 they already did at launch. The players may very well decide not to buy it but the PR nightmare of having to deal with issues of perception towards intellectual property and product value are now placed side by side with added functionally being withheld by a business practice does not factor all of these problems. I'm even willing to bet that reducing the price of the extra content to hald - let's say 2€ - but still making the content available from the start while only adding that value on top of the full price would still provide a much better result for all parties involved.

  • Crozie #46 2 years ago

    @Sanxo

    How is it 'Extra Stuff', with 'Extra Effort' when it is quite obviously created at the same time as the game?

  • Der_tolle_Emil #47 2 years ago

    How is it 'Extra Stuff', with 'Extra Effort' when it is quite obviously created at the same time as the game?

    This is the most stupid question I have read today.

  • Sanxo #48 2 years ago

    @Crozie

    What, you think the magic content fairy flew into their offices one night and left it under their keyboards?

  • UncleLou #49 2 years ago

    @Sanxo

    How is it 'Extra Stuff', with 'Extra Effort' when it is quite obviously created at the same time as the game?

    You know, I think it's exactly this attitude which annoys me so much about all the complaining here.

    Seriously though, roll the matter around in your head for a while, and I am sure you can answer your question yourself.

  • thewool #50 2 years ago

    Don't agree with the ethics behind this so not buying...

  • jjolley #51 2 years ago

    At glottis0:
    I have to agree with this. It's similar to how many of the in-app purchases work on the Itunes app-store. I'm sure that much of the content is already within the application bundle.

    It's just another method of distribution that's all.

  • sneetch #52 2 years ago

    @Sanxo

    Thanks, "magic content fairy" made me LOL. :)

    These things take effort Crozie. It can be done at the same time and still require extra effort over and above creating the content required to meet the games feature set.

  • VibratingDonkey #53 2 years ago

    Shit like this is always so...ambiguous. If 2K hadn't made plans to sell this content separately, perhaps it wouldn't have been created it in the first place. You wouldn't have gotten access to this content at all. So there's always that.

    But how does planning for content as DLC during development differ from taking content out of the game? They're still creating it during development and then denying you it unless you pay up. How can you as a consumer tell the difference anyway? Would knowing that that they planned to lock content away and charge you for the key really change anything?

    It makes no difference to me. I can't help but feel cheated when the content was done before the game went gold. If it was created and completed during development of the game, that makes me feel entitled to the content.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #54 2 years ago

    If it was created and completed during development of the game, that makes me feel entitled to the content.

    But don't you see that this makes no sense at all? The effort and time that the developer put into this additional content is exactly the same, regardless whether they work on it before or after the game goes gold - and of course they want to break even with that additional content as well so it's obvious you have to pay for it. Why should it matter when they put in all the hours?

  • AbeFroman #55 2 years ago

    I went to McDonals the other day and paid £4 for a Big Mac meal. I was OUTRAGED when they wouldn't give me the chicken nuggets for free. They were already cooked and I had paid for the meal (which was very nice and well worth the four quid).

    Anyway, to cut a long story short, I'm now never buying a McDonalds ever again. Robbing Basts.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 12:17

  • ignatiusjreilly #56 2 years ago

    I went into a McDonalds and they charged me an extra 50p for lettuce on my Big Mac. When I asked WTF is up with that, the cashier looked at me incredulously and said: "Do you think this lettuce just appears in our fridge for free? Someone has to grow it, pick it and chop it. How else are we supposed to break even on the lettuce? We are not a charity you know. Now, do you want sesame seeds on that bun?"

  • RodHull #57 2 years ago

    Pardon? Must have missed half of the explanation because none of what 2K is saying makes a lick os sense.

  • ignatiusjreilly #58 2 years ago

    It makes sense. If the DLC was a download, people with Arcade 360s wouldn't be able to play against people who had bought the DLC. Because it was on the disc, those players acan all still play together.

  • Hog-lumps #59 2 years ago

    Why don't pubishers just bulk out the download file with un-used code to increase the file size? that way people might not notice it's already on the disc :)

  • Crozie #60 2 years ago

    Possibly posting a short line without the thoughts behind it isn't the way to go!

    @Sanxo.
    Any change of putting me in touch with these fairies? Would make my life a hell of a lot easier!

    Anyway, what I was getting at was the point that VibratingDonkey and Der_tolle_Emil made. This is content that has been created during the primary development cycle of the game. To the extent that is on the disc when it went gold. This is not something that I would consider in anyway 'extra' effort or work. This was part of someones workload and was completed in a timely fashion. If it hadn't been, I would have imagined we wold have seen a larger download.

    Now in my possibly naive and idealised world, extra content, dlc, whatever, is something that is created after the game has gone gold. The Burnout Paradise model I guess. It may have been in development, or planned or delayed, or what ever, but it is NOT!! an excuse to get a few more quid out of someone who has already splashed out £40 odd on it in the first place.

    Anyway, this I will stress, is my opinion.

    Take it for what you will.

  • AbeFroman #61 2 years ago

    If only I could invent a machine that could harness the misguided rage of internet mongs.

    I'd be a BAZILLIONAIRE!!!

  • menage #62 2 years ago

    @PatAU

    Who buys this for the MP anyway, your loss I guess. Just don't buy the extra stuff.

    @gungrave

    Huh?

    What did you pay for then, didn't you get to play BS2?

    Oh noes I didn't get everything on my disc. While you didn't even know it was on there in the first place and you were happy with it back then I'm sure.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 13:09

  • ignatiusjreilly #63 2 years ago

    Yeah, if only there were more people willing to leave throwaway "Fuck off" comments with no other substance.

  • menage #64 2 years ago

    @Crez

    Ecactly

    People act like the whole game us useless without these extra bits. The game itself has plenty of content. Greedy just like the publisher I suposse.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 13:38

  • PlugMonkey #65 2 years ago

    The level of stupidity on this issue is reaching lows even I never expected. If it's not tantrums about whether the content was made during or after the main dev cycle (as if that makes some sort of difference to the amount of time, and therefore money, spent on it), it's tantrums about whether it's put on the disc to save you the time of downloading.

    The 'logic' seems to go something like this:

    1. Game comes out. I buy DLC. I have to wait half an hour for it to download.
    ^^^^ This is fine. I'm happy and everything is as it should be.

    2. Game comes out. I buy DLC. DLC is instantly unlocked without me having to wait.
    ^^^^ OUTRAGE! HOW DARE THEY NOT MAKE ME WAIT! THE INSOLENCE! THE SWINDLING! I WILL STRIKE DOWN THEIR FIRST BORN! etc. etc.

    PlugMonkey to Mothership. Please come and collect me now! I will never understand this species. They make no sense!

  • menage #66 2 years ago

    @zandergrin

    Took me longer than UC2 to finish, so that must be shit as well.

    i don't get the it's not long so not worth the money comments. If it would take 30 hours people would bitch it was spun out and not worth finishing.

  • SylarsStubble #67 2 years ago

    The outrage is utterly pointless. The net worth of the content would be identical whether it was included on the disc for logistical reasons or issued as a download after release.

    The time at which development for the DLC was completed is also irrelevant. Would it satisfy the outraged more if developers only started work on DLC after putting the main game on the shelves so as to legitimise the semantics of the term?

    End of the day it's content that, during the planning process, they decided to release later on for a small fee. It may not be the most ethical approach compared to, say, EA's anti-preowned strategy, but the circumstances in which this content has been delivered and made available have absolutely no bearing on the fact that, like it or not, you would have had to pay for this stuff anyway.

  • devilmyarse #68 2 years ago

    "It would be like going for a meal but part of the dinner is in a locked box. You can pay for a key to open the box and get your curly fries. Or not."

    No it would be like going for a meal. Then having to pay extra for desert

    No it would be like paying for a three course meal, and then being told that you have to pay for the right to eat your dessert. That's why people are pissed off.

  • Sanxo #69 2 years ago

    @Diogo and Crozie

    I think the big underlying problem here is related to managing user expectations. It hasn't been done particularly well by 2K in this case.

    The paid-for DLC market is still in its infancy, relatively speaking, so there are few rules about what companies can get away with and about how much consumers will tolerate. There is an acceptable compromise that will emerge.

    edited for grammar
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 14:25

  • PlugMonkey #70 2 years ago

    "No it would be like paying for a three course meal, and then being told that you have to pay for the right to eat your dessert. That's why people are pissed off."

    What makes you think you've paid for it? Because it's on the disk?

    So, it's the same as paying for a 2 course meal, and then expecting to get the dessert for freebecause it's on the same trolley.

    And (gasp!) it was made in the same kitchen at the same time as the rest of your meal! So that DEFINITELY means you've already paid for it!

    Christ, these DLC tantrums are moronic.

    (Actually, it's nothing like that, really. But people do keep coming up with these stupid fucking analogies...)

  • menage #71 2 years ago

    "
    No it would be like paying for a three course meal, and then being told that you have to pay for the right to eat your dessert. That's why people are pissed off. "

    Like Plugmonky said, ridiculous statement. You never even knew there was dessert. And you sure as hell didn't pay for it if you didn't know it was there.

    Also, over here BS2 is 10 euro's cheaper than most games, go figure
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 14:52

  • narked #72 2 years ago

    oh come on 2K this is unbelievable. so according to you the reason for this was not to get the most money out of the gamer as you possibly can... righttttttt

  • Crozie #73 2 years ago

    To continue a dubious analogy, is it not more like paying for a desert to find it was under your steak all along?

    Anyway moving on...

    Mine is the cheesecake.

  • LowEnergyCycle #74 2 years ago

    I work as Tech Support for a software company who supplies full versions, with unlockable content via an updated license key, and frankly, if we didn't (and without wanting to get into the techy boring stuff), our lives would be an absolute nightmare. The user experience would certainly suffer becuase they'd have another 80,000 reasons to call Tech Support.

    There are probably ways around it with intelligent development, but that's up to the developer, not the client.

    This is most likely just a logical way for 2K to control their content, and has absolutely no bearing on the customer whatsoever.

    People just LOVE to get angry. A lot of you people are basically telling the developer how to do their jobs because you dind't understand the idea of Software Licensing.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #75 2 years ago

    I work as Tech Support for a software company who supplies full versions, with unlockable content via an updated license key

    And does your software company tell its consumers that the unlockable content is shipped along with the final version of their products? Just curious.

  • X3Entente #76 2 years ago

    is a man not entitled to the contents on his disc?

  • zuljin #77 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro
    "And does your software company tell its consumers that the unlockable content is shipped along with the final version of their products?"

    Does it matter? The only argument you could possibly have against this is that if you had a bare features license and you don't want to download the whole thing.

    Otherwise, if you know exactly what you're paying for, where data is held is moot.

    ~devilmyarse
    "No it would be like paying for a three course meal, and then being told that you have to pay for the right to eat your dessert."

    As others have pointed out, remind me exactly where you paid for the three course meal? Unless 2K mistakenly advertised the features of the expansion/DLC in the description of the original game, you have no claim to it.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #78 2 years ago

    @Sanxo:

    True. But I also seriously doubt people would be up in arms had 2K Games made it clear from the start how the content would be distributed. People may not like Ubisoft's DRM, but Ubi learned their lesson and makes it perfectly clear on their game boxes nowadays. People may not enjoy the prospect of DLC, but they've been made aware of how it works and are given enough information to make an informed purchase. If a consumer dislikes either he only has himself to blame since the companies make it perfectly clear what it entails.

    Cue 2K Games not doing either.

    It's exhausting having to read people who assume those against this don't understand software licensing or are simply freeloaders. That's why I suggested making the content available from the start *but* factoring it into the final price. No one with a warped sense of entitlement would get antsy, 2K wouldn't split the fanbase and they'd quite likely get the intended money from their sales. It would be the same for everyone involved, but with less drama... And my suggestion got negative points. Funny when I can't tell if the minuses are given out by actual freeloaders, those who think I'm a freeloader or... Something else entirely. Also funny how some argue that it's just a case of (wrong) consumer perception when they believe they have the right perspective simply by quoting EULAs. I'm cackling mad like a fiend on your Outer Planes, yo!

    Then again, I've been attacked in the past hours for basically saying I don't argue IPs, just the iron grip around them. So... Hey, anything's possible. I didn't expect gamers to be dispised for not working as corporate executives. Haha.

  • PlugMonkey #79 2 years ago

    is a man not entitled to the contents on his disc?

    Er, no. He's not. He's entitled to the software he has bought a license for.

    As I said in my original post: If you have to wait for this stuff to download, you're happy. If they use the spare disc space to save you waiting for it to download, you're pissed off.

    Why?

    When I started playing ME2, the first think I had to do was sit and wait for the DLC that came free with a ticket in the box to download. I was thinking "Why are they wasting my time instead of putting this on the disc?".

    You were presumably having a fucking field day at the extra value you had somehow gained from the wait.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #80 2 years ago

    @zuljin:

    Does it matter?

    If it didn't matter to me I wouldn't be asking, would I?

    The only argument you could possibly have against this is that if you had a bare features license and you don't want to download the whole thing.

    So, I can't argue against something unless it's an argument made on your terms?

    Otherwise, if you know exactly what you're paying for, where data is held is moot.

    And let me guess. Consumers knew exactly what they were paying for with Bioshock 2 and the so-called DLC, right?

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #81 2 years ago

    As I said in my original post: If you have to wait for this stuff to download, you're happy. If they use the spare disc space to save you waiting for it to download, you're pissed off.

    Or maybe someone is happy that developers included it right on the disk but are pissed off that they tried to sell it as something else.

    Funny how dissenters are labeled as idiots when the opposing side can only understand things in black or white.

  • zuljin #82 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro
    "If it didn't matter to me I wouldn't be asking, would I?"

    Ofcourse. So lets get the debate going by you actually stating why you think its important.

    "So, I can't argue against something unless it's an argument made on your terms?"

    No thats putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that that is the only argument I can think of that has any merit. By all means, enlighten me if you have a different argument.

    "And let me guess. Consumers knew exactly what they were paying for with Bioshock 2 and the so-called DLC, right?"

    Yep. The review was up on EG. 9 out of 10 I think. Was pretty in depth. Metacritic has a number of other reviews. Also in regards to the DLC, that is advertised everywhere, what the exact changelist is. I saw it on both EG and I think they give you the details on PSN too. Not sure about Live but I imagine it to be similar.
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 16:01

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #83 2 years ago

    @zuljin:

    Ofcourse. So lets get the debate going by you actually stating why you think its important.

    Wait. Why should I? I didn't ask to debate with you. Nor did I tell you it was important to you. I was asking LowEnergyCycle a question. He should be the one answering it.

    No thats putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that that is the only argument I can think of that has any merit.

    Ah, but you quite clearly said yours was "the only argument I could possibly have against it" - not that yours was the only possible argument you could think of. A subtle, but important difference nonetheless.

    By all means, enlighten me if you have a different argument.

    Once again, why should I enlighten you? Unless you're LowEnergyCycle's mouthpiece, that is. I may be coming off as rude but if I'm expected to keep giving my perspective only to see myself 1) receiving minus points given by people who disagree with me but whose only counter-argument is "LICENSING AGREEMENT LOL" and 2) having to repeat myself across god knows how many pages for something I'm always making clear, I'd like a liiitle bit more guarantee that I'm not wasting time just to get tea bagged by the Holy Knights of EULA. I already know many here champion intellectual property to the point they try to snuff out anyone who argues against the way it's handled, and I'm not in the mood for reruns.

    Yep. The review was up on EG. 9 out of 10 I think. Was pretty in depth. Metacritic has a number of other reviews. Also in regards to the DLC, that is advertised everywhere, what the exact changelist is. I saw it on both EG and I think they give you the details on PSN too. Not sure about Live but I imagine it to be similar.

    In other words, everyone - from Eurogamer's review to gamers - knew the "extra" content wasn't DLC, simply locked content waiting to be unlocked.


    EDIT 1 for clarity, EDIT 2 for this: If you're interested in the slightest about what I think, read this:

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bioshock-2s-dlc-on-disc -already-article/comments?comment_start=150#comment1514672
    ]    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/biosho...[/link]

    That's about the 5th time I had to summarize my side for people who stumble across what I say and throw their fists into the air in disapproaval. So, may you find it useful if you're actually "on it" to debate.
    Edited by 2 at 15/03/10 @ 16:22

  • PlugMonkey #84 2 years ago

    Or maybe someone is happy that developers included it right on the disk but are pissed off that they tried to sell it as something else.

    Diogo: SO, you're fine with it being on the disk, as long as you then don't have to pay for it? Well, that doesn't seem like exactly the same thing does it? If you didn't have to pay for it, they wouldn't have made it. Now that they have made it, the question is how to deliver it.

    It's added, paid-for content. The shorthand for this has become "DLC", although I don't really see why everyone is so damn caught up on the "DL" part of the acronym.

    Which part of the black or white am I not understanding here. You pay and wait, and it's OK. You pay and don't wait, and that makes you pissed off? Why? Either way, you still have to fucking pay. SO WHY FUCKING WAIT?!

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #85 2 years ago

    Diogo: SO, you're fine with it being on the disk, as long as you then don't have to pay for it? // You pay and wait, and it's OK. You pay and don't wait, and that makes you pissed off? Why? Either way, you still have to fucking pay. SO WHY FUCKING WAIT?!

    Y'know, the funny thing is I already posted like 2 or 3 times about how, if 2K had made it available from the beginning but factored the extra price onto the full game, the drama would probably wouldn't be as big. I posted this in this very topic. I repeated this on this very page. Your reaction is not even to disagree with me - it's to go right by what I said and filter my comments through the same B&W schtick.

    Actually, scratch that. It's not funny. It's hilarious.

  • kangarootoo #86 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro

    "Wait. Why should I? I didn't ask to debate with you."

    I have a solution. Private message the people you want to have a debate with, and stop posting on this PUBLIC page. By posting on a public page, you are asking to debate with everybody that reads it.


    Though honestly, I don't buy it. You make statements on a public discussion forum, and then when someone questions those statements, you either refer them generally to "what I am actually saying" (without saying it), or you tell them you don't answer to them.

    Nobody here is fooled. If you post a point of view on a public discussion board, but then decline by various means to discuss it clearly and succinctly, we all KNOW it is because you yourself believe your statements won't survive scrutiny. You avoid straight answers to straight questions, because you CAN'T answer the questions. You complain that we ask the same questions over and over, but an easy fix for thqat is to give a single straight answer instead of 10 evasive ones.

    Say what you want, but everybody here knows that is true. And everytime you "laugh at how hilarious" our really quite basic questions are, our knowledge is cemented still further.

  • menage #87 2 years ago

    @Sparkplug

    Which part of it wouldn't have been made at all if it was free didn't you get. That it's on the disc now is only because they were intending to sell it day one, that was the reason it was made from the start.

    I don't know why people can't get that in their brain. IT WOULDN'T BE THERE IF THEY WEREN"T SELLING IT

    If you think it's not worth the money okay with me btw. But it should be free is just simple thinking.

    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 17:02

  • zuljin #88 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro
    "Wait. Why should I? I didn't ask to debate with you. Nor did I tell you it was important to you. I was asking LowEnergyCycle a question. He should be the one answering it."

    Lovely skirting around the issue. LowEnergyCycle is currently afk, does that mean we can't have a debate in the meantime? Can you only converse with two people at the same time?

    "Ah, but you quite clearly said yours was "the only argument I could possibly have against it" - not that yours was the only possible argument you could think of. A subtle, but important difference nonetheless. "

    Now you're just being pedantic for the sake of it. If I can only think of one argument then it is the only argument I could possibly have.

    "Once again, why should I enlighten you?..."

    Because I'm trying to get a conversation going dude. I'm currently just following this thread, and all you're doing is jumping in on the dislike DLC side and yet not giving reasons.

    "In other words, everyone - from Eurogamer's review to gamers - knew the "extra" content wasn't DLC, simply locked content waiting to be unlocked."

    No not at all, but people that do no research into what their purchases contain also don't know. But the information is out there, plain and clear. I knew the BS2 level cap before I bought the game even, as I thought it was important to know. There is a difference between active misdirection, lack of information and just not putting effort in to find out something.

    "That's about the 5th time I had to summarize my side for people who stumble across what I say and throw their fists into the air in disapproaval. So, may you find it useful if you're actually "on it" to debate."

    No you need to get "on it". You can't expect people to magically be reading the exact same threads and comments. You post randomly in this thread and expect everyone to just know exactly your train of thought?

  • kangarootoo #89 2 years ago

    @Sparkplug

    I am assuming you are interested in discussing this :)

    That the content was ready to go only means it was finished at the same time as the main content. It doesn't mean it was paid for by the same budget. As others have suggested, if there was no budget for this new content, it probably wouldn't get made and so it wouldn't have been on the disc in the first place.

    It could have also been made ready to go at the same time as the disc, but placed on a server from which you would download it for a small fee. Why does this experience give you a different sense of value? That is an honest question.

  • kangarootoo #90 2 years ago

    @menage at al

    If Sparkplug now represents someone from the "it should be free" side of the fence, lets please not bury him/her in angst just because this and previous thread got heated. I'm interested to know his/her opinion afresh, so lets hold fire on the "simple thinking" comments pretty please :)

  • PlugMonkey #91 2 years ago

    Factor it into the price? You mean, just add all the content in from the beginning and increase the RRP?

    How does that give them something they can release after the main game to maintain interest and mitigate 2nd hand sales?

    Christ, that solution is so painfully naive that I'm being very kind by calling it "naive". Because it's actually just painfully fucking stupid. I am in actual pain everytime I think about it. Ow.

    Your genius solution is just to make the game 2% bigger and 2% more expensive, but not to actually achieve the goals of the DLC. Brilliant!

    Ow. There is it again.

    SO, once they've decided to do some "DLC" (for the many and varied reasons that make that different from simply making the game 2% bigger), why do you have to wait to download it?

    Right, enough playing with the idiots for today. I'll come back when the next DLC 'scandal' breaks and do it again, as people will (sadly) still be just as fucking stupid.

    (Christ, I'm in a bad mood today. I'll be nice agian tomorrow. Promise.)

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #92 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:


    "I have a solution. Private message the people you want to have a debate with, and stop posting on this PUBLIC page. By posting on a public page, you are asking to debate with everybody that reads it."

    That would make sense if people actually deigned to read what others write instead of spamming the same questions everytime. Also see: PlugMonkey, who quoted me then asked me a question when the answer was already on what he quoted. Or also see: your own constant quoting and questioning in the other thread, including quoting my answers to your questions but then still being misteriously bemused as to why I'm not answering when when I did it already.

    You make statements on a public discussion forum, and then when someone questions those statements, you either refer them generally to "what I am actually saying" (without saying it) or you tell them you don't answer to them.

    Then by all means, do us the favor of quoting me in the exact place where I'm not answering anyone. I even bothered to edit my previous answer to zuljin, even in the very likely chance of him being no different than you, to link him to a post where I gathered my opinions on this matter. In fact, I linked him to the 5th post I gathered my opinions because you couldn't be bothered to read all 4 previous ones.

    If you post a point of view on a public discussion board, but then decline by various means to discuss it clearly and succinctly, we all KNOW it is because you yourself believe your statements won't survive scrutiny. You avoid straight answers to straight questions, because you CAN'T answer the questions.

    Careful princess, your hipocrisy is showing:

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bioshock-2s-dlc-on-disc -already-article/comments?comment_start=150#comment1512621
    ]    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/biosho...[/link]

    After you claimed, and I quote, "Trying to explain "ownership" to some peopLe is a complete lost cause, as their sense of logic is utterly corrupted by the feeling they aren't getting as much free stuff as possible", I called you on that one and you still haven't answered.

    Now, once again by all means, do point out where I'm not answering people. Would love to see this myself.

  • zuljin #93 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro
    "Now, once again by all means, do point out where I'm not answering people. Would love to see this myself."

    "Wait. Why should I? I didn't ask to debate with you. Nor did I tell you it was important to you. I was asking LowEnergyCycle a question. He should be the one answering it."

    "Once again, why should I enlighten you?"

    These are the two main ones to me where you're just completely skirting around the issue. You're asking a question of someone, and as people often do, they go afk. But when I engage in conversation I just get this.

    Haven't got time now but I'll perhaps get round to the other thread tomorrow morning.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #94 2 years ago

    @zuljin:


    Lovely skirting around the issue. LowEnergyCycle is currently afk, does that mean we can't have a debate in the meantime? Can you only converse with two people at the same time?

    Far from it. I'm just wondering why, after several posts I made in this very topic, you'd choose to single out that one in particular. And seriously, is it that hard to understand why I'd question the statement defending the use of unlocking licenses to gauge how many of those aren't made clear to the consumer from the start, when that's actually one of the things people have been disagreeing with regarding 2K Games? Seriously?

    Because I'm trying to get a conversation going dude. I'm currently just following this thread, and all you're doing is jumping in on the dislike DLC side and yet not giving reasons.

    Really following? See the last part of this post.

    No not at all, but people that do no research into what their purchases contain also don't know. But the information is out there, plain and clear. I knew the BS2 level cap before I bought the game even, as I thought it was important to know. There is a difference between active misdirection, lack of information and just not putting effort in to find out something.

    Or it could be that 2K Games weren't as thorough on their advertisement of the product. Why should the consumer be the only one to blame in this? Some people did poor research. No arguing there. Others did and still seem to have "missed" knowing this. What did 2K Games did in order to warn the consumer who had some interest in B2 but weren't exactly scouring every news source or forum to find these things out? Once again, Ubisoft learned the hard way they had to warn consumers on the nature of their games.

    No you need to get "on it". You can't expect people to magically be reading the exact same threads and comments. You post randomly in this thread and expect everyone to just know exactly your train of thought?

    [link url=http ://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-explains-bioshock-2-on-disc -dlc/comments?comment_start=0#comment1513957
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-exp...[/link]

    [link url=http ://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-explains-bioshock-2-on-disc -dlc/comments?comment_start=0#comment1514005
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-exp...[/link]

    [link url=htt p://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-explains-bioshock-2-on-dis c-dlc/comments?comment_start=50#comment1514756
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-exp...[/link]

    [link url=htt p://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-explains-bioshock-2-on-dis c-dlc/comments?comment_start=50#comment1514794
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-exp...[/link]

    FYI, all of these were made *on this very topic*. So, no, I can't expect people to magically be reading the exact same thread and comments because I "randomly" post in this thread. But after posting four times in this very thread the things you're asking me about now, I should expect the bare minimum. You don't see me doing the same regarding your statements.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #95 2 years ago

    @zuljin:

    These are the two main ones to me where you're just completely skirting around the issue.

    Notice the difference between "debating with more than two people at the same time" and not.

  • kangarootoo #96 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro

    Yet again you've written 50 lines of nothing specific. And calling me princess just makes you even more wrong (internet rules).

    The only issue under discussion here is why putting the data on a disc instead of on a server is a bad thing. If you are discussing something else, you are in the wrong place.

    Like I said before, every attempt at evasion just makes you look less confident in your opinion. Every time you dodge a question, I know that you doubt what you are saying makes sense. Everytime you write 50 hollow sentences intead of 3 fruitful ones, it makes it clearer that you know you have no straight answer. And I say again, nobody is fooled. You clearly think you are running circles around everyone with your overcomplex responses, but you are out of your depth. Whether you know this makes no difference.

    Until you say something short, and sensible, and concise, about the topic at hand, I'm done with you.

  • zuljin #97 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro
    Off home now, but two of those links that you quoted are comments that I have acknowledged and asked you questions on. And then skirted.

    Catch the thread tomorrow.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #98 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey:

    Factor it into the price? You mean, just add all the content in from the beginning and increase the RRP?

    As opposed to, say, do what they did and have the standard RRP and the extra being charged costing the same as if they were charged from the beginning?

    How does that give them something they can release after the main game to maintain interest and mitigate 2nd hand sales?

    Christ, that solution is so painfully naive that I'm being very kind by calling it "naive". Because it's actually just painfully fucking stupid. I am in actual pain everytime I think about it. Ow.

    Your genius solution is just to make the game 2% bigger and 2% more expensive, but not to actually achieve the goals of the DLC. Brilliant!

    Apparently, not as brilliant as having to deal with the PR fiasco that's booming over them right now. Because whether you believe it's one without merit or not, all you have to do is look around you to find many others dissatisfied. Also, not as brilliant as what they have now which is "DLC" that, thanks to consumer perception, potentially won't achieve the same sales goals they had in mind.

    I may be naive, but I sure as hell wasn't the only one.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #99 2 years ago

    @zuljin:

    Off home now, but two of those links that you quoted are comments that I have acknowledged and asked you questions on. And then skirted.

    Between the time it took you to say I had dodged your question it's been answered already.

  • UncleLou #100 2 years ago

    Apparently, not as brilliant as having to deal with the PR fiasco that's booming over them right now

    I am sure they'll learn something from it. Develop extra content just as they did this time around during the main development phase, but then wait 3 months and let us download it.

    Well, except you, because you're still arguing against the concept of extra content as such, and in the wrong thread no less.

    And what you're basically suggesting is a general price rise of games, completely missing the point of DLC (or "micropayment" content, to avoid the word "download";).

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #101 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    The only issue under discussion here is why putting the data on a disc instead of on a server is a bad thing. If you are discussing something else, you are in the wrong place.

    Says... Who? You? There's always been more than one issue under discussion but like before, anything that goes against your idea that there is only one worthy topic is swept under the rug. The irony is that you go on about how a public page one is conducive to debating with everybody, but you immediately dismiss anyone that isn't debating on your terms.

    Here's your own advice, right back at you: if you want to debate with people who discuss the matter at hand in the way you want, private message them. That way, you won't have to deal with the proles who dare to discuss anything that's not up to your interests. Fair game, no?

    Like I said before, every attempt at evasion just makes you look less confident in your opinion.

    In other words, you're still coming up short of pointing out where exactly I'm evading things while I already pointed how where you actually avoided them.

    Until you say something short, and sensible, and concise, about the topic at hand, I'm done with you.

    Oh no, someone trying to sound more important than what they really are are "done with me".


  • PlugMonkey #102 2 years ago

    "As opposed to, say, do what they did and have the standard RRP and the extra being charged costing the same as if they were charged from the beginning?"

    Ow! There is it again.

  • Gecks #103 2 years ago

    i look forward to Diogo_Ribeiro's brave new world where all niche content is included in games at an increased retail price, rather than left to DLC. can't wait to pay more for bioshock 3 multiplayer content when i have no intention of playing the multiplayer!

    or perhaps the alternative. a disclaimer saying "the only part of the game that is playable is the bit that is talked about in the manual, on the box, and in the reviews, just in case there was any misunderstanding!!!"

    atlus shrugged.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #104 2 years ago

    @UncleLou:

    I am sure they'll learn something from it. Develop extra content just as they did this time around during the main development phase, but then wait 3 months and let us download it.

    Or maybe they can learn to juggle better between internal development, associated costs, consumer trust and perception so as not to have things like these blow up in their face.

    Well, except you, because you're still arguing against the concept of extra content as such, and in the wrong thread no less.

    So, let's have a quote of where I'm arguing against the concept of extra content. With the amount of posts I've made on this particular topic, it shouldn't be hard to find, right?

    And what you're basically suggesting is a general price rise of games, completely missing the point of DLC (or "micropayment" content, to avoid the word "download";).

    Or maybe I'm suggesting that content that's not DLC shouldn't be labelled as such in order to avoid the reaction we've seen in the last hours. Or maybe I'm suggesting the problem isn't with extra content, be it DLC or otherwise, or even with its distribution method, but rather how 2K Games didn't think a teensy weensy bit better about the perception that would be generated in case this came to light.

    But I couldn't be doing that, could I? That couldn't be what I've been talking about all this time. Of course not.

    I wonder how many of you who keep negging me actually read my posts on this topic. Because unless I've developed the uncanny ability to read english while in fact I'm writing esperanto, there's something very weird about clearly saying "I don't have anything against extra content" while everyone else reads otherwise.

    Also, that people suddenly decide that the topic is to discuss what they want rather than letting everyone speak for themselves seems pretty revealing. Seems like it's not just those who want DLC for free with a warped sense of entitlement.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #105 2 years ago

    i look forward to Diogo_Ribeiro's brave new world where all niche content is included in games at an increased retail price, rather than left to DLC. can't wait to pay more for bioshock 3 multiplayer content when i have no intention of playing the multiplayer!

    Because, clearly, when I'm talking about Bioshock 2, I am talking about every single game out there. Because, clearly, when I say that a company could've handled public perception better, I'm saying the opposite or whatever or...

    ... Really, how do you people manage not to choke on your bloated sense of smugness? For crying out loud.

    Not once, in this or in the other topic, did I ever say I was against extra content nor did I distort whatever you were saying to fit with my agenda. The same, however, can't be said of nearly every single answer aimed at what I said. Is it really harder to disagree than it is to go through the hard work of misunderstanding what I'm saying? I've said from the beginning my opinion was not one against extra content, it was against 2K Games poorly managing the entire situation, and on what levels did I think they screwed up the most. Seriously. All I'm getting are people posing as adults but who behave like sycophants or 5 year olds in a kindergarten.

  • LowEnergyCycle #106 2 years ago

    Cripes. Ok, to answer Diogo_Ribeiro's original question, it's fairly obvious to OUR end-user that they are downloading a full version of OUR software and unlocking specific elements through a License Key. If they ask then we don't lie. It's seriously not even an issue. We have over 1200 clients and nobody to my knowledge has ever complained about downloading content they can not use until they've paid for it.

    Every day we receive calls from happy customers asking for upgrade licenses to use extra features, who we then send an invoice to, and who 100% of the time pay up, put their new code in and never download anything extra. From our point of view, this means we can supply one simple neat client package to everyone, and our customers unlock separate parts with further transactions based on their needs. It makes life stunningly easy.

    Whether this should be the case for games is obviously a hot topic for debate, but as far as I can see, you don't own any of the content yourself, it's not yours to decide what is inside those packages of data, and providing that you haven't been given anything malicious (which on Xbox and PS3 is likely a moot point anyway) then you really shouldn't be worried.

    2K are doing the same thing practically every company with a product range does by providing the consumer with CHOICES.

    That the extra data comes with the original disc is pretty much of no consequence whatsoever, makes no difference to the customer's lives, DOES make the developer's lives much easier, and can be safely forgotten anyway if you're not even going to buy the extra content.

    This is a complete non-debate. The customer's opinion in this matter is irrelevant. This is just the way the developer has chosen to structure their (yes, THEIR) data and content.

    Also, to the few people who are now refusing to buy Bioshock2 because of this "revelation" - that's a level of stupidity that nobody should be expected to have to deal with.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #107 2 years ago

    Thank you for answering, LowEnergyCycle. Insightful and polite, which is more than I was hoping from anyone talking to me.

    To elaborate, my question was meant to gauge consumer perception. I wasn't against data already being on the disc, but more interested to know how a company would address its consumer base by selling software under those conditions (ie, not disclosing locked content on what is, for all intents and purposes, a "full product";). That it seems to be a non-issue, judging by your statement, only seems to highlight that it's more of an issue with gaming communities, and an issue of perception that a videogame company should try to address. Although I'd argue the perception on this side is one of not being given a choice or, in other words, giving consumers a choice that's not entirely informed (and once again, it's a matter of perception that, I think, would be somewhat mitigated if it were made more transparent - shareware did this for years, for instance, and there wasn't anything remotely similar to B2's backlash because it was transparent from the start).

    In any case thanks once again, LowEnergyCycle.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #108 2 years ago

    ^Awesome, people, awesome. -X points for remaining polite, thanking LowEnergyCycle for being polite, and by saying that it's a case of consumer perception - something I've been saying for a while and something that some of those arguing with me even said as well.

    Awesomesauce, really. To whoever did that one, you just made my day.

  • old_skool #109 2 years ago

    I hate to be pedantic but I think 2K is changing/distorting the meaning of DLC. There's a clear difference between DLC and unlockable content. Contents shipped with discs does not equal DLC.The general excepted meaning of DLC is digital distribution <a href="htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content" > of media online or via the internet.

    Is there anything wrong what they did? Commercially and legally no, morally perhaps (that depends on your morals).
    Edited by 3 at 15/03/10 @ 19:52

  • kimchibaka #110 2 years ago

    LowEnergyCycle '...2K are doing the same thing practically every company with a product range does by providing the consumer with CHOICES.

    That the extra data comes with the original disc is pretty much of no consequence whatsoever, makes no difference to the customer's lives, DOES make the developer's lives much easier, and can be safely forgotten anyway if you're not even going to buy the extra content.

    This is a complete non-debate. The customer's opinion in this matter is irrelevant. This is just the way the developer has chosen to structure their (yes, THEIR) data and content...'

    You make some good points here and elsewhere in your post, but I'd say the two markets are different (the 'DLC' market is obviously relatively in its infancy, and the companies are still learning the expectations, preferences, and hopes of its own customers).

    I think the point's already been made, but your customers know they have a choice and what that choice is. In terms of DLC, by its very name, the choice here is perceived by many rather differently. I understand those who say 'it's better to have it on the disc already' or 'what difference does it make?' but quite a few posts here and elsewhere (and, indeed, the very fact that Eurogamer ran it as a story at all) point to other considerations.

    'Safely forgotten away'? Not by everyone it won't be, just as some people who didn't buy the similar RE5 or SF4 unlocks hold Capcom with some degree of suspicion these days.

    'The customer's opinion in this matter is irrelevant.' Not if it affects sales of this DLC or future sales by the same developer and publisher it isn't!

  • LowEnergyCycle #111 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro

    No problem.

    Of course, not all software companies structure their content in the same way we do, and it's entirely down to the individual company. The customer doesn't really have any right to complain in this case. If one of our clients phoned up and told us that they only wanted the code they paid for, and that we should strip out all the other modules, the response from our Development Dept probably wouldn't be very polite!

    What my main point is is that there is nothing untoward going on here (at least, i'm very VERY sure there isn't). I would imagine it is quite litteraly down to how 2K structured their data, to make things simpler for themselves, the upgrading, AND the non-upgrading customer.

    Like you say, shareware operated like this for years. Admitedly it WAS much more transparent, and as an emerging technology, DLC and the methods surrounding its delivery should probably look at these established methods to avoid unintentionally angering gamers.

    But then again, maybe gamers shouldn't be so quick to anger in the first place? ;)
    Edited by 1 at 15/03/10 @ 20:06

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #112 2 years ago

    @LowEnergyCycle :

    True. DLC and, in general terms, the videogame industry itself is still in its infancy in certain key aspects. It took companies years to realize certain things, from the advantage of distribution methods to how the second hand market might be a bigger threat than piracy (which seems to be what DRM nowadays is making a move against). It's getting there and this kind of situation brings out the good and bad: a conscious decision to improve content distribution but also a clear misstep in maintaining a certain level of trust with consumers. Hopefully cases like these raise awareness towards what should be discussed and improved on both sides.

    And yeah, gamers kinda go bonkers on certain things. Curiously the only things that got me agitated lately were this, Ubisoft's DRM and the whole Infinity Ward/Activision situation, and thankfully I'm just a few months shy of 30 and kinda learning to let go. O'course, I do vent hard on ocasion, though it's usually more to do with people than some topic being discussed, haha.

  • LowEnergyCycle #113 2 years ago

    @kimchibaka "the very fact that Eurogamer ran it as a story at all"

    I think there is a fairly important point in concerning that statement - this story has received a lot more attention simply because people think they should get angry about it. I personally don't think it's news-worthy at all, in the same way that Eurogamer don't report on stories about how graphics pipelines are coded, how AI is structured and how texture maps are compressed and stored on the disc (at least, not outside of Digital Foundary).

    However, you're probably right that publishers should be a little more senstive and transparent when they sell their DLC, what with it being such a new idea, and what with perceptions of it being in their infancy.

    I just think people should probably think from the developer's point of view more often, rather than jump straight to an uninformed conclusion that they are being ripped off. I'm fairly sure that these companies are not ALWAYS out to punish their customers ;)

  • smelly #114 2 years ago

    Well (imho - may be wrong on the technicalities here, some pirate like campbell will probably correct me) when you buy a game.. its not the physical data you're buying, it's the license to use the data. As such, if you thought it was worth the price of the software when you bought it, then all is well. All they're doing here, is selling you a license to a bit more of the software.

    And it's only 3 quid (unlike the modern warfare 2 thing) - and if you dont like it.. dont buy it.. simple.

  • PlugMonkey #115 2 years ago

    Thinking about this, I keep almost agreeing with Diogo (who is getting a lot more flak than he deserves, especially from me). It is a matter of consumer perception, so devs do need to get better at how they present this stuff...

    But then again, to get upset by not having to download something you don't actually need to, you really would have to be a moron...

    And the only way the devs could dress this up to appease these people would be to make us all download hundreds of megs of crap for no reason. I really don't want to have to do that on account of the morons. That would not be an acceptable outcome. And I think that saying it's a PR disaster is putting a little bit too much egg in this particular pudding. It's not a PR disaster. It's a few internet forum nerds having a tantrum. That means 3/5s of fuck all. Most regular punters won't even care, if they even notice.

    I've just watched One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest and found Nurse Ratched to be the only sympathetic character. Poor woman.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #116 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey:

    I'm a nice guy, I think. I'm even fine with you almost agreeing with me :D

    At best, these kind of situations just highlight how much we care about videogames. So we're edgy and hyperbolic and pretty rude. Friday will come and we've probably moved on to greener pastures. I think just about everyone went a little overboard, me included. I can accept that. Maybe many won't notice; maybe it's really not up to par with other scenarios like Ubisoft or even Infinity Ward and Activision's messy divorce-in-the-making.

    So, for the purposes of clarity, I may have come off as brash on the first topic, but by the end of it - and across this one - it was more about fending off people and maintaining my perspective that this could've been handled better. I didn't expect people to agree with me nor did I want that. I prefer a healthy discussion to a troupe of yes men, and it's depressing to constantly see my arguments beings thorougly misinterpreted when I strive to avoid that with others. Oh well.

    So, maybe we'll meet again in the next controversy :D

  • mowenspiel #117 2 years ago

    "I went to McDonals the other day and paid £4 for a Big Mac meal. I was OUTRAGED when they wouldn't give me the chicken nuggets for free. They were already cooked and I had paid for the meal (which was very nice and well worth the four quid).

    Anyway, to cut a long story short, I'm now never buying a McDonalds ever again. Robbing Basts." [AbeFroman]

    Best post of the lot. Even if 2K have gone about this 'DLC' in a sneaky way, this makes the point perfectly clear. They wanted to charge extra for something, so they chose a particular section of the multiplayer (which is quite decent, for the record). And for people like me who can't afford to keep downloading massive DLC content (I've got a 20gb hard drive, which is pretty much useless these days) it's not such a bad thing. 100kb is perfect, personally, even if we have been cheated a little.

  • mclem #118 2 years ago

    Can I have a go at the metaphor game?

    I used to have a big problem with this myself, until someone prompted me to think of it like a hotel room with a locked cupboard in it.

    After you've booked your hotel and arrive, you get told that the locked cupboard - not mentioned in any brochure - contains a minibar. You can drink freely from the minibar as much as you like if you wish, but you have to buy a key from reception first. If you do, you can use the minibar as much as you like during your stay or future stays at the hotel.

    Some of you may be affronted by this; it's in your room, and they gave you the shampoo for free, so surely you should have the minibar contents for free? Others may follow that on by being offended, and stating that they shouldn't put the minibar in the room if you're going to charge for it, instead, it's far better to insist that people order room service when they want a drink.

  • kangarootoo #119 2 years ago

    @mclem

    I guess to continue your metaphor, imagine when asking about the mini bar the hotel staff described it in a way that gave you the "impression" that said booze would be brought to your room upon payment. Then after paying the fee, it turns out they just give you the code over the phone to unlock the cupboard that was there all along. You enter the code and the cupboard unlocks, saving you waiting for someone to push a trollet to your room.

    The question is, so long as you got the sgreed booze for the agreed payment, would you care? And might you perhaps actually be pleased that your access to said booze happened more quickly than you previously expected?
    Edited by 1 at 16/03/10 @ 09:29

  • Gecks #120 2 years ago

    lets imagine for a moment this was DLC entirely separate from the main disc, and you join a match with someone who's got the extra models/powers/whatever...wait, you can't do that! the 'community' would have to be 'split' with the DLC-poor lot playing together, and the DLC-rich people playing together; not a great scenario for such a limited-interest multiplayer game (especially in the months to come).

    so what would their alternative be? to produce a free patch that included all the content, but didn't unlock it for the people who hadn't bought the DLC. BUT WAIT!!! THAT'S ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS INCLUDING IT ON THE DISC!!!! do you see?

    "... Really, how do you people manage not to choke on your bloated sense of smugness? For crying out loud. "

    by washing it down with a cool glass of being-right-all-the-time :)

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #121 2 years ago

    by washing it down with a cool glass of being-right-all-the-time :)

    Unfortunately, those have a bad aftertaste when people realize they were being idiots.

    Unless the idea was to intentionally ignore a point for comedic, jackass-of-the-class effect. That's fine, I guess. Some people don't have much else to add.

  • Gecks #122 2 years ago

    "Some people don't have much else to add."

    apparently! perhaps you should insult us all some more??

    ps, regarding your reply to me earlier where you say i've been misrepresenting your argument - i rather think i was taking it to it's illogical conclusion as you seem to be suggesting we'd all be happy with a bumped-up retail price:

    "In an age where people are willing to spends hundreds on collector or special editions, or buying a steady trickle of DLC, how would another 3.99€ on top of the 50-60€ range be any different?"

    why should i be happy paying for DLC for BS2 i don't want to use, just to avoid your "PR NIGHTMARE" of having DLC locked on the disc, seeing as the only alternative is to give it to me in a free patch (albeit still locked - see my above post). it's semantically the same thing, except now we're faced with an unavoidable charge!
    Edited by 2 at 16/03/10 @ 11:29

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #123 2 years ago

    apparently! perhaps you should insult us all some more??

    At which point am I insulting people by talking to them? At which point are you not insulting me by exagerating what I say for no reason other than getting some kick out of it?

    ps, regarding your reply to me earlier where you say i've been misrepresenting your argument - i rather think i was taking it to it's illogical conclusion

    And once again, am I "insulting you all" by having the decency of not doing with your arguments what you've done with mine? Really? Wow.

    as you seem to be suggesting we'd all be happy with a bumped up retail price:

    The onus of proof is yours, not mine. All I did was point out to a fact: no matter how much we dislike high prices in games, and no matter how much we may be against them, all you have to do is look at games and companies getting away with it. If you want to discuss that my earlier suggestion was wrong, then fine; but while you're busy taking my argument to its "illogical conclusion" at least remember that games like MW2 can have inflated prices and still go on to sell millions, which is pretty indicative of what certain consumers - again, whether we like it or not - are willing to put up with. Had you read what I wrote, I wasn't defending a price increase for all games; once again, if I was suggesting something about Bio2, I bloody well wasn't applying it to other games. That was your illogical conclusion.

  • Gecks #124 2 years ago

    "At which point am I insulting people by talking to them"

    when you called them idiots, jackasses, 5 year olds, "princess", etc!

    "The onus of proof is yours, not mine."

    i pasted the bleedin' quote! and responded to it! directly! good grief, i think i'm done here :)

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #125 2 years ago

    when you called them idiots, jackasses, 5 year olds, "princess", etc!

    Were those unprovoked? Weren't those in riposte to how I was treated? Compare those to the posts where I'm talking to people and not doing anything of the sort. Selective quoting at its finest.

    i pasted the bleedin' quote! and responded to it! directly! good grief, i think i'm done here :)

    Once again, how hard is it to understand that suggesting something for Bioshock 2 is not the same as suggesting something for every single game? Which was exactly what you tried to make my point sound like?

  • citizenHUNTER #126 2 years ago

    The basic issue here is that it should not be called DOWNLOADABLE content as I'm sure in most gamers minds they perceive DLC to be an extra part of a game created after the main production period. Something to add further content to their game sometime after release.

    I would generally believe that the developers in this case did spend some extra money above and beyond the original game spec to create this content (though I'd imagine they definitely would have been able to do it at reduced cost by creating simultaneously with the full product as well). I can understand how it's reasonable and fair to charge a bit more but the cloak and daggers implementation is a bit disrespectful to your customer. They should really need to advertise this way of implementation prior to release methinks. To call it DLC is a con in most gamers eyes and is simple to avoid by explaining the release/unlock schedule from the offset.

    Doing things this way certainly sets a potentially dangerous precedent whereby some of the less honest publishers hold back content that was intended for the main game since they know they can reap a substantial additional revenue from locking it. And there definitely should be a bit if outrage at this potentially happening. Transparency is key.