BioShock 2's DLC on disc already?

By Robert Purchese Published 12 March, 2010

Minute file sizes suggest so.

BioShock 2's first batch of DLC, the Sinclair Solutions pack, may have been on the game disc all along.

Users on the 2K forum (spotted by VG247) recorded the download size as a teensy 24K on PC and 108K on Xbox 360. That's what it says on the Xbox Live Marketplace page too.

Developer 2K Marin would need something akin to a miracle to squash all of the Sinclair Solutions content - two new playable characters, 20 new trials, a third weapon upgrade for each weapon, five additional masks, rank upgrade to 50 - into such tiny files.

2K Games is avoiding comment at the moment, which suggests that a more measured and senior statement be needed.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (160) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Markitron #1 2 years ago

    Rip-off Merchant bastards. Good game tho

  • Eraysor #2 2 years ago

    Buy this, and you're an idiot. You're just depriving yourself of getting content you should already have for free in the future.

  • darleysam #3 2 years ago

    Well.. this is the kind of move that doesn't help the perception of DLC. You can use the "we were still working on it" line and that's believable, things get polished up after the content is locked down, that's fine. But when it's actual content on the disc that's just being unlocked? That's not cool.

  • IronGiant #4 2 years ago

    Nice, selling downloadable content that isn't downloaded at all. Wonder what else is hiding on the disc..

  • Hunam #5 2 years ago

    I assume that these upgrades will be usuable against people in normal online play, so if they made the whole thing downloadable then the community will be segmented and those without can't play those with? Seems like they did this for that reason. It's still cheeky though.

  • tachometer #6 2 years ago

    don't deprive yourself of some pleasure, come on Bennett, lets party

  • speedjack #7 2 years ago

    Baring in mind the amount they must have spent making this (3 years and 5 developers) I can't say I'm surprised that they're trying all they can to re-coup costs

    Sadly I think this tactic may misfire as I would imagine most bought the game, played through the excellent single player, and avoided the average multi player and will therefore ignore this DLC.

  • tachometer #8 2 years ago

    I don't need the gun John. I can beat you. I DON'T NEED NO GUN!

  • gmmonkey #9 2 years ago

    So it's not DLC since you're not actually downloading the content? What a load of shit.

  • Shikasama #10 2 years ago

    If developers want to start selling me unlock codes that give me something already on the disc that I have bought, they better come round to my house in a thong and suspenders at the same time.

    That way we both get fucked.

  • asharkman #11 2 years ago

    Man this is pretty low.
    Shame to spoil such a good game with this crock of shit.

  • insincere_dave #12 2 years ago

    Isn't the multiplayer supposed to be utterly shit anyway?

  • alcides #13 2 years ago

    the "wouldn't have made it on the retail disc in the first place" argument is so hypocritical.

    there ARE developpers who think of DLC as added content that blends seamlessly in the game. Take Burnout Paradise. Although you still have to make room for the compulsory DLC installation through updates, even if you don't buy it.

    This Bioshock thing? Scam if it's true.

  • davisorle #14 2 years ago

    I'm sick of this whole DLC and each developer acting like a common scammer tarwards all gamers. Pity

  • miiiguel #15 2 years ago

    Just change the acronym to ODC (on Disk Content).

  • BBIAJ #16 2 years ago

    It's not like it's the first time it's happened though, is it?

  • woodnotes #17 2 years ago

    What is the legality of this kind of behaviour?

    Surely it's a little dodgy.

  • Shikasama #18 2 years ago

    OHHHHHH the gamer at his desk says MOO MOO MOO, MOO MOO MOO, MOO, the gamer at his desk says MOO MOO MOO alllll day loooooong

    Sing it with me kids!

    The greedy corporate cunt says CHING CHING CHING...

  • darleysam #19 2 years ago

    alcides, the problem is that there are people who seem to get angry at the very suggestion that developers have actually coded the ability to add extra content into the game. Like the very suggestion they were planning DLC down the line is an affront and just a move to pinch more pennies from our aching wallets. DLC needs to be planned in development, and yes, the content for the final game is locked down well before release (when it goes 'beta', it is essentially feature complete). When it goes gold, the final code is locked down and ready to be printed, and even then it can be weeks before the game comes out. That leaves a lot of time to work on things that were planned for the game but had to be cut, and should be fine to most reasonable people. A move like this, however, shows that it's content that was complete and intact when the game went gold, because it's just a small code to unlock it, rather than something to fix it up to working condition. In short, if they've spent extra time and money to work on it, that's fine and I'll pay. If it's something they're selling for no extra cost, then they're crossing a line.

  • dudefella #20 2 years ago

    Jesus fuck I thought DLC was past this. Thanks a lot 2K. Less discerning/ignorant customers will buy it and scandalous practices like this will continue. God damn.

  • darleysam #21 2 years ago

    Although I suppose, to be fair, when you look at the ideals on display in Rapture..

    edit: shouldn't a man be entitled to the content on his disc?
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/10 @ 16:35

  • bad09 #22 2 years ago

    DLC on the disc, project ten dollar completing the game but done so you think it's something "extra", levels cut due to "deadlines", horse armour, instant unlock DLC to save playing the game, maps as your "game" selection of maps is piss poor, costumes....

    Take your pick they all are at it somehow these days, we are constantly reminded they are all in the business of making money not games.

    / unplugs ethernet.

  • Caimbeul #23 2 years ago

    Everybody's Golf: World Tour on PS3 must be the same as the courses are only 100K.

    If it is there anyway then it should be available iin the full game. Simple as. The whole concept of DLC s that it is content that is additional to the game, not stuff that you physically have already and then need to cough up more money before you can play the content that is sitting there on your £40 disc.

  • Bonders99 #24 2 years ago

    The more people continue to fuel this greedy craze, this will happen time and again. As I said with the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC. I refuse to line the pockets of Ubisoft with a single penny after I have purchased the game. Maybe if more gamers showed a bit of willpower and called the publishers bluff we may get our way. But sadly I am not holding my breath with it.

  • DrDamn #25 2 years ago

    @Caimbeul
    Everbody's Golf World Tour is different. They added the courses with patch updates and then let you unlock them with small downloads. The paid for courses weren't on the disc in the first place.

  • Spungles #26 2 years ago

    Should have got for free? How do you work that out? You haven't bought that even if its on your disc. The deal is the deal regardless of where the code sits. Standard practice for years in B2B software to use licenses to unlock only features which have been purchased.

    If I handed you 2 boxes, one open which is for you and one which is locked and not for you, do you say you ought to have title to the locked box because its in your hand?

    Surely the focus should be on whether the DLC is any good for the price asked?

  • Acrid #27 2 years ago

    Cunts

  • bad09 #28 2 years ago

    "Surely the focus should be on whether the DLC is any good for the price asked? "

    Er...surely it's not "DLC" if the content is already on the disc you just bought, but then I guess "hey your disc has this on it to but we want more cash before you access it" wouldn't work well with consumers.....

  • Shrike #29 2 years ago

    It was going to be a small file either way: it's two player meshes and 5 masks plus textures, really, as everything else is code changes. What bothers me is not that this is on-disc content, it's that it seems entirely pointless.

    If it was a map pack, then I'd be angry.

  • wizlon #30 2 years ago

    Some games pad the disks with garbage to place certain files at certain positions on the disk.... do you want access to the garbage too.

  • GreyBeard #31 2 years ago

    The big laugh is that if this is seen as a problem for the publishers, then all they need to do is to start bunging loads of junk padding files into the download and noone would be any the wiser, and it wouldn't make a shred of difference to the value proposition being offered.

    So I suggest everyone takes a deep breath and a tall glass of shut the fuck up, because its a retarded complaint and one you have absolutely NO CHANCE of winning.

    PS. Sorry if that came across overly cunty, it really is a no-win situation though, and no number of rate-downs is going to change the fact.
    Edited by 2 at 12/03/10 @ 16:57

  • theguyfromspark #32 2 years ago

    Publisher grants X dollars for creation of game, developer calculates what can be done with the money and time provided... i.e number of maps, textures, models, gameplay features etc
    At the same time, Publisher grants X dollars for downloadable content for said game. Publisher calculates what extra stuff that money can pay for and if money was granted early on, there's a chance the dlc can be included on the disc.
    The extra content wouldn't be there unless someone paid for it to be created and in general, this money is in addition to the budget of the game proper.

  • _Price_ #33 2 years ago

    What the hell 2K. I thought you were cool.

  • harhol #34 2 years ago

    I assume that these upgrades will be usuable against people in normal online play, so if they made the whole thing downloadable then the community will be segmented and those without can't play those with?

    There's this fancy new invention called a "patch". You might have heard of it. It's crazy!

  • ruckus #35 2 years ago

    @28 It's a shit practice and obvious to all but who gain from it. I assumed I paid for the content on disk - not to find out later I didn't (unless I was aware via a contract before hand). Anyways - we're talking games for fecks sake. Not multi-tiered professional software (where the practice is shit anyway).

  • Gecks #36 2 years ago

    Spungles gets it. it's such an arbitrary point as to whether the DLC is on the disc or not. would it make a difference if they coded it all at once, put the DLC in the vaults, released the game, and then put the DLC out a month or so later? if they never released the DLC at all, would it make the original game worth any more/less?

    if a game isn't value for money on release, then don't buy it.
    Edited by 2 at 12/03/10 @ 17:09

  • binster #37 2 years ago

    "If I handed you 2 boxes, one open which is for you and one which is locked and not for you, do you say you ought to have title to the locked box because its in your hand?"

    This.

  • Ark117 #38 2 years ago

    ""If I handed you 2 boxes, one open which is for you and one which is locked and not for you, do you say you ought to have title to the locked box because its in your hand?"

    This."

    No, but if I had bought a box from you and included in that box was another box that was locked, I wouldn't give you any additional money for something I had just paid for.

  • zuljin #39 2 years ago

    I'm gonna try and brave the downvotes and ask, what the hell does it matter?

    The value of the DLC hasn't gone up or down. Either the content is worth the money they sell it for or it isn't.

    This is like people complaining that the demo they downloaded is actually the full version, and they have to pay to unlock the features! You know what is included in the game and additional content. Use your wallet.

  • Spungles #40 2 years ago

    'all they need to do is to start bunging loads of junk padding files into the download and noone would be any the wiser'

    Very true sir. Why download something if you don't need to? Just to PROOVE that you haven't bought it already it even though its plain that you haven't? Or as bad09 says, its to keep the semantics fans happy, you have to download it or can't be called DLC.

  • markypants #41 2 years ago

    That's a really shitty thing to do. I hope they get pulled up this.
    It shouldn't be allowed to be called DLC if you don't actually download anything.

  • Crazyreyn #42 2 years ago

    Someone should get the EU on the phone. They would go to town on this.

  • Mr_Git #43 2 years ago

    Ooh there goes the sound of the Bioshock 2 hype wagon losing a wheel. Bravo 2K, you're now on my shit list.

  • bad09 #44 2 years ago

    "Very true sir. Why download something if you don't need to? Just to PROOVE that you haven't bought it already it even though its plain that you haven't? Or as bad09 says, its to keep the semantics fans happy, you have to download it or can't be called DLC. "

    Well it's not semantics its selling your goods correctly to consumers, if it's on the disc and you are not downloading content say so, sell a "license" for the content rather than sell the idea of "downloading" content. Trying to mislead consumers this way only makes them trust your actions (no matter how well intended) less.

    I would say the reason they don't say it's already on the disc is because people would rightly kick off about it. No, much easier to make them think they are "downloading content" instead.

  • alcides #45 2 years ago

    @darleysam Thanks for clearing this up, it's true that DLC needs to be thought of before the game even comes out. I actually remember Wipeout Pulse's DLC segmented online gaming and wasn't compatible with local multiplayer either. They were pure "extras". What we see today is that developers always leave an option for their game to evolve, and that's fine with me. I'd be happy with just paying trophies for the existing games as is (oops did I say that aloud? No, Take Two, don't! no! nooooo!)
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/10 @ 17:26

  • kangarootoo #46 2 years ago

    I'm with zuljin on this one I'm afraid. I still find it bizarre that in this connected world, people really give a shit where data actually sits.

    Yes I realise that what people say they are getting annoyed about is that the extra content was finished at game launch and should therefore have been given to them for free, but that just defies intelligence. Seriously it does. The devs are under no obligation to give anyone anything for free. They just AREN'T. It just baffles me. I don't know how else to say it.

    The thing that vexes me the most is that if the dev had finished the DLC at exactly the same time as they did, but made you download it from a server instead, everyone would be happy. Its that simple.


    I will say however, some PR bod somewhere should have known this would be discovered and have a statement ready, if not pre-emptively released.

  • djed #47 2 years ago

    "If I handed you 2 boxes, one open which is for you and one which is locked and not for you, do you say you ought to have title to the locked box because its in your hand?"

    If the box belonged to you and you gave it to me, yes. Else, if you go around handing out other people's boxes maybe you should be boxed up yourself.

  • Markitron #48 2 years ago

    I think DLC is great when its justified. I dont mind paying to extend the experience of games I enjoy if the developers have honestly worked hard to add content after the disc has been released. Last generation people would have had to buy ultimate editions etc (perfect example is the ADA missions from resi 4) It really bothers me when they flat out ABUSE DLC such as in this case

    Fair DLC: Prince of Persia, Borderlands, The new RE5 DLC, CoD, Force Unleashed (tho a bit pricey) etc

    Rip off DLC: Soul Calibur 4, Bioshock 2, The old RE5 DLC

    Assassins Creed 2 is somewhere in the middle.............
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/10 @ 17:31

  • Spungles #49 2 years ago

    'I would say the reason they don't say it's already on the disc is because people would rightly kick off about it. '

    Nah, I disagree. I think its because nobody ever bought disc contents, they bought applications and assets. So no matter what is on the disc, you are buying what the seller has offered even if he handed you more than that.

  • alcides #50 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo And, it's better for our hard drives not to be crammed with content we don't have access to. But I do think DLC should make a game evolve, not let content it trickle at ridiculous cost. Also, if that's what it implies to pay for a new level cap, I don't like the idea to be forced to pay not to get my ass whipped by better equipped opponents.

  • alcides #51 2 years ago

    @the9192 The code comes in a compulsory update, or is already on the disc. For example every Burnout customer has all of the DLC on their drives, but only those who pay for them may use them.

  • tobsen #52 2 years ago

    The whole second game already struck me as a purely revenue-driven project without a true narrative vision, but this is (non-)DLC is just too cynical.

    Or am I just being naive?

  • bad09 #53 2 years ago

    "Nah, I disagree. I think its because nobody ever bought disc contents, they bought applications and assets. So no matter what is on the disc, you are buying what the seller has offered even if he handed you more than that. "

    So....why don't they be honest about it then? If it's on the disc it's not DLC. Not semantics, Fact. The license to play the content is down-loadable not the content. Sell it as what it is, an unlock key. Like I said pissing on consumers and telling it's raining is only gonna make consumers mistrust more. Selling unlock keys as down-loadable content IS misleading even if the end result (the content itself) is the same.

  • menage #54 2 years ago

    I don't care if I have to pay for shit. I do care about lying sob's. So no sale.

    At least be honest about it.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #55 2 years ago

    I did hope that developers were past this, after the backlash that Capcom rightly received for similar antics.

    Gamers are not fools. Thet recognise the difference between content that has been omitted from the original package (after all, it would have been included in a previous generation), and content that is genuinely new added content (Oblivion: Shivering Isles, the recent Resident Evil 5 DLC etc). Gamers are quite happy to pay for more of a good thing (the latter examples), but are quite miffed at attempts to sell content that has been deliberately locked out, and hidden behind the mask of a different 'licence'.

  • TRUTH #56 2 years ago

    If you like Bioshock - I recommend Metro 2033...The 1st review has been positive!...from the makers of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

    http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...

  • alcides #57 2 years ago

    another argument against this sort of DLC is that the buyer has no information that they buy into a timeline based distribution, nor do they know what actual storage space will be necessary.

    Of course if it's just extras, it's fine, but my games never ever make mention of paying DLC. Too bad for them, but maybe they feel the general abuse themselves, even the fair and square ones? And do not want the bad publicity?

  • RobotRocker #58 2 years ago

    Well, you were being told what you were getting. Fitting the DLC into the memory of a Spectrum is quite a Sinclar solution after all right?

    /Neg rep button is your top right kids.

  • Lord_Gremlin #59 2 years ago

    Milk it! Milk it!

    Jesus... So predictable. Bioshock 1 allows no sequels. Bioshock 2 is fan fiction, no more. And cash cow.

  • thomaspower0 #60 2 years ago

    The playable characters were in the art book (Limited Edition) too.

  • drumbaby #61 2 years ago

    It was already done and dusted, and on the disc, and they're charging for it like you're paying for extra work being carried out on the game?

    Cunts.

  • Syrette #62 2 years ago

    Pricks.

  • Spungles #63 2 years ago

    'So....why don't they be honest about it then? If it's on the disc it's not DLC. Not semantics, Fact.'

    Fair point. I still don't see anything wrong with putting it on the disc and selling a license though.

    Beer calls......

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #64 2 years ago

    "We tried to get it on the disc in time for release. We tried soooo hard."

    At least they can't wheel out that old chestnut.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #65 2 years ago

    Seriously EG - I know ads pay the bills but show some professionalism from time to time.

    You very well know that DLC is not a last minute decision where the publisher walks into the conference room, throws a dice and decides what will get cut just before the game goes gold. DLC is carefully planned and of course the additional content has to be paid for. Whether the data is already on the disc or not is completely irrelevant as it was supposed to cost regardless of when it was finished.

    Please judge DLC by quality, content and price and not whether you had to download it or not.

  • Salaminizer #66 2 years ago

    sheeeeeeeeeep @ #70

  • harhol #67 2 years ago

    This makes EA's "buy our game new or go fuck yourself" DLC policy look positively angelic.

  • FireMonkey #68 2 years ago

    There is a period at the end of the development of a game where less and less work is needed as the bugs are all getting cleared up and so the staff are quite often moved off onto other projects or if they are contracted they are sometimes let go.
    If the publisher wants 'DLC' then it makes perfect sense to use the money the publisher pays for the DLC on keeping these members of staff on the team to develop the DLC alongside the rest of the team that are finishing off the final bugs.
    This is quite probably what has happened here. The 'DLC' was finished before all the bugs were complete so they decided to include it on disc. It has already been paid for as an addition by the publisher so if the player wants it they will also have to pay for it else the publisher loses out.
    Putting it on the disc is not really 'that' bad. As someone said, they could have just kept it off the disc which would have cost some people more of their monthly download quotas and you would be none the wiser. I think what is wrong is that it was referred to as DLC where it should be called Unlockable Extras.

    ...and to those who say this wouldn't have happened on previous generations. Yeah, you're right. You just wouldn't have got these extras. In general I think you get much more from games these days than you used to and they are supported and added to for much longer afterwards.
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/10 @ 21:18

  • actionfitz #69 2 years ago

    "BioShock 2's first batch of DLC, the Sinclair Solutions pack, may have been on the game disc all along."

    for fuck sake.
    /sigh.

  • muscleblade #70 2 years ago

    They should have learned by now. Look at AC2 Dlc. nobody bought that right? Right?. I wont pay for this on principle.

  • GreyBeard #71 2 years ago

    I wonder how many people complaining here are paying the added premium for a Gold XBL subscription?

    I don't see too many pitchforks being waved because Microsoft locks off functionality to its online service unless you pay for it. After all, that functionality is available in the box you bought...

    Some people need to realise when you buy something, you're coming to terms with the provider and making a deal. Trying to change the terms of that deal after the fact doesn't fly in the real world.

  • Triggerhappytel #72 2 years ago

    "Buy this, and you're an idiot. You're just depriving yourself of getting content you should already have for free in the future."

    I agree, but tell that to everyone who bought the ACII episodes for 'completion' purposes.

  • FireMonkey #73 2 years ago

    Hmmm... marked down for trying to make people think about why this is happening.

    Let's try again. Hopefully I can explain things like this a bit better this time.

    Just think about how games are developed for a moment and it should all make perfect sense and not seem like some big con.

    The developer is paid x amount to develop the game by the publisher. That only pays for a certain number of staff working for a certain amount of hours.

    Now the publisher also decides it wants some extra content, now how are they going to get it made? The answer is that they need to pay the developer extra money to either get more staff in or to work longer on the game. This is what you are paying for. The fact it is on the disc is neither here nor there.

    This is extra content as it is not needed for the game to be complete, the games have been reviewed without it in mind and if it was not released no one would be any the wiser. If you want the content you have to pay for it's development. Would you prefer the cost of these non-essential extras to be added onto the cost of the game so that everyone is forced to pay for it whether they want it or not or would you prefer these extras not to be developed at all?

    To answer the other big complaint, 'It's on the disc that I paid for so it should be mine'. So how do you propose playing against someone online who has paid for the extra characters? To play against them as the new characters you need the model of the new character otherwise what are they going to look like? Imagine if the new character is half the height of normal ones. If you don't have the new model the character would have to be shown as a standard character on your console, so when you think you should have got a head shot on the character you see the bullet actually flew over the head of the new character. So whats the answer? Not to be allowed to play against people who have the new packs? To download the meshes onto your hard drive when you play against someone with them (which is essentially the same as having them on disc, but takes longer to get into the game as you need the download)? So what is the answer? The answer is, if you want these non-essential add-ons then you can pay for them and if not then don't.

    They only thing I think is wrong here is that the extras have been referred to as DLC rather than just Unlockable Extras.

  • Syrette #74 2 years ago

    Stop assuming you know how this works, Firemonkey. For all you know, there was no "extra work" involved in this.

  • FireMonkey #75 2 years ago

    How can extra content such as character models, weapon upgrades, masks, etc. be no extra work? If it took time to be made then it cost money to be made.

    (and stop assuming I don't know how these things work)
    Edited by 2 at 12/03/10 @ 22:23

  • Syrette #76 2 years ago

    The key word is "extra".

    Did they do all of the content in one go and then cut access to a part of it in order to be able to sell said content separately?

    Or did they create all the freely accessible content, came to a decision, and then spent time on this "extra" content?

  • kaya08 #77 2 years ago

    Meh, I quite liked the idea of DLC at the start of this generation. The more I see of it, the more I hate it.
    Worthwhile DLC is the exception at this point.

    Just increase the cost of the boxed game and stop taking the piss.
    Be honest about how much money you want for the damn game instead of this bullshit dripfeed of content with games costing anything up to €100.

    @ Greybeard
    "Some people need to realise when you buy something, you're coming to terms with the provider and making a deal. Trying to change the terms of that deal after the fact doesn't fly in the real world."

    It'd be nice if game developers would realise that
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/10 @ 22:45

  • Phishfood #78 2 years ago

    Unless you have to download a sizable update when you try to launch the game then this DLC is a rip-off.

  • rprince #79 2 years ago

    That or it's mostly procedural. Imagine that!

  • FireMonkey #80 2 years ago

    I agree that they 'may' cut things out of the game just to sell as DLC, but I really doubt it as they would be at risk of reducing the quality of the main product and so reducing the average review score and so getting less sales and making less money.

    Things get cut from every game due to many reasons (time frame, design changes, etc) and this usually happens before that aspect of the game is complete. Without these sort of paid for extras these things would never see the light of day, but if the publisher feels some people may enjoy them enough to pay for them, then they will pay the developer to keep members of staff on the team to finish off these things. This may mean that items such unfinished characters need skinning, texturing or animating, but that is something that can be done alongside a small portion of the original team finishing of the last of the bugs and the game going through the final testing stages.

    The way I see it is that a lot of this stuff is like the extras that you get on a films more expensive special edition DVD. The obvious difference here is that if you buy the normal cheap version then the only way to get the extras is to eventually buy the special edition as well (and so pay for the film twice). I'd much prefer it if there were just the normal (cheaper) version of the DVD with the extras on and then if I want them I can just pay to unlock them.

    Edit: I keep wanting to write short comments, but just can't seem to do it so I'm just gonna shut up now. 8)
    Edited by 1 at 12/03/10 @ 23:16

  • Velios #81 2 years ago

    It's like buying a new car, then having to pay Ford for a code to enable the power steering, or the heated seats.

    FUCKIN SKANKS

  • Velios #82 2 years ago

    Mind you... the costumes in SFIV are on the disk when you buy it - but you have to pay to unlock them, same difference I suppose.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #83 2 years ago

    FireMonkey, I don't think you will be able to talk sense into most of the posters here. They don't really grasp the concept of development and the general concept of additional content.

    Ignorance is bliss I guess. Had they deleted the content from the disc everyone here would probably applaud 2K for their efforts in creating DLC - completely ignoring the fact, that all of it had already been done before the game was actually released. It's just completely moronic to assume that the definition of DLC is "things the developer does once the game is sold in stores". Appearently, that is how the majority thinks DLC works.

    At least I finally upgraded from my 20gb HDD to a bigger one. I guess the wasted hdd space of a few hundred MBs worth of DLC that I would not even need to download - were it not for a few ignorant whiners - won't hurt as much in the future.

    Luckily for all of us it's a win/win situation. Consumers don't have to cry anymore about being ripped off and the publishers will still continue to rip everyone off - but without getting any bad PR just because someone was too lazy to delete a few files.



  • Der_tolle_Emil #84 2 years ago

    If you pay for something and then are denied access to part of which you paid for without handing over additional monies, then i believe this would be termed as a "hidden" cost. Which is generally regarded as an unethical business practice.

    You didn't pay for the additional content. You paid for the game as the developer and publisher intended and nothing more. Do you think just because you bought the disc you automatically own the soundtrack? The artwork? Maybe a few source code files still left on the disc?

    No, you don't own that stuff. As with additional content you can buy all that. You can go online and buy the soundtrack. Why doesn't it bother you that it's already on the disc yet you have to buy the soundtrack again? Why should that be different with additional content? Additional content is additional because you have to pay for it - no difference at all whether it's on the disc or not. It is not intended for you to access. Deleting if from the disc and having you download it later just means unnecessary work for everyone. MS to host the files, you to wait for the download to finish and having the HDD space available for all the content.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #85 2 years ago

    I never thought I'd see the day players, rather than companies, would support spending 50 to 60€ on a game, then taking it easy developers would charge extra so players can justify what they already paid for. If you bought the game, the contents are yours. If the developers increasingly make it clear it's not, there's no reason to spin the corporate line. You can't claim you're entitled to some degree of "rights" when you so willingly give them up.

    If the product is functional but visibly neutered from the get go, with the seller clearly stating added options need to be unlocked, that's one thing. Fine, it's tantamount to shareware. As long as it's clear, you can choose to go with it or not, but there's trust between consumer and seller. But if at no point the product is said to be handicapped but the seller acts knows it is, and sells it anyway, there's absolutely no trust, no reasoning, no excuse. If this was common occurence in any other industry consumers would bring this to the public and force companies to reavaluate their policies. But you don't buy albums with hidden songs, wherein a band asks you for money to unlock them; you don't buy condos wherein the landlord charges extra so you can use the bedrooms; you don't buy cars wherein the car salesman unlocks your right to use what's in the trunk.

    I don't know if it's a simple extra or not. It might just be, and it would be fine if we're downloading it: we've had access to weapons models, character textures and DM maps for past firstperson shooter by the hand of talented people, be they modders or devs, who were mostly unpaid or unrecognized for their work. A little pay for a little work goes a long way. But if this really is a case of charging extra for something already included in the game, choke on my groundhog, corporate bastards.

    But even without exact confirmation of what's happening, people are spinning the corporate like as if there was no tomorrow. I have no idea how things got so FUBAR. But then, when you see players activelly defending companies and their "products", fighting over market shares and using marketing terms in order to claim which is best, I can't say I'm surprised. Keep spining the market line, monkeys. You fully deserve being chump changed.


  • Diogo_Ribeiro #86 2 years ago

    "Additional content is additional because you have to pay for it - no difference at all whether it's on the disc or not. "

    No, additional content is content that's *added* to the original product, not stealth released along with it so the developer can go "Oh my. It seems we already sold it to you but forgot to unlock it. Here, buy your chance to unlock it".

  • Der_tolle_Emil #87 2 years ago

    No, additional content is content that's *added* to the original product, not stealth released along with it so the developer can go "Oh my. It seems we already sold it to you but forgot to unlock it. Here, buy your chance to unlock it".

    So what you are saying is that:

    "Oh my. It seems we already sold it to you but forgot to put it on the disc. Here, buy your chance to download it"
    is better than
    "Oh my. It seems we already sold it to you but forgot to unlock it. Here, buy your chance to unlock it"

    You do realize that the additional content was intended to be paid for - regardless whether it's on the disc or not. Putting it on the disc and locking the content is EXACTLY the same as posting it to the marketplace but only giving you the download link after you pay for it. You have the disc - you have access to the marketplace. Either way, you need to pay to access the content, whether it's on the disc or online. It really makes no difference at all. Just as you cannot download everything from the marketplace just because you bought the game you cannot access everything on the disc just because you bought the disc.

    Seriously, is that so hard to understand?
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 01:09

  • 1Dgaf #88 2 years ago

    How would people feel if they bought a washing machine, then had to pay to unlock a washing cycle?

  • Retroid #89 2 years ago

    Isn't this something like 800 points?

    Fecking rip-off merchants.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #90 2 years ago

    "So what you are saying is that:

    "Oh my. It seems we already sold it to you but forgot to put it on the disc. Here, buy your chance to download it" is better than "Oh my. It seems we already sold it to you but forgot to unlock it. Here, buy your chance to unlock it""

    I mean to say exactly what I said. It's not additional content. It was already included in the final product. Charging for it as it was additional content - DLC - is bollocks.

    "Putting it on the disc and locking the content is EXACTLY the same as posting it to the marketplace but only giving you the download link after you pay for it."

    No, it isn't, for the simple reason it's not downloadble content, it's unlockable content. You're assuming that the nature of pay for download content somehow carries more weight than wrongful product description. You're assuming since that since the content is - in your own words - "as the developer and publisher intended and nothing more", that it's less damaging. By your logic, players are not entitled to content on a disc if they're not told it's actually there from the start, because that's how the content was intended to be: invisible to consumers. "Hey, if we intended for no one to see this, then we're right to charge as if it wasn't already there".

    Feel free to talk about how games are licensed intellectual property and not fully owned products by consumers. But even in that case, there's no going around the fact we're being asked for a full-priced license and one smaller-priced license; basically, to pay for the license twice, when we've already paid for it once. That you choose to take it as a sign of good faith for "saving bandwith" or whatnot is your prerogative; just as it is mine to believe there's absolutely no reason to pay extra simply to unlock something I already paid full price.

    Further, the notion that integrating the extra content in the disc as a means to not "split the player-base" doesn't work. All it takes is for someone *not* to buy the "DLC", which results in not being able to play online with or against those who have. Something that wouldn't be a problem at all if it had been unlocked from the start.

  • GreyBeard #91 2 years ago

    This whole argument is just retarded.

    Was the retail game advertised as containing this material? NO.
    Was the game reviewed as if it contained this material? NO.
    Were you aware this material was on the disk when you bought it? NO.

    You didn't/couldn't buy it because it you didn't know it existed, and now you are demanding it as a right because some or all of its data was on the disc?

    That's just irrational and greedy.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 01:48

  • Shakey_Jake33 #92 2 years ago

    The whole thing can obviously be spun on it's head as many times as humanly possible and viewed from different perspectives.

    Some people feel that, given the content was developed during the original development process, it would have been part of the main game (or at least, unlockable) in previous generations, and view these 'unlock codes' as rather cynical. I think there's merit in that viewpoint, even if there are many points of dispute there.

    It depresses me when people bring 'licences' into the arguement though. It is a real red herring arguement that essentially justifies anything as long as it wasn't set in stone beforehand. Lets put aside the legal semantics and look at the real situation.

  • Kevashim #93 2 years ago

    @Greybeard. Well done on the simple summary of all the points that matter here. A product is advertised to you and then you decide whether it is worth your investment or not. It's really that easy.

    I could argue about whether the offered product here is really DLC or not, but that doesn't matter. The crux is that I am being offered an increase in the character level cap, new weapon modifications, new player models and masks for £3.40. It's then up to me to decide whether I believe that is worth paying for or not.

    Many other games have provided similar options, each weighing it at the minimum file-size of 108kb. Indeed in the case here I don't find it too much of a stretch to imagine that such a filesize could easily contain all that would be required to modify the game in such a way as to provide the result given. Assuming all player and weapon models are already stored within the base game files (and really, it is quite likely that there are a number of essentially discarded files stored on the disc) how much does it really take to adust the player levelling table and inform the game to use 2 new player character options?

  • Shakey_Jake33 #94 2 years ago

    ^In this case, people at the 2K Forum have actually ripped apart for DLC and have found it does nothing more that patch a flag in one of the game files, unlocking the content.

    I recognise the point you were getting at though, there have been games in the past where that has been the case.

  • FooAtari #95 2 years ago

    And yet another reason why I don't buy new releases, hardly turn on my 360 or PS3 and have turned to retro gaming on the PC...

  • Kevashim #96 2 years ago

    One amusing comment, originally posted by "Relight" on the 2K forums:

    "Also I do not see anyone making the argument that they deserve the pre-order exclusive characters... because those are also on your game disc."
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 02:36

  • Calundann #97 2 years ago

    Its just like in the supermarket when they accidentally scan your milk twice, except here its on purpose.

  • dudefella #98 2 years ago

    Can't believe there are apologists for this here. Yeah DLC has to be considered before the game is shipped, but this is just an obvious case of cutting content away just to sell it for extra cash later. There's no reason this shouldn't have been unlocked from the start, especially given that Bioshock 2's multiplayer was never gonna light the world on fire to begin with.

  • Stardusted #99 2 years ago

    There is a simple solution to all this. The company, some say, is entitled to do whatever they want with their content lock it unlock it relock it make you pay or give it for free downloaded or not.

    I say that's fair. Their game, their decision.

    I demand though that they actually inform me about it. Put a sticker or just mention that "in your game disc there is content which will be unlocked in the future, and not for free". It is the truth, and since it's nothing illegal why not say it?

    It is the company's right to sell at any price and any way they want. It is the customer's right to know since he pays them. If I knew of this I wouldnt buy bioshock 2. Why? Because. They can do whatever they want, and so can I.

    So next time tell me you...

  • UncleLou #100 2 years ago

    Can't believe there are apologists for this here. Yeah DLC has to be considered before the game is shipped, but this is just an obvious case of cutting content away just to sell it for extra cash later

    Nonsense, you don't know that. They might not have developed it in the first place if they hadn't planned on selling it as extra content. Likewise, even if DLC is not on the disc, it can have been cut from the main game.

    Point being: it means bugger all if it's on the disc already or not, it can have been cut from the main game or developed specifically as extra content either way.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 08:20

  • spliffhead #101 2 years ago

    That's it no more day 1 purchases for anything that may whiff of DLC.

    I can buy it for £14.99 after a month or two, or wait for the GOTYE and get all the bloody content to begin with.

  • Demiath #102 2 years ago

    I think they hid BioShock 3 on the disc too. You heard it here first.

  • Caimbeul #103 2 years ago

    @DrDamn re: Everybody's Golf....Fair enough :-)

  • Timbercottage #104 2 years ago

    cunts

  • Grievous1976 #105 2 years ago

    So i take it you lot are quite happy to pay for this kind of thing if it happens again/ or has happened already. Not that 2K Games or even Microsft would give a SHIT whether you were being ripped off or Not!

  • FooAtari #106 2 years ago

    @spliffhead
    That's it no more day 1 purchases for anything that may whiff of DLC.

    I can buy it for £14.99 after a month or two, or wait for the GOTYE and get all the bloody content to begin with.

    Thats my stance now. Like Grid with Race Driver: Grid Reloaded, the original game, plus DLC for £25. I've never really been one desperate to play a game the moment it gets released (never understood why most people seem to have this massive desire to play a game the day it hit's the shops, not something you see so much with movies and games) and I'm sure re-releases such as these are going to become more and more common. And of course games seem to drop in price with a matter of a few months. I'll line my own pockets rather than the publishers thanks.

    The apologetics surprise me. We are getting shafted now more than any other generation, and most are all to keen to bend over and pull their trousers down.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 09:59

  • mr_bez #107 2 years ago


    I really don't see how unlockable content on the disc is different to releasing DLC at or shortly after release, which could have been included on the disk. I don't like the idea of holding back content to be sold at a later date, but if the content is finished before release and they won't include it in the main game, I'd rather they included in on the disk than held it back and forced me to download it later. Especially if I have to download it via a title update when I haven't even bought the content.

    I had a friend who only just bought Little Big Planet and had to download over 6GB and wait several hours before he could play because of all the updates and DLC that he hadn't even bought. This is going to become the norm if people kick up this much fuss about unlockable content.

    And the number of people complaining that it's not DLC because it's not downloaded - it's only a name! Call it unlockable content instead, and decide when you buy something:

    1) Is the content included for the price you pay when you buy the disk worth that price or not?
    2) Is the unlockable content worth the extra cost?

  • mr_bez #108 2 years ago

    @Stardusted

    Put a sticker or just mention that "in your game disc there is content which will be unlocked in the future, and not for free". It is the truth, and since it's nothing illegal why not say it?

    Why? Should they also put a sticker on the box saying we may release DLC for this game in the future which will not be free. And would that also stop you buying it?

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #109 2 years ago

    And the number of people complaining that it's not DLC because it's not downloaded - it's only a name!

    Names and categories are what help consumers distinguish between products, be they a full-priced game, an expansion pack, DLC or something else. Would you defend a company charging you 50€ for DLC if they called it a "full game"? I mean, it's only a name right?

    Call it unlockable content instead, and decide when you buy something:

    1) Is the content included for the price you pay when you buy the disk worth that price or not?
    2) Is the unlockable content worth the extra cost?

    Is the content included any reason to justify forking over even more money for those who already paid something in the 50/60€ range? Is the content any reason to justify that players who want to play online may eventually be locked out of it because the DLC will be required, thus rendering moot the point that it was made in order "not to split the fanbase"? Hey, maybe it is worth the price. But seeing the industry getting away with whatever questionable or shady practice they can because of people buying into their excuses is priceless.

  • cawley1 #110 2 years ago

    Just regress to not playing any games post 2000, they were better in the old days and asshole publishers and manufacturers could not push crap like DLC and system updates your way either!

    Carts & CDs FTW!!!

  • Der_tolle_Emil #111 2 years ago

    Can't believe there are apologists for this here. Yeah DLC has to be considered before the game is shipped, but this is just an obvious case of cutting content away just to sell it for extra cash later. There's no reason this shouldn't have been unlocked from the start, especially given that Bioshock 2's multiplayer was never gonna light the world on fire to begin with.

    Why is it obvious that this is the case? Just because it is on the disc? So, if it was not on the disc and you need to download it, would it then be an obvious case of fantastic work done after the game was finished to give the gamers even more Bioshock?

    Where the data gets stored is no indication at all whether the DLC was something that was cut or whether it was something that was planned as additional content all along.

    I don't support cutting features and then selling them later. However, you cannot say this was the case just because the data is already on the disc. DLC often gets finished before the game is released because it is a part of the development cycle nowadays.

  • jellyhead #112 2 years ago

    Well, that part of the development cycle stinks.

  • cattypat #113 2 years ago

    Surely I am not the only one here who is older than 10 years old and remembers when any downloaded content was free as a compliment from the developers for being such a dedicated fan of the game, and to keep their game in your good books the next time a sequel or new game from the developers comes out? Paying for DLC is just asking for abuse like this situation to happen.

  • jellyhead #114 2 years ago

    Apparently the current 'right' way of thinking about it is to be grateful that we get anything at all for our £40.

  • TRUTH #115 2 years ago

    Latest reviews coming in for Metro 2033 - This is for Bisohock fans who want more reality in survival horror!

    Gamesradar - 9/10
    [link url=http:/ /www.gamesradar.com/ps3/metro-2033/review/metro-2033/a-20100 31216411659667969/g-20081219161559256082
    ]http://ww w.gamesradar.com/ps3/metro-2033...[/link]

    C&VG - 9/10
    [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=23 8823
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

  • Jackface #116 2 years ago

    I was gonna rail against this, but then I stopped and thought it through.

    I don't have a problem with it as I believe there's more than enough content in the basic game to warrant the price tag. So, they did all that content, set it aside as "The Game" and then worked on some extra stuff that is by no means essential that people might want to play. If you do want to play it you got to pay extra.

    What's the problem?

  • Jackface #117 2 years ago

    Earl Bassett wrote:

    "Can't believe there are apologists for this here"

    I really don't understand this either.
    Someone always comes in and says there is nothing wrong with it.

    You just can't justify it

    Yes you can. The basic game is plenty big enough for the price. There's your justification.

  • Slipstream #118 2 years ago

    Help! My disc is holding my game content ransom! It's demanding that I pay for something I've already bought!

  • des #119 2 years ago

    Pure garbage,you should be ashamed 2K...just keep digging your own grave developers,just keep digging

  • secombe #120 2 years ago

    Forza 3 is another good example of rip-off DLC, the track pack which the developers claimed they spent a lot of time and money on photographing and scanning the track, ended up being a 3 year old port of content from PGR4. They didn't do a very good job of hiding it either, the exact same advertising hoardings etc, not to mention the fact that most of the real-life circuit has been rebuilt since PGR4 so it was quite obviously very old content.

  • Syrette #121 2 years ago

    @ TRUTH

    They're the exact same review, taken from the same magazine (Xbox 360 World).

    They're all Future publications.

  • TRUTH #122 2 years ago

    Oh! never really checked both, but I hope Metro 2033 is gonna be the S.T.A.L.K.E.R adventure/survival/fps for consoles...All good so far.

  • narked #123 2 years ago

    if this is found to be true I won't support 2K anymore. such a rip off, hugely unethical

  • EMarkM #124 2 years ago

    I've just +'d everyone who actually understands the concepts here (like Spungles and Kangarootoo) to try and drag their postings out of the negative mire a bit. People really, genuinely, seem to have no idea what they are "buying" when they pay for a game. It also applies to music, movies, books and other things.

    You are paying for a LICENCE to access whatever limited content the publisher has decided to offer you. You do NOT "own" the entire contents of the disk, nor have you paid for the right to do anything you want with it.

    The worst thing that has happened here is that the content has been given the popular description "downloadable". It would have been much more accurate to describe it as "unlockable", but that is not the term in popular use.

    Internet = full of angry young men shocker...
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 18:02

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #125 2 years ago

    You are paying for a LICENCE to access whatever limited content the publisher has decided to offer you. You do NOT "own" the entire contents of the disk, nor have you paid for the right to do anything you want with it.

    That's right and guess what? Players get to pay twice for the "privilege" of not owning what they paid for.

    Gosh, how could anyone not support those loveable companies? With this and DRM, it's like they love us!

  • MMJoe #126 2 years ago

    Look at the GTA DLC - these were extensive additions to the main game and quite obviously most or all of the development took place after the release of GTA 4. The Bioshock 2 stuff is a ripp off because consumers feel misled - it was ready before launch (so purchasers believe they have a right to it) and it's pretty feeble for the price. 2K haven't broken any laws but they have abused their customers trust which will bite them on the bum hole in the long run. The shitty excuses they have offered haven't helped them much either.
    Edited by 1 at 13/03/10 @ 22:43

  • Grayvern #127 2 years ago

    The real issue here is of how much companies will decide they can get away with, not to do with their rights. It would be within a companys rights to charge you halfway through the main story of a game you bought to play the rest. Would it be morally right however is a whole different matter.

    I really don't think it is.

  • FireMonkey #128 2 years ago

    I really don't understand why people on here think that they deserve extra content just because it was complete before the game was released.

    If it was not paid for on the budget for the main game, but was paid for on a budget for DLC (which expects to recoup those costs from the purchasing) then the time frame of them finishing it is neither hear or there.

    What if the games release date got pushed back a couple of months because of other releases at the originally planned release date? The main game may have been complete a full 2 months prior to release, would you then want the develops to do nothing for 2 months or use that time to develop the extra content? If that content then happens to be complete before the final release date would you expect to get it for free still even though it was paid for from the DLC budget? Also, if it were finished before the final release date, is it not nice of them to slap it on the disc to reduce the amount you need to download (which may actually save the player money depending on the network connection they have) and save space on the tiny HD's supplied with the 360?

  • ShinMegami08 #129 2 years ago

    For every idiot justifying 2K ripoff:
    It would be the same as if you would buy a movie and 5 minutes before the movie would end, it would say, that you would have to pay 5 Euros to see the end. You wouldn't be happy with this either
    Or it would be like you would buy a CD and you couldn't play the two last tracks because you would need an unlock key. Don't think you would like this either.

    Don't like where this is going to: At the end you would buy a game and have to pay for each mission you play. They are just ripping us off. Don't support this shit!

  • FireMonkey #130 2 years ago

    @ShinMegami08 - No it is not the same. The game CAN still be finished without the extra content and you would not have realized there was anything extra if they had not said.

    DVD movies are actually worse than this as you buy a regular DVD of a film and you have a few extras on it, but then a few months later a Special Edition is released with even more extras on it. Most of these extras would have been complete before the film was finished (extra deleted scenes, storyboards, etc), but to get hold of these you have to buy the full film again! I'd much prefer the original film to have the extras locked on disc and I have to pay to unlock them.

  • Stardusted #131 2 years ago

    @mr_bez

    In the future a company might release DLC or expansions. They will charge and you will buy, or not. How is this comparable to having some features locked and already "living" inside the game's code, the game you bought.

    There are numerous reasons why the first is ok, and the second is just wrong.

    Let me tell you the simplest one, the very first that comes to my mind when I read such news. It might be silly or not important to some, to me though it is very important. They lie. It's DLC? You download anything? No. So how can it be downloadable content? It can't and it isn't. Why don't they just say "unlockable content" ?.

    They don't because that would sound bad. That would sound wrong to many customers, wrong in a not-illegal way of course. So they lie slightly.

    Trying to keep my post as small as possible, but let me also answer your question as I conclude it. Putting a sticker that says "we might in the future release DLC that you will have to pay for" and one that says "some of the content included in the game demands extra money to be available" is completely different.

    It is completely different because the first one does not refer to the product you already bought, it refers to future products. The second sticker is giving you information you should know as a customer considering the product you already hold in your hands the moment your read it.

    You really can't see the difference?

  • FortysixterUK #132 2 years ago

    When I bought the 2 pieces of DLC for Borderlands the files were over a Gb each ( Dr Zeds zombie island and Armoury)....THAT'S value for money.
    If, the files are on the disc, ( and it's not definite is it ? ) then it sure is a rip off.
    Won't matter however, as I doubt the DLC has anything to add to singleplayer like the amazing Borderlands DLC or Fallout 3 DLC ( for example), so it won't get bought.
    Enjoy the Bioshock 2 for it's single player value, don't buy the DLC and fuck 'em...maybe they'll learn next time.

  • Shikasama #133 2 years ago

    The only thing more awesome than my +72 for smarmy anti-corporate message 1 is the -39 for smarmy anti corporate message 2.

    Christ you have to love the internet

  • UncleLou #134 2 years ago

    No. So how can it be downloadable content? It can't and it isn't. Why don't they just say "unlockable content" ?.

    Because "unlockable content" is widely understood as something you unlock when playing/beating a game, not as something you pay for. You're arguing semantics about "DLC" while suggesting to replace it with something blatantly misleading.

  • UncleLou #135 2 years ago

    The thing that vexes me the most is that if the dev had finished the DLC at exactly the same time as they did, but made you download it from a server instead, everyone would be happy. Its that simple.

    Exactly. Seems like people won't mind to get fooled just as long as it's actually a download, instead of looking at the content as such and then deciding.

    So, tip for developers: people won't mind if you cut out content and sell it later on as DLC, but will complain bitterly if it was developed as extra content in the first place and is encrypted on the disc.
    Edited by 2 at 14/03/10 @ 00:39

  • Stardusted #136 2 years ago

    @Unclelou

    So unlocking would be misleading and downloadable content is not? Because downloadable leads to something that you download, and that sounds pretty misleading to me.

    Of course you have a point considering the fact that unlockable might confuse some, but I really don't think the solution is to lie. Let's just say that there should be some middle ground solution. Again I have nothing against what they are doing, as long as I know that it will happen before I buy the game.

    And since the content is already included they can inform me in advance. I'm sure they can do that without using the DLC term or the unlockable word that you pointed as confusing (which I admit is true to an extend).

    EDIT : Customers in general hate lies. Good business means both sides know exactly where they stand. I see that you and others will disagree though. I can't understand you, and since I won't persuade you either I'll stop posting on the subject (I already overdid it). I just wish the day we will be paying to get the "real ending" of a game is as far away as possible.
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/10 @ 00:51

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #137 2 years ago

    Exactly. Seems like people won't mind to get fooled just as long as it's actually a download, instead of looking at the content as such and then deciding.

    People aren't being fooled if they're told what they're getting in the first place. Doesn't matter if it's a download or not, and that's the case here. All you and others seem to be missing is that people against this situation are not against the content itself. Simply the matter in which it's made "accessible" to them. So yes, people do mind being fooled. It's not "semantics". It's about a developer not being honest regarding the product they're selling and about a developer arguing for measures that benefit the consumer when they're most likely to negatively impact his experience (again, someone who doesn't pay an extra fee over the 50-60 they already forked over may be unable to play online against other players who bought the "DLC";) when this could have been avoided from the start by making the extra content available right from the start.

    They very much will "complain bitterly" against this for the very same reason they didn't complain when they got DLC for Bioshock. Because the dev team behind the first game was honest. The second one wasn't. Honesty goes a long way in building consumer trust and only people like you can't seem to understand that, to the point where you go on about people don't minding "being fooled" because they see right through the thinly veiled corporate excuses.

  • UncleLou #138 2 years ago

    when this could have been avoided from the start by making the extra content available right from the start.

    And that's the point you're stubbornly missing. Read kangarootoo's post again. Let's be honest here, while I see the point you're making regarding the "lie", even if I don't agree, in the end you are complaining that it wasn't released for free seeing "how it was already on the disc", while you wouldn't have complained if exactly the same content, developed exactly a the same time, would now be a bigger download. Which is the amusing thing.
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/10 @ 09:15

  • zudo #139 2 years ago

    I agree that it shouldn't make any difference whether the content was on disk or downloaded, you get what you pay for and what you paid for was the content listed in the back of the box, not this new stuff.

    However, the fact that people are upset about this (logical or not) is a problem that the industry has to recognise and deal with.

    Other industries get away with this:
    Cars manufacturers put the same engine in cars of different spec and charge thousands for "unlocking" the extra performace with different engine management settings.
    Airlines charge more for the exact same seat depending on how many people have already bought tickets for that flight.
    CPU manufactures charge more for a chip that is physically the same but running at a higher clock.

    The problem is one of perception, and that's a problem the industry needs to address

  • UncleLou #140 2 years ago

    The problem is one of perception, and that's a problem the industry needs to address

    Yeah, agreed.

    So, just say you bought Bioshock on 'Direct to Drive' - would that mean the 'DLC' was included in the game files or would you have to download it? thus making it proper DLC?

    Good point. I have the Steam version, for example.

  • eisenhorn666 #141 2 years ago

    I usually like to be kissed first before I'm fucked, and I would never pay to be fucked

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #142 2 years ago

    while you wouldn't have complained if exactly the same content, developed exactly a the same time, would now be a bigger download. Which is the amusing thing.

    The amusing thing is your assumption of people and their arguments. If you can't be bothered to understand the points I made about the studio not being able to guarantee consumer trust and missing the point about how the content already splits the fanbase (and it's amazing how the devs didn't realize this), then don't try. Simple, no?

  • UncleLou #143 2 years ago

    I see you still can't follow. And you're arguing against the content already being on the disc, while arguing against the extra content as such ("splitting the fanbase";).

    God, I can't stand it if people aren't capable of simple logic and coherent thoughts.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #144 2 years ago

    God, I can't stand it if people aren't capable of simple logic and coherent thoughts.

    It was 2K Elizabeth, Bioshock 2's community manager, who said they included it on the disc so as not to split the fanbase. Once again, the fanbase is split the minute someone without the extra content unlocked cannot play with or against someone who unlocked it.

    So in other words, you can't stand neither them or yourself. Fair enough.

  • kangarootoo #145 2 years ago

    I'm rather surprised how many people there are in this thread talking sense. When this subject comes up, there are usually none, but in this case there are about 6!

    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.

    And the people doing all the "it's like buying..." Examples really need to think them through. Not one has really made any sense.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #146 2 years ago

    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.

    What about those not arguing for "free stuff" but instead arguing about the fact the content is being sold on grounds of misleading product description? What about those not arguing for "free stuff" but instead arguing against the fact the justification given out by a community manager contradicts the intended effect of the content distribution method itself? What about those not arguing for "free stuff" but instead arguing about a different method of content distribution that wouldn't place consumers at odds and showcasing just how poorly thought of the idea was in the first place, even if it meant *actual* DLC?

    How do those fit into your theory of being "corrupted" by wanting "free stuff"?
    Edited by 1 at 14/03/10 @ 22:59

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #147 2 years ago

    People think they own the games they buy and that seems unlikely to change.

    Just because some people don't have a perverse sense to exempt companies from the extent to which they apply their ownership, doesn't mean they don't know what ownership is. Arguing against intellectual protecionism is not the same as arguing against intellectual property.

    But that would be to give them too much credit, wouldn't it?

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #148 2 years ago

    @jonarob:

    In that case, my apologies. That was written after a Napoleon: Total War and Warhammer 40k blitzkrieg. Not that it really excuses my reaction but I was rabid and tired and kinda skimmed over some posts. Soz :(

  • kangarootoo #149 2 years ago

    @zudo

    Great examples.

  • kangarootoo #150 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro

    Explain to me please what exactly people are annoyed about. It seems to my eyes that the only thing people are really upset about, is whether they are actually downloading something over the internet. Looking at EVERYTHING else, there seems to be no problem.

    1. Player reads a description of Bioshock 2. They buy the disc. They play the game. They get exactly the experience that was described.

    2. Player reads description of extra multiplayer content. They buy the content. They play the game. They get exactly the experience that was described.

    So far so good.

    3. Oh noes!! Player discovers that when they bought the extra content, instead of waiting for it to doanload over the internet, they in fact just downloaded a right to use code.

    So in summary. Their initial gameplay experience is UNCHANGED. What they paid to extend that gameplay experience is UNCHANGED. The result of paying to extend that gameplay experience is UNCHANGED. And yet they are angry, because instead of data moving from point A to point B, the data was already at point B.

    Does that summary seem fair? Genuine question.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #151 2 years ago

    ^You ask me to explain to you why people are annoyed? Why not try reading what they're saying instead of lumping everyone into the same category? 160+ posts after the news came in, there's a good number of different opinions and perspectives. Not all of them fit into your theory, hence the question I made to you, for which there's still no answer on your part. If you believe in the theory you posted earlier, shouldn't it be you telling me why they're all greedy sobs who can't muster the intellect to undestand ownership? That was, after all, your argument. Not mine.

    A fair summary? You ask me what's fair when you seem to believe that "fair" and "intellectual property" are mutually exclusive.

    In any case I'd say it's not fair, to any consumer on any choice market, to be charged for a product whose creators are not honest about its contents. It's not fair, to any consumer on any choice market, to be charged with extra functionality for a product which at no point disclosed the actual content to them *prior* to their purchase. When you say that the players get exactly the experience that was described, this simply isn't true. It wasn't described at all until someone realized something was wrong, and until the devs were forced to go public with the information. I'd say it's not fair to claim the decision to include the extra content in the manner that it was included was made for the good of the consumer when in functional terms, it's not.

    If you believe otherwise - and that's your call - that's fine. I don't, others don't, but not all of those against the manner in which all of this was conducted are greedy homunculi.

  • Sticky_Fingerz #152 2 years ago

    Wow really not worthy of 5 bucks i could see if they had four new characters they didnt even add the two pre order characters that people may not have unless they pre ordered the game they totally looked passed them .... But i see more and more players ranking past 40 ... I personally wont be paying for this but to each his own.

  • kangarootoo #153 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro

    "In any case I'd say it's not fair, to any consumer on any choice market, to be charged for a product whose creators are not honest about its contents. It's not fair, to any consumer on any choice market, to be charged with extra functionality for a product which at no point disclosed the actual content to them *prior* to their purchase. When you say that the players get exactly the experience that was described, this simply isn't true."

    Oh come on. Everything I wrote above was to demonstrate how the CONTENT PAID FOR is identical, but its DELIVERY METHOD is the point of contension.

    You keep saying the content was not described honestly, but that is simply not true. It isn't. You also make reference to players being charged for extra functionality, with the suggestion being that the charge was "not revealed" to them, but this again is pure fantasy.



    I say again, as you seem to be avoiding the question. The ONLY impact on player experience that has resulted from this is that the method of delivery was not the same as many players presumed, and that the GAME EXPERIENCE and the AMOUNT PAID for that game experience is UNCHANGED.

    True or false. What I wrote above. Exactly that. Nothing else. True or false?




    And "humunculus"...

    an artificially made dwarf, supposedly produced in a flask by an alchemist

    Err, ok.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #154 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    Oh come on. Everything I wrote above was to demonstrate how the CONTENT PAID FOR is identical, but its DELIVERY METHOD is the point of contension.

    It's delivery method is but ONE of the points of contention. Again, that's not the only thing that's causing people to disagree.

    You keep saying the content was not described honestly, but that is simply not true. It isn't.

    At no point did the developers or the publisher made it clear you were unlocking content rather than downloading extra content.


    You also make reference to players being charged for extra functionality, with the suggestion being that the charge was "not revealed" to them, but this again is pure fantasy.

    Bullshit. I said the neither the nature of the content in the full game and the nature of the so-called DLC was revealed. Neither is "pure fantasy".

    I say again, as you seem to be avoiding the question.

    This coming from someone who still hasn't explained how or why those disagreeing with you have, and I quote, "their sense of logic is utterly corrupted by the feeling they aren't getting as much free stuff as possible" when simply *reading* many of the perspectives and opinions discussed across 160+ comments vary wildly.

    The ONLY impact on player experience that has resulted from this is that the method of delivery was not the same as many players presumed, and that the GAME EXPERIENCE and the AMOUNT PAID for that game experience is UNCHANGED.

    True or false. What I wrote above. Exactly that. Nothing else. True or false?

    True. Your point being... What? You're shouting and stamping your feet like a five year old to prove an argument that I'm not arguing against. I'm not arguing against the experience ending up being the same, I'm arguing against how the experience varies between those who paid for the extra vs. those that didn't pay; how the experience is shaped on misguided grounds of not splitting the fanbase; how the experience ends up risking consumer trust because there wasn't full disclosure of both products being bought. Hell, even Ubisoft learned to warn consumers of their DRM on game boxes.

    Then again, you could have realized what I meant if you read it. Whether you disagree with or not, it's right there, clear as rain.

  • kangarootoo #155 2 years ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro

    "At no point did the developers or the publisher made it clear you were unlocking content rather than downloading extra content. "

    So what!? Seriouly man, so what. My entire point is that it doesn't bloody matter. If it makes no difference to your experience, then it simply doesn't matter. I realise that many people seem to think it does matter, but that is the basis of the disagreement in this thread. But if the only thing people are getting upset about is that something was on a disc instead of being downloaded, those people are mad. They are upset on principle. They aren't upset because they have lost anything, or because they have paid more for something than they otherwise would have done, they are simply upset for made up reasons.

    The game experience that people paid for is as described. What I have been asking you for is a clear description of what it actually is that you are actually upset about. What it is that you feel you have lost, or been overcharged for?


    ""I said the neither the nature of the content in the full game and the nature of the so-called DLC was revealed"

    Again I ask, what does it matter that the "nature" of the content is different. We know beyond doubt that the only way in which the "nature" of the content differs is how it is delivered to you. In fact, should you choose to install the disc to your hdd, the "nature" of the content is identical to how it would be had you downloaded it.



    "I'm arguing against how the experience varies between those who paid for the extra vs. those that didn't pay; how the experience is shaped on misguided grounds of not splitting the fanbase"

    But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The same change in experience and dividing of the userbase would occur whether the data was on disc or was downloaded over the web. Are you actually just annoyed about chargeable game updates of all kinds?


    Let me summarise my point of view, as you are right, I don't think I have any idea what you are arguing for or against anymore.

    It doesn't matter where the data is, it just matters what the data is, and whether you paid for it. The idea that is matters, or means something, that the data was on the disc all along is frankly nonsense. It is something that makes people feel put out, even though they haven't lost anything (what have you lost exactly?). It makes people start going on about the "nature" of content, as if that is the best they can do to quantify what it is that they feel has been stolen from them.


    If this data had been on a server somewhere, waiting to be downloaded, you would be happy. Because someone "downloaded it for you", stuck it on a disc, and handed that disc to you... you are upset. Tell me with a straight face that isn't weird.

  • President_Weasel #156 2 years ago

    It doesn't matter if it's on the disk or not. The question is, would they have spent the time and effort (and wages) working on it if they weren't going to sell it as DLC.
    If there's more content for the game than there would otherwise have been, and you're being asked to pay a reasonable amount for it, then it doesn't matter whether the data is on the disk, downloadable via PSN/XBLA, or obtainable via some eldritch ritual involving a ouija board. They put extra work in to make extra content over and above the game, and they expect to be paid for it.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #157 2 years ago

    So what!? Seriouly man, so what. My entire point is that it doesn't bloody matter.

    If you don't care about the points other people are discussing, then... Yeah. So what. Are you bothered that other people have been discussing other issues instead of yours? Or that they don't feel the need to, at each new post they make, provide a disclaimer that concedes to your point before they talk about the ongoing subject without sharing or repeating your stance? It's like saying you don't understand what I'm talking about because it's not the same thing you're talking about.

    What I have been asking you for is a clear description of what it actually is that you are actually upset about. What it is that you feel you have lost, or been overcharged for?

    Even after about 5 posts in a row talking about the very things you're constantly asking me about, you're still quoting me and still not paying attention to what you're quoting. Hey, maybe it was wrong of me to assume that after quoting me several times, you'd understand where I was coming from, even if you didn't agree with me.

    Again I ask, what does it matter that the "nature" of the content is different.

    Nothing, if you don't mind being an uniformed consumer and paying for content that doesn't really relate to what you're buying. I'm sure there's a market somewhere out there for people willing to pay 50€ for DLC if it's called a "full game" because - hey! - it doesn't matter. The question is: are you certain every single person up in arms because of the so-called DLC would be having the same reaction if they had been told right from the start Bioshock 2 had locked content and that they'd have a chance to unlock it at some point in the future? Somehow, I don't think there would be such an upheavel.


    Are you actually just annoyed about chargeable game updates of all kinds? // If this data had been on a server somewhere, waiting to be downloaded, you would be happy. Because someone "downloaded it for you", stuck it on a disc, and handed that disc to you... you are upset. Tell me with a straight face that isn't weird.

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer .net/articles/2k-explains-bioshock-2-on-disc-dlc/comments#co mment1513957
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-exp...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer .net/articles/2k-explains-bioshock-2-on-disc-dlc/comments#co mment1514005
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/2k-exp...[/link]

    Yeah. Hella weird, man! I'm so against paying that I suggested 2K Games should've factored the price of the "extra" into the final version of the game and making it available from the start. It's like a time paradox without Bill and Ted's antics.

    As I've said before, I'm not arguing the experience is changed. As I've said before, I'm not arguing against the basis of intellectual property, I'm arguing against protectionism surrounding it. I'm not arguing against 2K Games doing business whatever way they want, I'm arguing how the ethics of their business is dubious and should be reconsidered if they expect to gain trust from the consumer. I'm not arguing against the nature of the content, I'm arguing against the marketing of the content which was being described as "additional content" when no content was being added - rather, unlocked - and arguing against the notion that the method of content delivery (as well as its funcionality) does not split the fanbase (it doesn't take a genius to realize how it did). I'm not arguing against the fact people have to pay for content, I'm arguing if it's acceptable to pay for content which up until recently was coasting on the consumers' good will that it was an extra and not something that had been included right from the very start with the disc.

    All you had to do was read what I previously wrote.

    And once again, if the only "point" you can derive from the ongoing discussion is that none of this matters, why pester me for something you couldn't be arsed about? Either agree to disagree and move on, or stop making it sound like your point is the only one people are considering and/or that it should be the only one worth considering and/or that anyone disagreeing with your high fiving circle jerk of IP defenders can't understand ownership and want things for free.

  • cyber_nicco #158 2 years ago

    I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, it does feel a little underhanded, but on the other hand one buys what one buys. Does it really (deep down) matter if they put it on the disc or not? There really is nothing that says all content on the disc has to be released, or that all completed content needs to be included in the initial purchase.

  • dnd #159 2 years ago

    @cyber_nicco

    agreed...except i don't feel that it was terribly underhanded. though i do think that 2k should perhaps have been more 'PR' savvy and realised that weak-minded idiots might get upset about it :p. i don't understand what the issue is, you bought the game knowing full well what it was, and what the gameplay experience was. now suddenly because it turns out that 'shock horror' they created stuff that was not part of the experience you bought, suddenly you expect that it should be free?

    let me ask, when movie studios release a 'director's cut' of a movie with extended footage, do you storm back to the cinema and have a whinge that it should have been included in the original release? dubious analogy, granted, but most, if not all of the footage, sound etc was 'finished' at the time the movie was released. some of it literally gets cuts at the last stage of production, ie it is completely finished.

    do you whinge when music artists release tracks in a later album that they originally wrote and recorded for an earlier album? should that have been included because 'GODAAMIIT THEY WERE WORKING ON IT AT THE SAME TIMEZZZZ!!!'

    per-lease...

  • nichotshoter #160 2 years ago

    I think all developers are thiefs that's y I'm not buying any downloadable content.