The point that everyone seems to miss every time one of these stories emerges is that, just because some (perhaps even most) of the assets and code required for a piece of DLC is shipped on the disc, it doesn't mean it was complete.
A game (or any piece of software really) is usually finished months before you hold it in your grubby little hand. During that final few months the game is going through rigorous testing*, with changes restricted to bug fixes only, and even those changes are kept as minimal as possible in order to avoid introducing more bugs. If the majority of the DLC content is on the disc, it may simply mean that once they called "code complete" on the main game and went into testing mode, a few spare developers and artists began work on some DLC. When time came to ship the complete and tested main game, they included what they had so far of the incomplete and untested DLC content to save bandwidth costs later. Work on that DLC continues well after the main game is in stores in order to complete and test that content before it too can "ship".
I'm not saying that this is always the case -- maybe there are some cases where a developer really does complete and test their DLC prior to shipping the main game, especially if the release of the game is delayed for marketing purposes, for example. All I'm saying is that 108k is more than enough space for a patch that fixes outstanding bugs in the DLC as well as enabling it, and that we shouldn't jump to conclusions based solely on the size of DLC package. If it were that simple, developers could simply bloat their DLC packages artifically with empty space just to fool you**.
* Or at least, it should be. If you've ever played a buggy game, it's because the developer didn't allow enough time for testing in their schedule, or because the publisher forced them to rush it out the door without enough testing.
** Rumor has it that Sony did this with some of the early PS3 games to ensure that they could claim that the game "required" Blu-ray and wouldn't have fit on a conventional DVD.
I get the point you're trying to make, but just because you're not affected, doesn't change how asinine this DLC situation has become. It's akin to saying world hunger isn't bad because I'm not affected. You kinda come off sounding like a dick.
Horribly analogy. DLC = world hunger? This isn't food, it's entertainment. It's entirely unnecessary and a luxury. The fact that we can afford to blow discretionary income on this hobby is something we can, and should, all be grateful for, considering half the world lives on two bucks a day or less.
As for sounding like a dick, if it makes me sound like a dick to tell people not to blow their money on stuff they don't want to blow their money on, then you feel free to attach that moniker to me; I'll wear it proudly in such a case.
* If you don't like DLC and you buy it, you should stop bitching about it; you're the problem!
* If you do like DLC and you buy it, you should stop bitching about it.
* If you don't like DLC and you don't buy it, you should feel free to continue bitching about it, as well as not buying it.
* If you're like me and you have a modicum of impulse control over your spending habits, you should exercise that control, however you see fit.
Enjoy your hobby. It is what you make of it. Nobody forces you to spend money on ANY of this stuff. It's a choice.
This is absolute horseshit and reveals your ignorance of economics, as well as your stupidity at paying more for a product that has a steadily declining price point.
Did you miss the part where I said I follow a similar purchasing methodology as you? I guess it is convenient to overlook that and name call. Stay classy Johan.
Quote:
Lowering the price of a product at retail launch can, in fact, lead to greater sales of said product and higher profits. Where the lower price point leads to a loss, rather than a gain, is an open question that requires the purveyor of the product to study the market and conduct surveys of consumer demand.
I'm well aware of this, sweetheart. I'm not sure how it is relevant, considering the "purveyor of the product" has determined that presently the $50-60 launch price is necessary to cover production costs. So, what I said is true, and what you said is also true. Funny that.
Quote:
Of course, for socially challenged people such as yourself who enjoy being dicks to random people online without any provocation, it becomes a much more enticing solution to spew verbal diarrhea on a forum about shit you know nothing about.
Do you ever read your own comments? Are you really that oblivious to your own behavior and persona on this forum? You are not a nice person - do you imagine yourself one? I don't enjoy being a random dick to people, in fact I rather prefer a vague sense of internet community, shared interests, and comradery. Even despite your rude and arrogant attitude, I rather respect you as a seemingly intelligent and independently minded person.
I specifically target your comments, because you seem to believe you have the right to pontificate unchallenged, and very few people have shown the patience to respond. You also snidely and repetitively state in >50% of your posts your purchasing behaviors. Okay dude, cool, you do things that way, it works for you. Other people have different systems that work for them. Can we move on to talking about games now?
I guess it is convenient to overlook that and name call. Stay classy Johan
Ironic, coming from the douche who lobbed the grenade in this thread, unprovoked. Did you expect me not to throw it back, and to fall on it instead?
Quote:
I'm not sure how it is relevant, considering the "purveyor of the product" has determined that presently the $50-60 launch price is necessary to cover production costs.
WRONG. The purveyor of the product has determined that the market will bear the price it is being sold at. That does NOT connote a correlation to production costs. The fact that many AAA titles launch at the same price as much of the shovelware we see this generation is evidence of this, as is basic economics and an understanding of price elasticity and supply/demand.
Quote:
I don't enjoy being a random dick to people
You could have fooled me.
Quote:
I specifically target your comments, because you seem to believe you have the right to pontificate unchallenged
Oh please. The entire site is full of pontification and buffoonery. It's a forum; it's woven into the DNA of such sites. If you didn't like it, you would leave. If I didn't like it, I would leave.
Quote:
You also snidely and repetitively state in >50% of your posts your purchasing behaviors.
50%, eh!?! I've heard that 99% of numbers/statistics posted on forums are pulled out of people's nether regions, so are you in that 1%?
Quote:
Other people have different systems that work for them. Can we move on to talking about games now?
I will continue to talk about whatever strikes my fancy, as you seem to feel free to do in lobbing shit-balls at me in threads like this. If it annoys you, report it or ignore it. Or, grab more fecal matter and toss it. Whatever floats your shit-boat.
As for your point about supporting production costs and the industry, I'll make the following additional points along with my economic ones:
* Nobody is responsible for 'supporting' the gaming industry. It's not a federal program for the underprivileged that runs on taxpayer support. It's a market filled with private enterprises which create products for profit. Support whatever you want, as I do.
* Very few people here have put as much money into the gaming industry as I have over the past fifteen months (since 1/09). I have purchased 200 games from Steam and XBLA alone, not including DS games, PC disc-based games, 360 games, hardware, and accessories. NONE of what I have purchased was purchased used (in the case of digital delivery that is a given, but all my products at retail are purchased new).
I LIKE GAMES, but I can't justify getting all the ones I want/have at a $40-$60 price point. How do I engage in such a voracious hobby? I'm patient; I wait for price drops. They almost always arrive, eventually, and I'm able to enjoy multiplayer even in OLD multiplayer games, because console multiplayer dries up like water in a desert, but PC multi does not.
Horribly analogy. DLC = world hunger? This isn't food, it's entertainment. It's entirely unnecessary and a luxury. The fact that we can afford to blow discretionary income on this hobby is something we can, and should, all be grateful for, considering half the world lives on two bucks a day or less.
As for sounding like a dick, if it makes me sound like a dick to tell people not to blow their money on stuff they don't want to blow their money on, then you feel free to attach that moniker to me; I'll wear it proudly in such a case.
* If you don't like DLC and you buy it, you should stop bitching about it; you're the problem!
* If you do like DLC and you buy it, you should stop bitching about it.
* If you don't like DLC and you don't buy it, you should feel free to continue bitching about it, as well as not buying it.
* If you're like me and you have a modicum of impulse control over your spending habits, you should exercise that control, however you see fit.
Enjoy your hobby. It is what you make of it. Nobody forces you to spend money on ANY of this stuff. It's a choice.
Not the best analogy I admit, but it's not comparing DLC and world hunger, it's comparing your emotional response to the suffering of others. More to it than that though, lotta in's, lotta out's, lotta what have you's.
I use Gamefly personally, so this issue doesn't affect me either. However, I don't like this business model of companies withholding content to gouge the consumer with down the road. I don't give a shit about Bioshock, but if this model becomes more pervasive, it will infringe upon games I do care about.
If I had it my way, I tell everyone to not buy a single piece of DLC for any game, but this of course is unrealistic.
it's comparing your emotional response to the suffering of others.
When people suffer from starvation I find absolutely no amusement or entertainment at all in it (who the hell would?). However, when people 'suffer' from DLC, I find that hilariously entertaining.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it! Gaming is a luxury. Crying over DLC is akin to crying over extras at the luxury buffet that were added after you finished your meal and started heading for the exit. It's quite survivable, I'm sure. You've had your meal. Wanted more goodies, for free? Sorry, but you already filled your belly at the trough. Life's tough.
