The Video Game Critic

[QUOTE=Vexer]

I'm fine with DLC as long as it's stuff that's not already on the disc, day one DLC is total BS, there is no practical reason for it.[/QUOTE]

If you are okay with DLC, why do you care how or when it was delivered. Its the most practical means of delivering DLC imagineable as its already been delivered. I am not a fan of unlockable content, but day one DLC is basically the same as unlockable content, except the key to unlocking it is your credit card number and a ka'ching sound.

[QUOTE=Vexer]

It's the principle of the matter, it's outrageous when games force you to pay for stuff that's already on the disc and should've been available from the get go, it's perfectly reasonable to be against day one DLC(at least when they charge you for it) but not be totally against DLC as a whole, you're basically saying that you either have to be totally for or totally against DLC with no middle ground.

Day One DLC is NOT at all the same as unlockable content, don't know where you got that from, and it's not "practical" to force you to pay for something that's already on the disc.

[/QUOTE]My point exactly. Thank you

Well lucky for me Forza was free this weekend on xbox live.  So here are my thoughts.  Superb graphics.  I plays like Forza of old.  The download from the cloud every time you want to buy a car it s a pain in the rear.  Really the game is 40 gigs and it should just be on the disc already.  Actually all the cloud stuff is a real pain in the rear. 
But for me I would knock off points for the Clarkson and his inane mumblings. 

[QUOTE=Weekend_Warrior][QUOTE=Vexer]

It's the principle of the matter, it's outrageous when games force you to pay for stuff that's already on the disc and should've been available from the get go, it's perfectly reasonable to be against day one DLC(at least when they charge you for it) but not be totally against DLC as a whole, you're basically saying that you either have to be totally for or totally against DLC with no middle ground.

Day One DLC is NOT at all the same as unlockable content, don't know where you got that from, and it's not "practical" to force you to pay for something that's already on the disc.

[/QUOTE]My point exactly. Thank you [/QUOTE]

Vexar and Weekend Warrior say "It's the principle of the matter, it's outrageous when games force you to pay for stuff that's already on the disc and should've been available from the get go"

What should have been available from the get go is opinion, or rather market economics.   Just like buying a car, you can buy the stock model, or start adding in options packages.  You don't get all the options for free - but the car is a full and complete car either way you go.   Just because a company gives you the option for power seats or leather interior doesn't make them unprincipled.    You are not getting cheated out of anything - you just did not pay for all the available options.  Is it a way for the car dealer to make some more profit - sure it is, but is also makes some customers happier too to have the options, while other customers are happier with the basic more frugal model.

Let's say there is a fighting game.   Lots of characters and arenas.  This is a golden opportunity for DLC.  The base game (by which I mean no DLC at all) has sufficient arenas and characters where most players would be happy.  Reviewers playing pre-release or players testing beta are happy, and its said to be a full and complete game.  Its a bargain.  Its a system seller.  Huzzah.  Life is good.

Scenario A)  On release day, its announced that there is DLC for those that wish to buy it.  Several fan favorite characters or scenes from fan favorite games are included.  Developers have worked long and hard to create these bonus characters for months.  

Scenario B)  Three months after release day, its announced there is DLC for those that wish to buy it.  Several fan favorite characters or scenes from fan favorite games are included.  Developers have worked long and hard to create these bonus characters for months. 

The advantage of Scenario B is that it inspires customers to return to play a game they have put down, while Scenario A enhances the initial play experience, while the base No DLC option still should leave customers with the same Huzzah Life is Good feeling they had before DLC was ever announced.  After all, nothing was removed, just added.  

If you want dessert with your meal, now or three months from now, you have to pay for it.

Scotland's right--there's truly not a whole lot of difference between the two.

I think, however, we need to figure out the distinction between an expansion and DLC.

The Bioshock add-ons, Diablo III: Reaper of Souls, and Dark Souls: Artorias of the Abyss are both story and gameplay expansions that came long after the base games were released. It's unrealistic to say that Blizzard should have waited two more years to release Diablo 3 so they could include the expansion in the same package. Rather, Reaper of Souls (which was the death knell of the auction house), was part of Blizzard's ongoing learning process and the evolution of Diablo 3 over time with fan feedback taken into account.

I'm 100% against exploitation and anti-consumerism. But I'm not going to say no to more content just because of its method of delivery.

Comparing video games to cars makes zero sense.

Vexer you're not a platonist, it would seem.

[QUOTE=Oltobaz]Vexer you're not a platonist, it would seem.

[/QUOTE]

I think of Vexer as more of a Sophist.

Well my free copy of Forza stopped working and told me to purchase it.  Needless to say I did. Though I might if I see it cheap.