Zero day DLC = disrespecting the customer

[Commander Bello]

Except that it does. If you buy a game, you expect to be buying the complete game. DLC released on day zero means that something was withheld, and therefore you are not getting the complete game.

Which is just another step into the direction of ripping the customer.

I remember the days of games being issued without the chance of getting "patches". Guess what, most of those games worked out of the box.

Then patches were eventually released via discs/CDs being attached to computer magazines.
Then patches were made available via internet.
Then DLC was "invented".

And now, for the sake of making more money, they are starting to make zero-day-DLC.

No, actually they won't make more money, since I will not support this development.
Civ4 is good enough, especially due to the mods. No Civ5 for me.

 

[Commander Bello]

On the other hand, there are games where the developers work on the game, then explicitly REMOVE content from it, release the game at full price then try to sell the pieces they removed as DLC on the same day the game is released - essentially reducing the quality of the released game and abusing the concept of DLC for extra money.

Now, obviously that's not what is happening here with Civ 5. There is no announced DLC, there is an extra civ they have explicitly written as a Delux Edition bonus in the same way they would commission a special box for the collectors edition in other games. That's not what DLC is.

Zero-day DLC does not apply here, but there is a valid reason to object to a company that does this.

I think it is exactly zero-day-DLC, they just call it a DE to hide this fact.

 

[Krill]

I think there is a distinction here. From how I understand it, there is one situation where the developers work on a game, release the game, work on additional content then release additional content - and this is reasonable, even if they charge for the additional content.

On the other hand, there are games where the developers work on the game, then explicitly REMOVE content from it, release the game at full price then try to sell the pieces they removed as DLC on the same day the game is released - essentially reducing the quality of the released game and abusing the concept of DLC for extra money.

The only distinction from the end user PoV with respect to release day, is the quantity and quality of content that is received at a set price. Zero day DLC can therefore only be viewed as a money grabbing exercise - but so is any DLC. That in itself is not ethically wrong.

What is wrong is the type of content that is getting released, and the only reliable methods of forcing the monopoly.

Now, obviously that's not what is happening here with Civ 5. There is no announced DLC, there is an extra civ they have explicitly written as a Delux Edition bonus in the same way they would commission a special box for the collectors edition in other games. That's not what DLC is.

Zero-day DLC does not apply here, but there is a valid reason to object to a company that does this.

Semantics. There is no tangible difference between Zero day DLC and a deluxe edition that you can only get via pre-ordering via an on-line retailer that will provide the game via download.

@others: it is stupid for anyone to read a post that says "Firaxis may restrict what you can do" and then decide they're not going to buy the game because of the POSSIBILITY that they might be restricted. If Firaxis says tomorrow that there will be no restrictions, what are you going to do? Take your hysteria elsewhere and wait for facts please.

Personal attack. And I thought the CFC mods came down rather hard on this sort of thing? Obviously they've mellowed a bit.

 

[Chalks]

I think it is exactly zero-day-DLC, they just call it a DE to hide this fact.

Well what if the additional content was only available with the physical collectors edition and there was no delux edition? Content would be identical, would you still have such ease calling it DLC?

You're confused between DLC (incremental releases of content after release) and a version with additional content.

You can dislike them both, but just using the term "DLC" to classify any special content regardless of context is incorrect.

The only distinction from the end user PoV with respect to release day, is the quantity and quality of content that is received at a set price. Zero day DLC can therefore only be viewed as a money grabbing exercise - but so is any DLC. That in itself is not ethically wrong.

What is wrong is the type of content that is getting released, and the only reliable methods of forcing the monopoly.

No - if they release a full game then spend time writing content, there is no way that content could have been in the game when it was released. The customer is not losing out, they're simply getting an additional opportunity to expand their game after the initial purchase. Their initial purchase couldn't have been any better because this content didn't exist then.

It's difficult to object to being offered additional content that was written since you bought the game.

Personal attack. And I thought the CFC mods came down rather hard on this sort of thing? Obviously they've mellowed a bit.

No, a personal attack is attacking a person. Attacking what someone said is called "disagreement". Hopefully they've not outlawed that just yet! And the point still stands.

 

[mechaerik]

Even if you believe the Deluxe Edition isn't DLC, what about the mappack?

 

[Chalks]

Even if you believe the Deluxe Edition isn't DLC, what about the mappack?

A free preorder incentive?

In order to complain about 0-day DLC, they'll need to release DLC for purchase on the same day the game is released.

Giving someone an incentive to preorder is pretty common - the price is discounted by $10 too.

Now, I'm not saying they're not going to pull a real dick move and release a whole bunch of 0-day DLC that they've clearly removed from the game just to make us pay more as soon as it comes out. And if they do that, I'm gonna be pretty annoyed.

But that would be a different situation to the current one.

Feel free to be annoyed about this situation too, but if they do the above ^ I doubt anyone here will be saying "absolutely nothing has changed".

 

[Commander Bello]

If Firaxis says tomorrow that there will be no restrictions, what are you going to do? Take your hysteria elsewhere and wait for facts please.

In case Firaxis or better, 2k would announce to abolish the Steam binding, after all what I know about Civ5 so far, I would buy it at release day.

Since there is such Steam binding, I will not buy it.

So, I am waiting for facts making it meaningful to buy Civ5.

Well what if the additional content was only available with the physical collectors edition and there was no delux edition? Content would be identical, would you still have such ease calling it DLC?

Obviously not, since it wouldn't be DLC. (For the meaning of DLC, see below)

You're confused between DLC (incremental releases of content after release) and a version with additional content.

To the best of my knowledge, DLC stands for "downloadable content".

Since this content in question is downloadable - actually it cannot be retrieved in any other way - and it is "produced" prior to the release of the game, there obviously is a limited version in terms of what is availabe (the "normal" or "standard" version) and the DLC, which is just called DE to make it less obvious that the customer will have to pay for such content.

You can dislike them both, but just using the term "DLC" to classify any special content regardless of context is incorrect.

As stated above: downloadable content is downloadable content - abbreviated as DLC.

No - if they release a full game then spend time writing content, there is no way that content could have been in the game when it was released. The customer is not losing out, they're simply getting an additional opportunity to expand their game after the initial purchase. Their initial purchase couldn't have been any better because this content didn't exist then.

It's difficult to object to being offered additional content that was written since you bought the game.

And that is exactly what is not happening with the DLC which is called DE, for which the customer has to pay.

 

[Chalks]

To the best of my knowledge, DLC stands for "downloadable content".

Since this content in question is downloadable - actually it cannot be retrieved in any other way - and it is "produced" prior to the release of the game, there obviously is a limited version in terms of what is availabe (the "normal" or "standard" version) and the DLC, which is just called DE to make it less obvious that the customer will have to pay for such content.

/sigh

The reason why people object to "downloadable content" is not because it is downloaded. Or because it is content.

If you could buy the delux edition in a physical box as well, I don't think your objections would go away.

When you decide to stop playing "lets evaluate this concept by solely defining the words it contains" let me know.

 

[Krill]

Well what if the additional content was only available with the physical collectors edition and there was no delux edition? Content would be identical, would you still have such ease calling it DLC?

What? You are saying if every game had the same content, and cost the same, would there be a problem? Personally, I would not have a problem.

There would still be the problem if 2K intended to follow a micro payments for vanilla game DLC (ie new units, resources, new civs), that affected game balance.

You're confused between DLC (incremental releases of content after release) and a version with additional content.

You can dislike them both, but just using the term "DLC" to classify any special content regardless of context is incorrect.

Fluff. And semantics. It doesn't matter what you call the method or selling, or the idea. The problem is that 2K are selling core game data at a rather inflated rate via a distribution method that allows them to lock out anyone

This doesn't address the issue of mods being off limits, and the changing positions that 2K would have to take with.

Also, as above. DLC = downloadable content.

No - if they release a full game then spend time writing content, there is no way that content could have been in the game when it was released. The customer is not losing out, they're simply getting an additional opportunity to expand their game after the initial purchase. Their initial purchase couldn't have been any better because this content didn't exist then.

It's difficult to object to being offered additional content that was written since you bought the game.

Depend show you define the "full game". Having been part of the CIV beta team, I know that the game is always in flux, and what is part of version 1.00 is not everything that has been created for the game. As code lock down will start at the latest by the end of June, there is lots of content that is created after the code lock down, but before release date, that is not part of the game.

Should this be sold as DLC? Should this be charged for? This isn't for the customer to decide, what is for the customer to decide is if they feel the product that they are buying is a worthwhile product to own.

And that wasn't my point. 2K could release the content free of charge, or they could charge money per download, or they could release it in terms of expansion packs.

2K have decided to charge money for the download, which contains data that is not peripheral but critical to game balance.

So, it does matter when the content (and it doesn't matter if it is downloaded or not, just that it is released) is to do with game balance. IIRC 2K have already stated that patches will be FoC (which is interesting in itself that they've said that and nothing else: They've allayed some fears, but when you look at it they haven't promised anything as patches for bugs depend on what 2K and/or Firaxis consider bugs). If 2K released some DLC that altered the vanilla game warfare balance...then how are players supposed to play MP together? They realistically can't alter the vanilla game via paid for DLC without completely fracturing the communities.

No, a personal attack is attacking a person. Attacking what someone said is called "disagreement". Hopefully they've not outlawed that just yet! And the point still stands.

it is stupid for anyone to read a post that says "Firaxis may restrict what you can do" and then decide they're not going to buy the game because of the POSSIBILITY that they might be restricted. If Firaxis says tomorrow that there will be no restrictions, what are you going to do? Take your hysteria elsewhere and wait for facts please.

So demeaning posters here for their opinions isn't a personal attack?

 

[Chalks]

What? You are saying if every game had the same content, and cost the same, would there be a problem? Personally, I would not have a problem.

No, as in if there were 2 physical versions of the game, one with babylon and one without. Would you still be complaining about DLC? But you don't download it. But the problem is the same. Oh dear!

Fluff. And semantics. It doesn't matter what you call the method or selling, or the idea.

Yeah, gee, if only the meaning of words wasn't a vital part of communication.

So demeaning posters here for their opinions isn't a personal attack?

Tell me, if describing a statement as "stupid" is "demeaning", what is starting a reply with ? If you're going to be this petty, your replies had better be a record setting example of courtesy.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: I'd appreciate leaving the discussion about posting style by the wayside - we do indeed discourage personal attacks quite strongly, especially with the amount of such posts flying around currently. So how about returning to a civil[ized] discussion about the topic at hand?

 

[Thyrwyn]

The problem is that 2K are selling core game data at a rather inflated rate via a distribution method that allows them to lock out anyone
....
2K have decided to charge money for the download, which contains data that is not peripheral but critical to game balance.

I do not understand the reasoning behind either of these claims. How is the existence of a 19th civ "core game data"? How is it "critical to game balance"? Is the 19th civ inherently better than all the other civs? Does having the 19th civ change the core mechanics of the game regardless of which civ you are playing? Does combat work differently? Tile yields? The Tech Tree? Will it allow you to mop the floor with any other civ in multi-player?

As far as we know (and can reasonably expect) the answer to all of these rhetorical questions is . . ."No." The only thing you will miss by not having the 19th civ . . . .is the 19th civ.

As for those who claim that Firaxis/Take2 is somehow "withholding" content. . .why should the consumer be entitled to any of the work they've done? If I go to McDonalds and order a small fry - should I complain because the are "withholding" all the other fries in the bin? They were already made. . .

The work they put in to produce the 19th civ took effort - they have the right to charge for that effort where and when they see fit - just as you have the right to NOT pay for it.

They could have only released a 19 civ version and charged the higher price. But then people would be complaining about that, too.

 

[arstal]

$10 extra is 20% more of the cost.

I don't think the differences in extras took more then 2% of the dev effort.

So yeah, it is a form of price-gouging.

I tend to not buy DLC that often, but I have on occasion. (I did buy the Soul Calibur IV customization packs).

DLC has no real place on the PC though with mods filling the gap. It's just another attempt at consolization from the big-boy publishers.

I do wonder if Firaxis will end up "Respawning" under a different name in a few years right now.

 

[DRJ]

The deluxe edition also gives the game sountrack, just in case anyone considers that to be of value.

Also, a Behind the Scenes video or something. Maybe even worth 50c or so on its own.

If the behind the scenes video does show how they planned to rip off the customers by adding "deluxe" edition + dlc, making steam mandatory etc. pp. I would really like to see it.

But then again, I guess those management decisions, accompanied with perpetual drooling and greedy rubbing hands would be cut off---

 

[civ_king]

What if they haven't made it yet, what if it will be made between the time the game is sent to printers and the release date? then they can't put it on disc because it isn't done yet

 

[The_J]

That's the only half ways acceptable explanation.

But if it is so, we'll see Civ6 with only 10 civs in the box, 8 released later, because they've been short of time.

 

[Rub'Rum]

That's the only half ways acceptable explanation.

But if it is so, we'll see Civ6 with only 10 civs in the box, 8 released later, because they've been short of time.

That is maybe an exageration, BUT, it is also a valid point, for me anyway. This practice, and a lot of what is going on in the gaming industry these days, is a slippery slope. A very slippery one that we're already sort of halfway into. And kids don't see it because they don't remember having better? Maybe that's something to exploit for game companies: their customers are on average relatively young and don't remember the past... (yeah Civ may be an exception, but we're not in the patio sets or hair dye businesses either).

 

[deanej]

That's probably it. Especially since most gamers move on to the next game in a few months, the gaming industry can make changes very quickly.

 

[Duuk]

You know what's silly? Many of the people complaining about the DE and its extra $10 for Babylon and a map pack probably, like myself, paid $10-$20 extra (I don't recall how much it was different now) for a prettier box and a soundtrack for Civ4. A soundtrack, mind you, that is available with the base game in mp3 format in the Sounds\ directory.

Seriously people. Suck it up.

And I've pointed it out before, and I'll point it out again:

This forum has around 50,000 registered users.

Civ4 sold 4,000,000 copies. If every... single... person on this forum protested and didn't buy Civ5, it would be a net loss of 1% of total sales. Which would be made up for with the first DLC pack of Austria and Poland (which would sell like hotcakes for $6).

DLC is the wave of the future for gaming companies and allows them to maintain development on existing titles profitably. Under the old system, once a product was shipped the publisher had no financial reason besides "it might make us look bad in the future" to support patching a product. Some companies (Paradox, Firaxis, Blizzard) make patches a priority. Some ignore it completely. If you add in "We can raise an extra $200k by releasing an Australia-Canada-Scotland pack for $8, which pays for Jon Shafer to spend 100 man hours bug-fixing!", then suddenly companies have a vested interest in maintaining the product for a longer foreseeable future.

Quit whining, accept the inevitable.

 

[phungus420]

Duuk, look at Civ4; it still has strong sales figures, even this far after release. If you make a good game, and support it there is plenty of monetary incentive. Your argument is just a justification for pure greed, it's what's wrong with this country.

It's also ironic you tote a mod in your sig that would be impossible to implement and use like it is done currently in Civ4 if we end up with locked assets caused by DLC.

It is my opinion that withholding content for the expressed purpose of bilking potential customers on release day is shallow. That's my opinion, it's not whining to say so. What is shallow and pathetic is attempting to label your opposition with purely emotional connotations, without logical argument, as you attempt to do so. Well I suppose there is an argument in your above post, but it amounts to "They made it, they can do what they want." Sure, but it's my money, and I can do what I want as well. And I refuse to celebrate greed just for the sake of celebrating greed; this attitude which has permeated American Society since Reagan's Revolution is why we are where we are today. A nation with a crumbling economy, a bloated debt, and no impressive future prospects for the rest of the world or even ourselves to admire. What is there to take pride in nowdays? Greed, and the justifications thereof have become our Gods, and we are currently reaping what we sowed.