Confirmed: BioShock 2 DLC Already On Disc
- Thread starter hal
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I remember that Epic did the same thing in Unreal Championship 2. But the bonus content there was basically "free" (not considering that you had to get XBox Live for it) and you could easily unlock it with a modded XBox. That way some people got the bonus content before it was officially released. 
As I recall, the bonus content for UC2 was released after a patch that fixed some issues in them. Plus it was all free. Plus they also released some maps or something that weren't on the disc.
Of course, this was all back before DLC was a trendy, cool thing to pay way more money than the content is worth. Shouldn't DLC be priced per "unit of content" the same as the retail game?
Of course, this was all back before DLC was a trendy, cool thing to pay way more money than the content is worth. Shouldn't DLC be priced per "unit of content" the same as the retail game?
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that putting the DLC on the game disc reduces distribution costs, which then reduces development overhead. If space exists on the disc to store the initial DLC content, why not do so? Why is that keeping it on a server for the same amount of time before releasing it, even when it could have gone on the printed discs, makes it acceptable?
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
Because it at least preserves the illusion that it is indeed a rip-off in DLC form and not just a regular rip-off.
Kyllian
if (Driver == Bot.Pawn); bGTFO=True;
To me it seems more like buying a car with a V8 in it and it only runs 6 cylinders until you pay a fee for the last 2
No, all the bonus maps and characters were already on the disc. You only downloaded some .ini-files that unlocked the content. And there was a patch, yeah, but it didn't fix anything related to the DLC specifically.
Of course it was free, so I won't call it a rip off, but you still had to get XBox Live for the content. Which was the entire reason for the DLC back then. Microsoft asked Epic to have some DLC ready for XBox Live and Epic decided to make some of the original content (the alt characters and four of the maps) not to be available from the start.
Because... if it's already on the disc, why not make it available from the start? Bonus content should be additional content, that was made after the release of the game to improve the game. If I paid for the disc, I want to use every feature on it without additional payments.
You hit the spot. What is DLC? To me, its content made post-release by the developer to enhance gameplay, and to make up for the producing costs they ask for a fee. Content that's already made before the release should be part of the release and content production shouldn't keep future DLC's in mind.
This is just one big rip-off. They're basically selling you the same thing multiple times.
I don't feel the car analogy always works. Making a V8 car and selling it to people wanting just a V6 doesn't make any sense. It makes sense for digital media since it only costs to develop the 'two cylinders', while including them on the disc is free.
If I were to use the car analogy for Torchlight, you would get the entire car delivered to your doorstep for free, but you'd have to pay a fee to be able to drive it for more than 10 minutes at the time.
Why would they even develop it if they were to give it away for free? I agree that retroactively chopping up the product and asking more money for it is a ripoff, but I still support the notion of DLC that could only have been made if they were able to sell it.
Thing is they released it with that content! Also, somehow Gears, Borderlands and Section 8 all had DLC which was an actual DLC and did not prevent people from playing with each other.
Oh sure mister developer.. that's why all other UE games that can have usercreated DLC doesn't have any problems with being able to play multiplayer games with each other..
And how am I supposed to play these maps with friends who didn't buy the 'DLC'? oh wait, I can't.....
We all know that their statement is nothing more than big BS.. the unreal engine is perfectly capable of handling these kind of situations... they just want to screw their players...
the only reason i can think of, is because of the xbox360 arcade version, but hee, just let them buy a harddrive to be able to play DLC...
And how am I supposed to play these maps with friends who didn't buy the 'DLC'? oh wait, I can't.....
We all know that their statement is nothing more than big BS.. the unreal engine is perfectly capable of handling these kind of situations... they just want to screw their players...
the only reason i can think of, is because of the xbox360 arcade version, but hee, just let them buy a harddrive to be able to play DLC...
Bioshock 2 DLC is fair but unethical
It's odd that nobody has mentioned this yet, but technically they aren't screwing you out of anything. You didn't buy the content when you bought your copy of the game. Read the end user license agreement on something for once. You only bought a license to play the game. The disc is just a distribution platform. Think of discs like digital distribution; instead of a download, you're getting a disc.
You aren't buying the content itself, but a license to use the content. There's nothing unfair here because they simply decided to sell the license for the main game and this "DLC" content separately. They also happened to use the same distribution media for both. That the "DLC" was already on the disc is irrelevant.
Just because it's fair doesn't mean it's ethical, though. I don't like this either.
It's odd that nobody has mentioned this yet, but technically they aren't screwing you out of anything. You didn't buy the content when you bought your copy of the game. Read the end user license agreement on something for once. You only bought a license to play the game. The disc is just a distribution platform. Think of discs like digital distribution; instead of a download, you're getting a disc.
You aren't buying the content itself, but a license to use the content. There's nothing unfair here because they simply decided to sell the license for the main game and this "DLC" content separately. They also happened to use the same distribution media for both. That the "DLC" was already on the disc is irrelevant.
Just because it's fair doesn't mean it's ethical, though. I don't like this either.
Last edited:
Might want to check your laws
End user agreements are worthless if they weren't available prior to purchase in the customers' language.
ie : if the thing is not written in Dutch and isn't printed on the box it simply is a useless piece of paper.
Never mind that you can't take away rights that are a given.
// ---
Why don't publishers tell the truth for once ?
Why don't they come out and say it out loud : they want games to sell games for more than the magically fixed amount they're all use.
Never wonder why all console-games are 60 Euro ?
Or why pc-games are 50 ? (except for budget titles?) ?
DLC is just another way of making sure the complete game costs more to buy.
All they really are doing is hiding the true cost of ownership, because history has shown that few consumers can count.