Ctrl Alt Del - Holy Soapbox Retort

CAD, an online comic that makes me laugh most of the time contributed this little ditty along with a very long post calling out gamers who hate the idea of DLC and paid subscriptions for online games. I am such a gamer, but what annoys me about Tim's post is how inaccurate he is portraying the argument on the side of gamers who dislike this. In a nutshell, here is what the CAD article says, see below:

1. The most commonly used argument (and this extends to DLC situations) is "Why should I have to pay to play something I've already bought?" In response to which I generally think to myself "Umm... because that's the way some things in the world work?"

2. You can buy a car, but unless you're regularly paying to insure it and fill it with gas, you're not going to get much use out of it. You can buy a game console, but unless you buy games or DVDs to play on it, it's a decoration. You buy a tv and then pay monthly for cable so you have shows to watch. The concept of "shelling out cash to use stuff we've already bought" is nothing new. In video games, the concept is still in its relative infancy (DLC, subscriptions) but not so much that it deserves the "ohmygodwtf how dare they?!" attitude it receives.

3. I think its born of two mostly erroneous assumptions. A) That the gamer deserves things for free and B) that it's only happening because the game developer/publisher are greedy bastards who want to pocket your subscription fees while laughing and killing kittens.

4. First of all, if a game is asking a subscription fee (and this is a generalization, I'm sure there is an exception or two) it's because there are larger costs associated with running the game. MMOs for instance, require dedicated servers and constant manpower to monitor and respond to issues. The servers cost money each month, and the people working on them need to be paid. So your initial purchase of the game pays for the (sometimes many) years of actually creating the game. Your subscription fees pay to keep the servers running and the game updated, etc.

Now, to my retort. 

1. I do not buy MOST DLC, very little of it actually gives the game more life for the price. Granted, I do not have to buy DLC and again in most cases I won't. But some DLC outright ruins the expierence that a gamer gets in the first place. Let's take Blazblue Continuum Shift to prove this point. Aksys has decided to offer as DLC another character (even before they release the game mind you). So what they're telling us is to have all the characters in the game you not only have to buy the game but also buy another character. Understand that CHARACTERS are a vital component to any fighting game and not chinsey add-ons you don't need like "skins." What Aksys is telling us then is you don't get the full game when you buy it. It would be like if Nintendo released a Mario game, but he can't jump unless you buy the DLC "Jump command for $5." It's ridiculous. Map-packs are another example of DLC that ruins the experience. If you're in a deathmatch where most people have the DLC map pack but one dude doesn't, then sorry old maps for you. This is a detriment mainly to the people who actually buy the DLC maps. Further, in the instance of Resident Evil 5 where they made people pay for the online multiplayer component of the game (which was already on the disc) is also laughable. I understand that companies develop these things and should be paid for them, of course they should I'm not arguing that. But here's what Capcom essentially did, they sold the consumer a "final product" for $60. This product was then discovered to have content not available to the final user unless they paid $5 more, thus being lied to entirely. However, what would the reaction be if Capcom sold Resident Evil 5 for $65 explaining the multiplayer component of the game is what the extra $5 was for. This is as least honest business. What they are doing instead is like if I bought a car and then discovered that I was unable to open my trunk unless I bought a special key from the dealer unbeknown to me upon initial purchase. 

2. This is just laughable, and a horrible comparison. Cars are a money pit, you always have to put more money into them. Then he makes the argument that buying a video game console and then buying games for it is continuing the "paying for it after you buy it" logic, which is also flawed. You buy a car knowing it needs gas to run it. You buy a video game console knowing it needs games to play it. In my experience of playing video games you NEVER needed to buy an extra character to play a fighting game. You NEVER had to buy a map-pack to play with everyone. Games were made and developed right the first time. The car is the investment, the console is the investment, the Game is the end-product...but here the argument is the game is not the end product anymore, such is the case with DLC. 

3. The (A) assumption is where he just doesn't understand where we're coming from. A $60 game is not free and I never see anyone complaining about initial game purchases. I never see anyone saying "this should be free," either. What I see, and rightfully so, are people saying "This should have come with the game when I bought it." How is this difficult to understand? His (B) assumption is correct. They are out to make money, and I'm not scorning them for it. In certain instances though it's utter trash, like the Blazblue one I mentioned. The game isn't even out yet, and we're already told we won't get all the characters with the game. Another thing that happens is the gamer feels cheated. They set out to buy a game for $60 thinking that's all the investment required to enjoy the product. When more stuff comes out for the game, the product they spent $60 on now feels diminished, unfinished, and now they are being charged more for it. They cannot be on the same level as everyone who bought the game as now there are classes of people, those who bought the extra character and those who didn't. Those who did can use that character to win more matches on people who do not understand the properties of that new character because they don't have it. 

4. Paid subscriptions, we generally agree here. I agree that MMO's need dedicated servers to run all their data and thus a paid subscription is warranted. I for one will never play these games however, because there are so many games I can play that do not require this. It's not my kind of game. I love games that I can go back to at any moment, pop in and go. MMO's do not have any sort of "staying power." You can't even enjoy Matrix Online anymore for instance, however I can still enjoy Pac-Man whenever I want and never once paid a monthly subscription to play it. 

To Conclude: I mentioned my thoughts on DLC in the past, I don't like it. The CAD article tells us to stop living in the past when games came out complete, those days are over. That doesn't change the fact that I shouldn't be allowed to be angry over it. I am very pleased with Nintendo in this regard as they still ship out a finished product to consumers. So in that regard, the past is not dead yet and Tim from CAD is wrong. Expectations for a finished game can still be met, and not all developers are offenders of this nonsense. The CAD article also does something else that always irritates me. He basically says "if you don't like it don't buy it." What purpose does this "advice" give exactly? It's probably my most hated quote I see online of all time. It's a nothing statement, and adds nothing to the debate. Of course if I don't like it I'm not going to buy it, the ISSUE here is the game I bought is now a lesser product because I refuse to invest more money in a game that was supposed to be the finished product. I refuse to buy the key to the trunk, I should have been allowed access to the trunk in the first place. If it wasn't done yet, don't release it. The anger is toward the companies that do this, and our general wish to make them cut it out by not buying it. Maybe I'm just living in the past, expect more from game companies, expect to buy a finished product. 

    Ultimately there is no right or wrong in this argument, you either like DLC or you don't. Heck, you can even like some DLC and hate others, that's your choice. But for Tim to claim that "we want it for free" or that we should stop living in the past is outright foolish. He can't tell me what should anger me, and he's an idiot to believe that I expect DLC for free. On the contrary, I expect my $60 to buy a finished product sans the DLC entirely. *Perhaps it is Tim that expects all game companies to screw him over so he'll simply bend over and accept it. *