• scubbo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.

    Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?

    If the point you’re actually trying to make is “if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it”, then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn’t justify the price of a full game. That’s my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn’t have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.

    • escapesamsara@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing; but zero day one DLC released for any game has been anything but carving up a complete product into an incomplete main product and several DLCs to increase the price without increasing the price. Oblivion was the first example of this. Horse Armor was already developed.

    • TawnyFroggy [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Day 1 DLC, no matter how optional it might be in practicality, is 100% a tactic to make people feel like they need to pay more to get the “complete” version of the game.