Basically, the DLC for Tomb Raider Underworld and Bioshock 2 were portions of the game cut-out and re-sold as DLC.

How is that not exploitative? I think its an embarassing move from the industry that only damages it.

If a studio produces additional content post-release then it's only right that they are able to offer it digitally at a price. That pratice is one of the best things about this brave new digital world and can extend the life and value of a title.

However, the cynicism that some people still harbour about DLC stems from the shameful business practices from the likes of 2K Games. To lock game content that's clearly completed pre-release and then charge people to access it - whilst dressing it up as post-release developed DLC – is disgraceful.

They deserve every single shitty headline.

Game developers shouldn't exploit players with on-disc DLC. By all means, charge for content which is added at a later date but not for so-called "extras" which are actually on the original disc.

The industry has already become slack due to the ability to patch lazily-tested, bugged games online - let's not ruin it further with paid-for DLC on-disc.

I feel that provided budgets are properly allocated and the DLC is developed as a seperate product then consumers have absolutely nothing to complain about.

The fact that the DLC is on the disc is just more convenient, it does not mean you own the content when you bought the license to play the game (newsflash, you don't own the entire game, or in fact any portion of it at all when you buy a disc)

Content being actively cut out/withheld on the other hand is an utter disgrace.

I would prefer to see developers working on DLC content after a game's release (or close to the end of it, when adding more content to the game and getting it tested in time is not viable) but honestly, if you have some spare devs kicking their heels and want to put them to work on the DLC early, that's no different to putting them to work on a whole other game. It's still an entirely seperate product and of all the bad practices in the gaming industry, this is one that really doesn't need complaining about in my opinion.

DLC that arrives to the end user already on the disk was an inevitable result. DLC origionally was first brought about by publishers requesting a little bit more data when a game had done well or they wanted more sales. Then it moved to be day 1 DLC and now we are reaching the stage of pre built DLC.

The main problems with developing DLC are it is very hard to start implementing at a later date. This has caused companies to start planning DLC early on in development. This means generally at the point of release the DLC is complete also and so why not put it on the disk. Is it better to have to download a big file or a single code?

I believe the DLC should be included on the disk but I disagree about the charging practice. A quote above mentioned: 'game’s multiplayer base is not divided into the ‘have’ and ‘have-nots’'. If this is charged for then it will still be have and have nots. Free DLC is the way to go. PS3 allows free DLC but the 360 does not. This means all DLC has to be changed for as a publisher cannot really allow free PS3 DLC but not free X360 DLC.

I have to say, this was evident from day 1 of the 360 launch. Ridge Racer 6 did this very thing - you buy the code to unlock the content on the disk. I find this to be shameful - if you buy the game you buy everything that comes on the disk. If you want extra content that was not intended for the final release of the game, you buy that ontop of whatever is provided with the disk.

What would have been more acceptible to by pass these complaints would be to not include the content on the disk at all and then post it as DLC a few weeks after the games launch to keep interest high... but that would make good marketing sense and the games industry doesnt 'do' good marketing.

The main problem I see is calling it DLC.

Just because it is on the disc does NOT mean the player owns it in the same was as they do not own the graphics and music within a game.

Publishers budget a certain amount of money for the development of the game based partially on how much they believe they can re-coup from sales. Then they will be adding an extra budget for the development of extras (DLC) that is based on the amount they believe they can re-coup from the sales of those extras. If the game player wants the extras they need to pay for them whether it be on a disc or not.

The idea that DLC needs to be developed after the main game finished is frankly quite dumb. In fact I'd have thought it would make sense for developers to use the DLC budget to keep knowledgeable members of staff on the team at the end of the project (when teams usually start thinning out) to develop the extra content and if the end of the project drags on due to numerous bugs, release date slips, etc. then it is quite possible that the DLC may be finished before the final game.

I forgot to say that if this was to happen, the person buying the DLC would be non-the-wiser so even if the content was developed prior to the game going gold it could be stored for future release (and I'm 110% certain that some of the more sensible game development studios actually do just this).

On the topic of selling parts of the game that were cut being a rip-off, I also don't believe this is always true.

The game has been released and reviewed without that extra content in and it were vital or even noticeably missing then the reviews 'should' indicate that which would have an adverse effect on sales. Therefore it is more important for the publishers to get a full and complete game out the door than it is to hack things out to make money from DLC.

Remember, things have always been cut from games and quite often just because the budget wasn't there to quite finish the bits of. DLC brings that extra budget in so that these extras can be tidied up and made ready.

As a little comparison to films, how many times have you bought a film on DVD which contains a few deleted scenes and then at a later date a new Special Edition version is released with extra deleted scenes and things such as storyboards? These are all things that could have been packaged with the original film (as they were complete before the film finished), but were held back for a special release. I'd prefer it if films worked more like these games and allowed me to but the extras when I liked rather than buying the entire film again.

As long as the disc comes with a single-use code to unlock the on-disc DLC (and that is built into the RRP) then great - otherwise reduce the RRP if you're going to charge.

It is entirely up to the developer and publisher to decide what you have access to in the game. Paying to unlock part of it later is not conditional on having to download it, it is just more convenient.

What if the "DLC" was just a slightly different mode, where a couple of rules were changed by setting some variables differently. All the artwork and sound and engine were already on the disc. Do you deserve that for free? Or has the developer put effort into developing, tuning and testing the new ruleset, so can charge for it?

In addition to it being cut out from the original game and used as DLC, how is that different to a movie? When you see a film at the cinema, do you get upset that it didn't include the deleted scenes and demand that you get the DVD for free? None of the deleted scenes on the DVD are created after the theatrical release or on a different budget.

It's not even as if the journalists who reviewed it got the on-disc-DLC and were telling you that it was amazing, only for you to find out you don't get it.

If you're not happy, don't buy the DLC unlock code and maybe 2K Games will realise they've made a mistake and not do it again. However, it's perfectly reasonable for them to do this again!

However, the claim that they did it to retain a level playing field for online multiplayer is nonsense. LittleBigPlanet includes the new features in a game engine patch, so that everyone benefits, but only those that buy the Level Packs can create levels and play the Mm levels.

1. As several have pointed out, when you purchased a disc, you are purchassing a license to play a game, not the data on the disc - so there is no legal or consumer rights issues at play here.

2. Market Forces. Perhaps you have heard of them. Publishers listen to these. If people buy the "DLC" on Bioshock 2, then ther market approves. If not, it doesn't. So it really isn't an issue of propriety, or separate budgets, but of what the market will bear.

3. Storytelling. If I wanted to tell a coherent story (as many games that offer significant DLC bits), would it not make some sense to develop ALL of that story together (a la Harry Potter, Babylon 5, Firefly, other awesome stuff) rather than tacking on some half-baked crap at the end?

Ergo, if the industry is to mature, it will been to a) have a clear understanding of product licensing, b) be driven by market forces, and c)tell good, coherent stories.

This debate hinges on a hangup around the word “downloadable.” I’m not sure it matters whether we’re paying to actually download content off a server somewhere, or unlock it off a disc. In either case we’re paying more money to get more content than the game originally delivered to us.

Remove the word “downloadable” and you arrive at the heart of the issue: “content.” The salient question doesn’t even concern the chronology of when DLC is built, but rather what we expect from a game in terms of total playtime.

I don’t think that gamers are really getting upset about the Bioshock 2 DLC already being on the disc – they are upset because if the DLC is already there, that means it was developed during the creation of the regular game, which means that 2K Marin and Irrational Games could have delivered more than they provided for the $60 a gamer spent.

This is what burns gamers. It’s one thing if a developer chooses to truly create additional content after a game is released. That feels properly like “something extra.” If additional content was created pre-release it doesn’t feel like something extra, and that might be an entirely fair way to look at it.

Content costs time and money to make.

You're not paying for the shiny disc. Nothing has been ripped out just for a cheap extra sale. You're paying for the wages of the people who made this extra content for you.

The people who complain about this tend to be the people who aren't happy having to pay for anything.

I think that they just have to call them "Virtual Items" like what you have in Free to Play MMOs. In them you can buy licenses that allow you to do new things but you are never tricked in to thinking that it's new content that you don't have in your HDD.

I think there are a lot of gamers who miss the kind of support games on the PC used to get from their developers and that we only see from a few studios nowadays. When they think of DLC they are recalling patches to Unreal Tournament adding new models and modes, Valves support of Team Fortress or the fact that Blizzard is still updating Warcraft 3 and Starcraft as recently as this month.

While being an example of a well funded studio, Bungie has had no problem creating content for their titles after the release. They have even used feedback from players to shape what variety of level they would add. While there was an assumption that they would be creating this content from the start they took the time to create an engine with real DLC support rather then devote resources creating content that wouldn't be needed for a successful release.

It's perfectly understandable that players are upset when they find out there were more maps or more variety built into games they have already paid for. The current price point is far too high for the economy right now and because of the restrictions on game sales players can't even return a game they found unsatisfying, unplayable or just bad. When you put your post-release revenue generating content on the disc it's a very good sign to players that there will be no actual support for the title in the future. You aren't interesting in supporting and growing your community, you just want them to pay another $5.99 so they can squeeze more enjoyment out of a title that they are already growing bored with. If your title needs it's DLC to be available so close to launch it needs to be on the disc it's another sign that the game shipped wasn't complete enough to keep peoples attention long enough.

It's the fear of a lack of support which makes gamers hate this growing trend because they know that if the DLC is on the disc, the team behind the game is already moving on and no longer cares about the future of the title.

The only case where DLC on disc is acceptable is when it's provided for free to purchasers of a new copy as a way to monetize used game purchases that still have upkeep costs to support.

I'm sorry BC, you seem to be under the impression that the only people on here are people who buy the games and will fall for that line... not so.

A project has a finite amount of funding, for a finite amount of time, in which to produce a finite amount of content.

Had that game been designed with the "DLC" included in the design, and as such, included in the game... then no extra development costs would have been incurred. Therefore I see no justification to charge for something made "during" the normal development cycle of the project.

The only conscious decision would have been, "we can make this content within the normal dev cycle, but we can leave it out of the game and then charge extra for it". It doesn't cost extra to make DLC during the project unless you had to draft in additional resources to make it.

If the normal dev team has resources spare to make it, then it didn't cost extra to make. Those people were getting paid anyway to be part of the company, not to specifically be a member of that project development team.

Oh, and Nigel, deleted scenes in movies are "deleted", not "withheld". As you will be aware, they are deleted because they don't naturally fit into the directors vision of the end product, and not because they realise they can sell a version with them put back in later.

How many times have you seen a DVD on sale in HMV for something like "Harry Potter: Deleted scenes"? You won't, because they include it on the disc and you pay for ALL the contents on the disc at the time of purchase. So if they don't sell the deleted scenes for films seperately, what gives devs the right to sell content made DURING game development for extra cost?

Publisher and developers need to get off this greed train, otherwise, it's going to derail and crash.

Home appliance makers and electronics companies have been doing this for years. Quite often, when you buy a new washing machine or TV and you go for the 'cheap version' with less features, all the manufacturer's do is remove the front end switches for those features, the back end unit is still completely the same. Their saving is a few pennies on installing a switch (but far more on having one process for making the functional part of the unit), but that new model might have cost you tens or hundreds more.

To state that DLC must be "produced after release" is, frankly, absurd - there is absolutely nothing objectionable to production of content prior to release which is cut and then later remarketed. Imagine the absurdity if the "extended edition DVD" for a hollywood film were not permitted to use content filmed during principal photography.

That said, having that content on the released product, locked away for future sale to gouge a little more from customers is entirely unacceptable.

This is most definitely not legally nor morally wrong, what consumers pay for is essentially what they are entitled to at the time of purchase, if a game promises '20 levels', then that is what the consumer will get, 20 levels. Whether additional levels are available through DLC, or the same DVD / Blu-ray, is entirely beside the point. If the consumer wishes to participate in those extra levels, and the publisher wishes to charge for those then they have every right to do so, no matter the source for the data. It may sound wrong, but it's no worse than micropayments in any other game, this is based on more or less the same principals. You're paying for virtual goods. You're not obliged to pay for it, you do so at your own will, what you paid for.. you got, if you pay more,.. you'll get extra. So there is no problem and it is not unacceptable.

They're not advertising what you're not paying/getting on the disk.

Why is on-disk extra/premium content any different than download content? Would it make you feel any better if they didn't include those content on the disk and you would have to download them after paying?

I'm indifference to method. If I'm willing to pay for the extra content, it doesn't matter how I get it. Hey, if it saves me the trouble of downloading 2 extra GB via my crappy wireless connection, even better.

I know how some people might feel that they're entitled to those extra stuff since they're on the disk that they paid for. Well think about this, you don't own the music you buy :) Yeah? Yeah?

Seriously, if people are this bent over, the publishers should just put all the premium content online and make them download instead of being able to unlock.

I really don't see what the problem is. If anything, having DLC already on the game disc saves the player having to download it. WTF difference does it make WHEN the 'extra' content is made as long as the full game's story is told as advertised. Should we complain to Mr Jackson that we had to pay three times in order to view the whole Lord Of The Rings Story? What's wrong with 'here's the game as advertised - and if you like, you can buy a code to unlock additional content'. I bet you whingeing pussies expect all DLC to be free or heavily discounted??

WE HAVE GOT TO HOLD THE LINE, more and more developers are using DLC (DLC in my eyes = intended to apply what you've learned from the reactions of players what could be added to keep the game fun after playing for a while). nowadays developers when finished with a game calculate how much they can hold back and later release for more money, this isn't in anyway a good direction for the gaming industry to take

in reaction to leek's comment : I bet you whingeing pussies expect all DLC to be free or heavily discounted??

have you ever bought any DLC that was worth the price?>?>?>>?

If the price and content of the game (excluding DLC) is reasonable, people will buy it. If it isn't they wont. The same applies to any DLC.

When the DLC is created and how it is delivered is entirely irrelevant.

and people wonder why everyone pirates games.