LBPCentral Archive

Home

General Stuff

General Gaming

Game Development Ethics - Climb into the Skinner Box, Billy

Archive: 43 posts

2009-11-30 22:42:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

I don't really have time right not for this, but I thought I'd say I'm certainly interested in the topic and thought I'd pick up on a couple of them.

? World of Warcraft. No further embellishment required.

I lol'd. I had to stop playing that game when I was still sitting at my computer well past dawn every single day. I used to get angry whichever day of the week they have server downtime at 3AM (or whatever it is).

? Gamer compassion. In Assassin's Creed 2, you can collect 100 well-hidden feathers throughout the world. Why feathers? Well, without spoiling too much, these feathers have a very strong emotional element for Ezio, the character you play as. You're not collecting them "just because". There's a human element. It will undoubtedly get people collecting those feathers who normally wouldn't care for such things.

This example, to me is actual far from immoral, if that's what you are implying. It's manipulative, but to me it's manipulative in a good way. Storytelling that engages me on an emotional level is always a good thing. I only collected around 40/100 feathers, but I can assure you if it weren't for the emotional angle, I would have collecteed about 5 - the ones I accidentally ran into.

2009-11-30 23:03:00

Author:
rtm223

Posts: 6497

I'm ok with DLC as long as it's reasonable.
Maybe a few weeks or months after release and the developers have some fixes or new content that they really want to add then sure release it as dlc, if they feel the need t charge for the new content then it's understandable as long as it's a decent price - unlike burnout.
It really annoys me when dlc is released just a few days after the release of a game. Didn't Eyepet get dlc before it's release?!
It just makes it blatantly obvious that they're trying to squeeze some extra money out of us, if they have extra content for us that early then it should of been put into the game to begin with.

Trophies i'm actually really ok with from an ethical point of view. They're just an optional challenge that people can choose to take on to squeeze some extra gameplay out of a game. And developers can make them as hard as they want to really push people (as long as it's not too far, maybe disgaea 3 crossed the line a little xD).
Noone's being forced to complete them however hard they are, i think it's more down to the player.
I've had a friend play Uncharted for almost 3 entire consecutive days and he completed it about 6 times back to back to get the platinum. That was really kind of worrying but i blame the player more than the developer

Now WoW

I have nothing wrong with this game, i played for a year in fragmented periods. I never actually found it THAT addictive. Sure i was up to the late hours of the night a few times but it was never a higher priority than socializing with my friends. Infact i saw WoW as more of a social platform than a game, i spent the majority of my time wandering around randomly and having conversations with my guild members because the questing was repetitive

Thats from MY point of view though. I'm well aware that some people completly lose control with this game which i find really worrying. I've seen the extreme end of the scale all across the internet, people closing themselves off from their families and even commiting suicide as the media reports.
It's a fun pasttime for some gamers but the negative affect it has on some people is just a bit too extreme.

First 3 covered, will be back

2009-11-30 23:13:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

? Experience Points/"Leveling Up". This isn't specific to RPGs. Has anyone played Plants vs Zombies? That game is crack-cocaine in videogame form. And you have to play so much in order to farm enough gold to unlock more goodies that you end up nearly addicted to the thing, wanting to open up everything well beyond the point of even having fun doing it anymore. Also, the fact that people actually reach "level 10 prestige" in the Modern Warfare games is evidence that if you build it, they will come. NO MATTER WHAT.

Wow... this was me for about 2 years playing BF2 and BF2142! Always wanted the unlocks for all the kits. ...I did have fun with it though, but ever since LBP I haven't looked back.

2009-11-30 23:18:00

Author:
jwwphotos

Posts: 11383

To be honest I don't see too many of these things as unethical, per se. If a game succeeds in making the player care about the character(s) then that is just good storytelling in my opinion.

On one hand you might see these things as developers can exploit to make their games addictive... but is this really a bad thing? It's still easier to mess it up than to make it work. In my opinion it's a lot less ethical to make a game that someone won't want to run through for more than a few hours after they just put down $60+ for it.

If I pay $60 and play it all the time, then I just consider that a good value.

2009-11-30 23:35:00

Author:
Foofles

Posts: 2278

Experience point systems are a really good gameplay tool in my opinion. I can't imagine my gaming life without these really, they can improve any game drastically. The feeling of accomplishment and watching your characters get stronger or whatever.
I think this is entirely up to the player to enjoy these without devoting their life to them, i think this is too big a feature to generalise as unethical xD
Again maybe Disgaea went over the top with a level cap of 9999, that to me is a sort of impossible goal to strive for. I won't spend hours and hours leveling up my characters but it gives me the incentive to switch it on and spend 30 minutes doing some old fashioned grinding occasionally

I suppose if i haven't seen the extreme effects of this like i have with WoW then it's hard to judge really.

Gamer Compassion definatly isn't unethical

Making the player care for the characters in a game is just plain good storytelling, it's no more unethical than when you get drawn into a really good book!
However i suppose as with most things it's how the developer exploits this. Uncharted i have no problem with, you might get addicted to the game just to see the story and cinematics but that's a difficult things for developers to pull off and they deserve credit for it.
The example you posted about AC2 isn't so good though, but as always it's up to the player to make sure they don't devote their lives to it. Personally i can't imagine compassion being an incentive to collect hidden objects, at most it'd probably make me spend an extra 20 minutes on it overall before i reach for a walkthrough

Shock Value, best saved til last, is unfortunatly the cancer that is killing video games.
I don't think this should EVER be used to draw people into playing a game, it just desensitizes people and ruins the industry for the rest of us.
The potential audience for more innovative games are being drowned out by the majority that are out playing the newest violent games on the market.
It just makes you miss the good old days where games were about innocent fun and the memorable characters, games that spark nostalgia in 10 years time.
I'd much rather a world where the majority of people are still playing gems similar to Spyro as if they were as popular as Halo is today, talking about their progress on some innovative 2d game instead of CoD. The social impact would be immense too, people would be a lot more sensitive towards violence which would weave communities together much more naturally, the level of creativity could only be increased with kids drawing cartoony characters and writing stories instead of just drawing some weapons and a dead guy.
This isn't exclusively games either, movies have just as much to blame for. Movies like Saw are nothing but showcases of gory ways to kill people and still this passes off in todays society as normal.

Generally violent media is having a massive negative impact on the world and games are a big part of it. I'm not saying to rule out violence completly, i just think we're starting to go way over the top.

2009-12-01 00:21:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

Inspired by a discussion in the Dragon Age Origins thread (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=t=18434), I wanted to kick of a discussion on current game development ethics - what is ethical and unethical from a development standpoint in getting playtime out of gamers?

Here are some of the major points off the top of my head where the scales teeter:
? DLC. Specifically, micro transactions and purchasable content. We've seen DLC where you can actually purchase cheats and unlock all of the cars/weapons/etc without having to play through the game. This all costs real money.
? Trophies/Achievements. You all know you've done it. Was it REALLY just a case of a bit of extra replay value?
? World of Warcraft. No further embellishment required.
? Experience Points/"Leveling Up". This isn't specific to RPGs. Has anyone played Plants vs Zombies? That game is crack-cocaine in videogame form. And you have to play so much in order to farm enough gold to unlock more goodies that you end up nearly addicted to the thing, wanting to open up everything well beyond the point of even having fun doing it anymore. Also, the fact that people actually reach "level 10 prestige" in the Modern Warfare games is evidence that if you build it, they will come. NO MATTER WHAT.
? Gamer compassion. In Assassin's Creed 2, you can collect 100 well-hidden feathers throughout the world. Why feathers? Well, without spoiling too much, these feathers have a very strong emotional element for Ezio, the character you play as. You're not collecting them "just because". There's a human element. It will undoubtedly get people collecting those feathers who normally wouldn't care for such things.
? Shock value/sex/violence. This envelope will always be pushed further and further by developers, but it doesn't at all work consistently to get purchases (didn't Manhunt 2 tank?).

This is just to get the ball rolling and to see if there's interest in the subject. Obviously, the spoiler tag is your friend when citing specific examples from recent games.

DLC - I like DLC. It means that we don't have to wait for a sequel for more gameplay. We have a lot more to tide us over between sequels or games. But then you get out of hand with things like Home, charging us for virtual things that are nice to have for customization purposes, but not important enough to charge us for. Micro-transactions are the devil.

Trophies/Achievements - I have never actually worked for trophies on purpose...well, not a lot, anyway. I did try to get the "My Uncle's an Italian Plumber" trophy in Borderlands, but that's because I'm about 5 easy trophies away from getting Platinum (Level 50, Other Class Trophies, On A Boat). I'm certainly going to go through Prince of Persia again trying to get my last couple trophies (combo, under 100 deaths, under 12 hours or whatever), and I hope to get the Play trophy for LBP someday, as it certainly adds replayability for the story levels. Quite frankly, after I finish my second Borderlands playthrough, I might go back to RE5, a game I absolutely LOVED, to get all the trophies. Trophies are nice.

Trophy whoring is taking it a little far, renting games just to get trophies, but whatever makes people happy.

World of Warcraft - What do you mean? It's a game and people like it. They're their lives, they should play if they want to.

Experience Points - I honestly love them. I love being able to see my character progress and get more powerful. I love leveling up way higher than my enemies and absolutely pwning them in Borderlands.

Gamer Compassion - Does this mean compassion for characters in the game world? Then certainly not. In MW2, I killed those Russian civilians with glee, I've killed beggars just 'cause in Oblivion, and all my allies hate me in Dragon Age. I like being an evil jerk. I've been a pretty been becoming less of an *** as I get older, so it's nice to return to my roots every once in a while.

Shock value/sex/violence - I don't care as long as that's not what the game is all about. If the game is good and violent, then I'll get it. If the game sucks and is violent, I won't get it. If the game is good and nonviolent, I'll get it. I don't need exploding heads to have fun. I loved watching body parts explode in FO3, but if it wasn't for the great quests and an enthralling world it wouldn't be worth the money.

2009-12-01 02:35:00

Author:
qrtda235566

Posts: 3664

I should clarify a few things:

Mainly that I'm not saying the points I've listed in my original post are examples of unethical game design - merely that they are areas near ethical cliffs, so to speak. A developer can very easily push their games off the edge in those departments.

The specific examples I gave in my OP weren't necessarily examples that I personally feel are unethical, but might be argued as such. The reasoning behind the feathers in Assassin's Creed 2 actually feels to me quite novel and refreshing. How often do we get this in games? A real human reason for accomplishing a silly videogamey task like "collect all 100 _____". I'm sure I'm not the only one who has run to the villa just to deposit one or two feathers. This is something I'd normally not do, such as with flags in AC 1.

It's an area that can be pretty easily manipulated in the player, so this is something that could be argued. As I mentioned, I personally think AC2's feathers are a novel twist on an old videogame classic. I don't doubt that it'll get WAY more players clocking in way more hours doing a very videogamey task that they normally would never care about. So because of that, I sincerely hope the payoff is worthwhile for these players. If you don't get at least a heart-melting scene out of it, I'm not sold.

Leveling up is a big one. This is an area where i think publishers lately are starting to really blur the line of what's appropriate/ethical in terms of milking hours out of players. Collecting XP for any task in a game is instantly rewarding. It makes you want to level up more. Just one more level. Just one more after that. Ooh, I got 5000 points for killing that guy. Let me just do one more level.

The argument that "you don't have to do any of this stuff" isn't really part of the question of ethical videogame design - You don't HAVE to play videogames period. You don't HAVE to do anything. I'm simply asking the question, where are the ethical lines in videogame design right now? And, are they moving?

A developer, when they implement a feature that might be incredibly easy to implement - such as the "prestige" levels in Modern Warfare - they KNOW that they're going to get FAR more online hours out of players because of it.

In February, the billionth match of Halo 3 was played. At that point, over 64,000 YEARS of playtime had been clocked in Halo 3 by gamers. If you counted up every second of playtime by every player in Halo 3, as of February, and added it up, it all amounts to over 64,000 years. And this is a game that DOESN'T have experience points.

I CRINGE at what these numbers might be to date for World of Warcraft. It hurts my soul to even imagine it.

2009-12-01 03:24:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

This forum seems to have a lot of game devvery types so i think some of these things woll be hard to argue

For example theres no way i'm not adding trophies and stuff into my games if it's something i'd consider to be fun, i don't think many developers consiously think about ethics. At most it's probably just big companies like EA and Microsoft that exploit some of the things you mentioned consiously.

2009-12-01 15:01:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

They're just trying to put food on the table too

2009-12-01 15:06:00

Author:
Foofles

Posts: 2278

2009-12-03 00:04:00

Author:
Syroc

Posts: 3193

Yeah that release DLC is insane... I'm betting it has something to do with piracy though.

Still...

2009-12-03 00:37:00

Author:
Foofles

Posts: 2278

What I find silly is when they announce DLC even before they release the game. But what is even worse are fans asking whether there would be DLC even before the game is out, completely neglecting the fact that they have to pay more for something that could have been in the game from the start.

"Hello Mr. Publisher, will your game have DLC"
"We have no plans for that right now"
"No DLC, no sale"
"Well, actually we want to offer you the complete package right from the start."
"I WONTS DLC!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!"
"Ah, okay sure. We'll just lock this integral part and you can buy the code for it later."
"YAY!!!! YOU ROKC!!!"

That's another thing that i really don't understand xD
I mentioned DLC being released before a game had come out, but people asking about DLC before a games release just doesn't make sense!

Like you said they're expecting game's these days to be released unfinished, and then yippee they get the option to spend more money to get the full game.
After a few weeks when you've seen every aspect of the game and you think there's potential for some new stuff then it's understandable to ask about it.

2009-12-03 00:43:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

Yeah you couldn't believe my state of shock when I'd see preview interviews for games and they ask "Will this have DLC?" ... like... what?... seriously?

I guess having extra stuff you pay more for somehow increases the value?

2009-12-03 00:47:00

Author:
Foofles

Posts: 2278

On the subject of release DLC ...

They tend to master the disc pretty far in advance of the actual street date, which is the same reason that you also see release day patching on some occasions.

I think we tend to assume that "On release DLC" is just "locked off content" - which is certainly possible in some cases - but given the complexity of how these games are actually produced, are in some cases pretty legitimate. Just because it's available on release day doesn't actually mean it "could have just as easily been put on the disc".

Again, I'm not saying that no-one ever has or ever will just apply the "lock off content" for $2.99 model, but given how they master the discs, I'd say that it's kind of foolish and reactionary to assume that that's the only and definite possibility everytime you see it.

If they master the disc on day X, finish off the first piece of DLC on day X+20, and the game releases on day X+30 ... should they really just hold back the DLC from us so we won't go into an uproar?

2009-12-03 00:52:00

Author:
Jagrevi

Posts: 1154

What I find silly is when they announce DLC even before they release the game.

Announcing DLC for 1-2 months after release encourages people to keep the game a bit longer, reducing trade-ins which in turn reduces the number of sales lost to preowned software.

2009-12-03 00:57:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

I think they should hold back the DLC if it actually is finished before release.

They should give people a chance to play the game by itself before they push something new in their faces and tell them to buy it.
More often than not release DLC just makes it seem blatantly obvious that they're trying to get more money from people, they'd be better off saving for a few weeks.

2009-12-03 08:04:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

I do have to say that I find it interesting that you're arguing for a position that's only distinction is that an option be denied us (getting already completed DLC), an option that many of us - such as myself - would tend to very much like.

You're not arguing for anything more, you're arguing for something strictly less.

Is giving us the option to get something as soon as it's ready really "pushing it in our face"? Is us having the option a bad thing, compared to them holding it back and making the decision for us?

Given the nature of some games and some DLC, sometimes later is too late - which would tend to make it "the sooner the better" (at least to have the option) in many cases, by my count.

(PS - I'm about to head of to bed, so if you give a retort, it may be a while before I respond)

2009-12-03 08:10:00

Author:
Jagrevi

Posts: 1154

Why would it matter anyway?
There's no point releasing EXTRA content if noone has had chance to see the original.

And you wouldn't be aware of this unreleased DLC anyway, it's not like you'd be annoyed that they're not releasing something that you don't know exists. It just puts developers in a better position to release it strategically without seeming like they're just asking for more money.

2009-12-03 19:12:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

Why would it matter anyway?
There's no point releasing EXTRA content if noone has had chance to see the original.

That seems to be an over-simplification of matters.

Take the case of Dragon Age ... if you're far enough into the game, alot of the DLC content just isn't as valuable any more, (such as the ability to simply store items at a specific location), you'd have already wasted all that money on Backpacks. Not to mention that with the set up of that game, additional characters lose their ability to work their way into the story and unlock content if your past certain events in the game.

Original Content and DLC aren't simple, separate and distinct contents all the time, alot of the time they are very interconnected.

And you wouldn't be aware of this unreleased DLC anyway, it's not like you'd be annoyed that they're not releasing something that you don't know exists.

So it's "ok" because I would be IGNORANT of the better alternative that I'm being denied?

Are we really going to accept this as an argument?

Why don't the developers just remove cool content from the games for no reason, than? As long as I remain ignorant of them doing so, I won't be upset about it.

2009-12-03 19:57:00

Author:
Jagrevi

Posts: 1154

So it's "ok" because I would be IGNORANT of the better alternative that I'm being denied?

Are we really going to accept this as an argument?

Why don't the developers just remove cool content from the games for no reason, than? As long as I remain ignorant of them doing so, I won't be upset about it.

You're still looking at it from the point of view of someone who knows the content is there. If you don't even know the DLC for whatever game exists then of course you won't get upset about it not being there.
And i'm not sure where you were going with the last point, but you wouldn't be upset about developers removing all the cool stuff from a game if you didn't know the cool stuff was there to begin with... you'd just think it was a bad game.

If i knew DLC was being held back without good reasoning i'd be annoyed too, but i'm not going to get annoyed about something i'm not aware of.
I'm just saying i'd rather they save it for just a week or 2 at least because release DLC just seems like a blatant attempt at grabbing more money.
It could be the case that most developers already do this but i'd be stupid to let an assumption like that bother me if it's something i'm not sure of.

Also i kind of agree with the first point you made, some DLC only works well before the launch audience has completed most of the game, like cheat dlc (i think that's what you mentioned).
The thing is i'm not a big fan of this type of DLC.
If people want to gain an advantage for whatever reason then it's their choice, but now they're being made to pay for these advantages? What happened to good old cheat codes. Again it just seems like a cheap attempt to grab more money, i'd rather developers steer of releasing these all together.

2009-12-03 23:29:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

Wow, here's a stunning example of how ridiculous DLC is getting.

The Saboteur: Nude ladies galore. But only if you buy new. Otherwise it costs 5 dollars. (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/12/saboteur-nudity-code/)

Yes, they've included a 5 dollar launch-day DLC download that makes the strippers in the "home base" topless and uncensored. But if you buy the game new, it comes with a free voucher for the DLC. The reason for this is so that anyone who buys the game USED, or borrowed, or handed down, is going to have to purchase the privilege to see polygonal boobies, and that privilage is apparently worth 5 bucks.

2009-12-04 05:01:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

2009-12-04 05:05:00

Author:
Foofles

Posts: 2278

You're still looking at it from the point of view of someone who knows the content is there. If you don't even know the DLC for whatever game exists then of course you won't get upset about it not being there.

And i'm not sure where you were going with the last point, but you wouldn't be upset about developers removing all the cool stuff from a game if you didn't know the cool stuff was there to begin with... you'd just think it was a bad game.

True, but in both cases I'm still worse off.

I think the issue is one of us is arguing for what's in the players' rational best interest, and the other for what is in the companies' best interest, with the assumption that the players will act irrationally.

Also i kind of agree with the first point you made, some DLC only works well before the launch audience has completed most of the game, like cheat dlc (i think that's what you mentioned).

To clarify, no, the Dragon Age DLC is not "Cheat DLC".

2009-12-04 06:45:00

Author:
Jagrevi

Posts: 1154

Dex: One thing to bear in mind about launch DLC, is that the time taken to get the main product to shelf (including QA, production, distribution etc.) has got to be a lot longer than getting the DLC to it's virtual shelf (depending on what it is, QA will be far less intensive and there is the obvious reduction in production time). At the time the game was complete, the DLC might not have been, but by the time of release, the DLC was. Jagrevi's point about not holding back what exists makes perfect sense. This is less an ethics point than a point about practicality.

@jagrevi: I do also see Dex's point and I think the "they're just doing this to grab money" is likely to be a common reaction to launch DLC. Bearing that in mind, it does make sense to hold it back for 2 weeks or so. Arguably you don't need "bonus" content straight away, you've got an entire game to play. If you needed the bonus content to make the game worthwhile, then the devs have ****ed up. So considering that consumers don't need bonus content on day 1, and thrusting paid-for DLC in their face on day 1 may lead to negative reaction, it make sense from a business perspective to hold back, at least for a short time. Again, not really anything to do with ethics.

2009-12-04 08:35:00

Author:
rtm223

Posts: 6497

? Shock value/sex/violence. This envelope will always be pushed further and further by developers, but it doesn't at all work consistently to get purchases (didn't Manhunt 2 tank?).It did because the politics got involved,
rockstar itself actually leaked the manhunt 2 version online.

[

? DLC. Specifically, micro transactions and purchasable content. We've seen DLC where you can actually purchase cheats and unlock all of the cars/weapons/etc without having to play through the game. This all costs real money.Ive seen this for tales of versperia (and many others offcourse) you could actually raise your level with 5 or obtain 100.000 gald for some money..
thats just retarded. (same with oblivion's horse armor)
I hate it when a game-company tries to get money that way.. its just stupid.
Therefore I cannot believe that people are paying for stickers and costumes in LBP.
Why would you pay for a costume that actually doesnt add gameplay.
why do we editors have to pay for new materials/stickers while people that just like to play LBP dont have to pay anything else.. but the people who create levels and prolong lbp have to pay for it.
every other comapny that has a game with editor ALLWAYS supported the editors by free new materials/options/stuff.
The mgs pack is a decent add-on so no worries there.. besides that you have to buy the mgs costumes apart from the mgs add-on levelpack. (if I am wrong correct me, but afaik you have to buy the costumes seperately)
Imho a gamecompany only should ask money for new big add-ons.
its just wrong that they ask money for something as small as one costume.
Sorry some old grugde got in the way.. *gets hammer and smacks myself on the head*

The worst case however.. was Soul calibur 4..
While darth vader was on the disk, you had to pay 5 euro's to unlock him.
That goes way beyond ethics.

But most gamecompanies do not have ethics.
EA is the worst.. chance is that the head of EA is going to fire 1000+ people from all EA offices world wide.
EA only cares about money (its employers do not).
as an employer you, your mail and your conversations are being monitored.
And when the stockholders want more money, EA releases a game sooner than expected.. I think Maffia was a good example.

Ethics?
Nintendo raped all of us over with the wii.
The mario and zelda games where way to easy and that wii-mote can result in RSI or worse.
Now they added a small new sensor and obviously for the new mario/zelda game you must purchace the new wii sensor thingy because without it.. it doesnt work.. or does not work as good.
Ow whats that? a black wii? allready? why?
A nintendo DS?
Ow wait.. a DS-lite.. lets buy OH!!! wait.. a DSI!!

yea.. Note to self:
do not read threads untill fully waken up.

disregard whatever I said.

TL:dr

2009-12-04 11:34:00

Author:
Luos_83

Posts: 2136

EA is the worst.. chance is that the head of EA is going to fire 1000+ people from all EA offices world wide.
EA only cares about money (its employers do not).
as an employer you, your mail and your conversations are being monitored.
And when the stockholders want more money, EA releases a game sooner than expected.. I think Maffia was a good example.
Go with the time, Activition are now THE Evil.

2009-12-04 17:34:00

Author:
Syroc

Posts: 3193

Since I have been away for a year, I still need to be updated on a lot of "news".
ive googled but no results, whats up with activision?

2009-12-04 17:55:00

Author:
Luos_83

Posts: 2136

@jagrevi: I do also see Dex's point and I think the "they're just doing this to grab money" is likely to be a common reaction to launch DLC.

And this I agree with, but I think the apparent disagreement is what implied perspectives we're arguing from.

I was under the impression that "we", for the purposes of talking about this topic, are the consumers - as I believe that how it had been set up in the thread so far leading up to this topic. In which case, the argument still sounds, to me, like this...

Producers: Here you go, the game is out now. Also, here's some DLC for it.

Consumers: That's just a scam to get our money, you could have just put it on the disc. Booo.

Producers (or anyone): Actually, they mastered that disc a long time ago, and this just implies that they finished off some of the DLC in the time between mastering and release, and chose not to hold it back.

Consumers: Well ... they still should have held it back, so that we wouldn't boo them. Booo.

Now, admittedly, if you switch our implied perspective in the analysis to an outside observer, that argument can actually hold water.

That's not what I'm arguing against, however. I'm arguing against the consumer arguing that releasing DLC immediately is not in their interest because they'll react based on false assumption and get mad. I don't think that's a rational argument from a consumer.

Once again, I think the disagreement here may largely come merely out of inferred context.

If you needed the bonus content to make the game worthwhile, then the devs have ****ed up.

I would agree, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the additional worth of the DLC, not claiming that without it it's the end of the world. It's still a question of more or less worth, just on a smaller scale. This is a strawman.

If you need to pay the same amount as everyone else at the grocery store for a loaf of bread for you to feel that your life is worth living, than you're not entirely rational to begin with; however, if I brought this up to you when we were arguing over you being over-charged at the grocery store because of your ethnicity, I believe you would instantly realize that I was not giving a fair counter-argument.

This is not an argument over the value of a game overall, so don't bring that into it just to "tip the scales". This argument is SOLEY about the comparative worth gotten out of DLC in it's presence or temporary absence, not what I think of the game itself as a whole - that's completely incidental.

Arguably you don't need "bonus" content straight away, you've got an entire game to play.

Once again, it's not about needs - that's distorting the argument. It's simply about the additional value of playing the DLC content.

That being said, I feel like what's being overlooked is this ...

There are many kinds of DLC that lose their value the more you play a game. This is not necessarily an "all or nothing", black and white scenario, but many DLCs have much less value to me the farther past release date we get. For example, by the time the first Mass Effect DLC came out, I had already beaten the game. As good as the first Mass Effect DLC looked, I never got it, because to me the DLC had much less comparative value than it would have back on the day the game came out. Going back to the Dragon Age DLC, if you pick up the "Stone Prisoner" DLC after a certain point in the game, it is literally impossible to get all of the potential content out of it - this isn't an artificial restriction, but an emergent fact out of the complex nature of the game and it's progression.

DLC is not always like one of those bonus "extra content" shorts on DVDs. They interact with games in sometimes complex manners, and therefore often do begin to LOSE their value for many players the longer after release they are available.

2009-12-04 20:11:00

Author:
Jagrevi

Posts: 1154

Since I have been away for a year, I still need to be updated on a lot of "news".
ive googled but no results, whats up with activision?

Guitar Hero, Band hero, DJ hero. Tony Hawk. Call of Duty.

If you have been following the industry in the slightest, then these names should be enough.

----

@Jagrevi - I won't respond to the whole post, since this is my first appearance in the thread, but there are many games that have the DLC already on the disc when it is launched, you just pay to have it activated. That is pure greed from the developers. They know people will buy it, so the squeeze everything they can out of it. They use the hype of the game's release to persuade you to buy more, and do so at a ridiculous percentage increase. This is their way of increasing the launch price of a game without making it obvious to the consumer.

It's smart. I hate it, but it's smart. Whenever I see a game launch with DLC already available, it kills me inside. But... people will buy it. [Note: I understand LBP did the same thing with the Week 1 shirt, but I didn't buy that, and it's a slightly different situation - it wasn't on the disc.]

Edit: dang, I need to read whole threads... :blush:

2009-12-04 20:17:00

Author:
comphermc

Posts: 5338

Guitar Hero, Band hero, DJ hero. Tony Hawk. Call of Duty.

If you have been following the industry in the slightest, then these names should be enough.

you said enough.
Oh boy you said enough

2009-12-04 20:19:00

Author:
Luos_83

Posts: 2136

I won't respond to the whole post, since this is my first appearance in the thread, but there are many games that have the DLC already on the disc when it is launched, you just pay to have it activated.

I am aware of this, but for the record, I'm arguing over the issue of when DLC is released on the day of game release, not necessarily when it's actually on the disc, which is a slightly different issue.

(Which we'll probably get into eventually, but that's not what I was specifically discussing)

2009-12-04 20:40:00

Author:
Jagrevi

Posts: 1154

If the day 1 dlc is a few mb its an unlock of content on the disc if its a few hundred mb or even a gb or more its genuine new content.

2009-12-04 23:00:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

I understand LBP did the same thing with the Week 1 shirt, but I didn't buy that, and it's a slightly different situation - it wasn't on the disc

It is the same thing. Because it was on your hard drive...

.

2009-12-04 23:44:00

Author:
RangerZero

Posts: 3901

It is the same thing. Because it was on your hard drive...

.

Different thing, you have all the LBP dlc on your hard drive including the crown and the rare beta stuff but you can't use it unless you can buy or earn it. The content is in your game data to make load times more reasonable.

2009-12-05 00:40:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

Different thing, you have all the LBP dlc on your hard drive including the crown and the rare beta stuff but you can't use it unless you can buy or earn it. The content is in your game data to make load times more reasonable.

No. IT IS the same thing:

1) Content is on the disk but not accessible = the player pays for "accessing the content" because it's already physically there.

2) Content is on the HDD but not accessible = the player pays for "accessing the content" because it's already physically there.

.

2009-12-05 02:01:00

Author:
RangerZero

Posts: 3901

No. IT IS the same thing:

1) Content is on the disk but not accessible = the player pays for "accessing the content" because it's already physically there.

2) Content is on the HDD but not accessible = the player pays for "accessing the content" because it's already physically there.

.

There is a difference though, you can access the HDD content for free in play, I can play a level with a friend dressed as ezio with objects from the christmas and valentines pack but I have to pay if I want to use them myself in create.

If all the LBP game data held was dlc you had bought then loading any level with dlc you didn't own would take ages to download and their bandwidth cost would be increased. Ensuring everyone has all the content on the HDD is just the most efficent way to do things in a game that has such a large online focus.

2009-12-05 10:32:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

Rabids right they're different.

LBP DLC is all added during updates so everyone has the files available, that's just something that's needed because of it's online features.
Content that was already on the disc since release but needs to be paid for to be unlocked is a lot worse though because the content should be unlocked to begin with.

Oh and this isn't really related to any recent discussion but trophy DLC has to be paid for. Sony have made it so trophies can't be added in free updates, so blame them instead

2009-12-05 12:29:00

Author:
Dexiro

Posts: 2100

There is a difference though, you can access the HDD content for free in play, I can play a level with a friend dressed as ezio with objects from the christmas and valentines pack but I have to pay if I want to use them myself in create.

If all the LBP game data held was dlc you had bought then loading any level with dlc you didn't own would take ages to download and their bandwidth cost would be increased. Ensuring everyone has all the content on the HDD is just the most efficent way to do things in a game that has such a large online focus.

I know but this is off topic anyways. We aren't debating how LBP works of if it's ethical. We talk the chosen procedures and designs in the general in the industry. Some people are angry when they learn that some DLC is already in their machine or DVD when they buy it. They see it content unjustly removed from them in fact it's the same thing as downloading the DLC --- the point I was illustrating earlier.

No matter the mean from wich to access the DLC, you pay to play it, you pay to access it otherwise you don't have access. Nobody is advantaged or robbed. You have the liberty to buy or not the extra content.

-----------------

Also on the topic, I think that what would really be unethical is a paying DLC that would give you an advantage via other players in a multiplayer mode, therefore unjustly unbalacing the gameplay.
This also brings the putrid thought of: "Money making you the better player instead of skill". This is gross and unacceptable for me.

.

2009-12-05 17:23:00

Author:
RangerZero

Posts: 3901

Since this thread is about ethics, this seems like a good place to pose a question to you.

If you own/owned a copy of Resident Evil 5, chances are you heard of the "Versus" DLC, which adds competitive online multiplayer in the game, but for the ABSOLUTELY ABSURD price of $5, which is just a little less than a medium number 7 and a Coke at your favorite fast food resturaunt. Oh, and the Japanese got half off. So many people complained about the price, the Japanese discount, and that this was even DLC. Some people thought that this was something that should have come with the launch game, because we all know that the Resident Evils are known for their fantastic online deathmatches. So, what do you think? Is this evil?

By today's standards, or even that time's standards, I would say there was nothing wrong with it at all. Hey, in Dragon Age, you have to pay $15 for something that literally comes with the full game. That is, unless you buy it used. 15 dollars for just some crappy quests and a party member made of pebbles.

2009-12-05 21:36:00

Author:
qrtda235566

Posts: 3664

YES I love Expierience/leveling up in games, i can hate a game for what it is but if it has expierience/leveling up/or stats i would play it still!

2009-12-06 20:38:00

Author:
Snrm

Posts: 6419

Sorry for the intense necro-post here everyone. But there was a great article I read, and it seems pointless to start a whole new thread about it, so I'll just post a link here. And respond to an old post I missed:

Since this thread is about ethics, this seems like a good place to pose a question to you.

If you own/owned a copy of Resident Evil 5, chances are you heard of the "Versus" DLC, which adds competitive online multiplayer in the game, but for the ABSOLUTELY ABSURD price of $5, which is just a little less than a medium number 7 and a Coke at your favorite fast food resturaunt. Oh, and the Japanese got half off. So many people complained about the price, the Japanese discount, and that this was even DLC. Some people thought that this was something that should have come with the launch game, because we all know that the Resident Evils are known for their fantastic online deathmatches. So, what do you think? Is this evil?

DLC's a category where there's bound to be a wide spectrum of how developers treat it. I think on one extreme you have companies offering up essentially "cheat codes" - you pay real money to have the game essentially "pre-beaten" for you. On the other extreme you have stuff like Team Fortress 2, which includes regular robust updates, full of new weapons, new modes, new maps, and more - all for free. this Resident Evil thing is essentially a case of the developer exploiting the FACT of DLC being a staple in games now. Once upon a time it would have likely been a free update. knowing they can capitalize on it, they charged. Developers are getting away with this all over the place. It's not EVIL, but it is ridiculous, and I'm hoping that in time, it'll be less widespread. It will always be an issue, but I'm hoping we'll see less of it with major games like RE. That DLC is especially stupid considering it's an ONLINE MODE. If they want a big user-base, don't CHARGE for the online mode! You release it for FREE, and then charge for extra maps, that's how you get money, that's how you gain gamers and turn them into buyers. So they shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, on to this article, posted on Cracked.com:

5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted (http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html)

It lays out a bit more of the kind of stuff about which I originally posted this thread. More than anything it's a very entertaining read, much moreso than most articles about the same subject matter. But if it isn't something you've given much thought to, I HIGHLY encourage reading it. If it makes you rethink what you do when you're playing games, that's a very good thing. If it gets you off of facebook games or makes you rethink all that grinding you've been doing in _______, that's also a very good thing.

The article basically lays out how some developers turn their videogames into "Skinner Boxes". Skinner Boxes are conditioning cells in which rats are conditioned to press buttons or pull levers in response to certain stimuli - either food pellets are dispensed, or electric shocks are given.

Yeah, you're immediately seeing the connection, aren't you?

If you don't like the idea of being a lab rat doing what you're conditioned to when you play games, then it's simple - Don't let the developers turn you into one. Read the article, have a good long think about the games that you play, and be AWARE of what you're doing when you play games.

2010-03-10 02:06:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

Wow, just read this last night, then saw you posted it up here.

Pretty accurate from my own experiences. When I stopped playing FFXI, I was in some serious withdrawal from a very long time. I was also very unhappy in my school program/job so I'm not surprised I got hooked and so badly. I was lucky to not fail out of school in th e process, even though I was playing 6-8 hours a day, every day. When I quit, it took a solid 2-3 years to sever the emotional connections and sense of loss I felt. For this reason, I never so much as laid a finger on WoW, but watched a number of friends, many of whom I never even suspected PLAYED video games, become zombies to it almost overnight.

Thing is, the endorphins are great for a while, when you're still being rewarded frequently in your skinner box. After the rewards start to fall away, and you strive harder and harder for fewer and fewer rewards, it starts to hit you that you're not really having that much fun anymore, and it becomes habit and addiction, and it's just as frustrating and depressing as the real world you might be trying to escape from.

What's unethical about the skinner box is that it can ruin lives, plain and simple, just like any other addiction. But unlike gambling, drugs, or alcohol, there's nobody to control access and very little in the way of social support programs for people entrapped in it. And what's worse is that developers are free to make their games as brutally addictive as they want, if not encouraged to do so in the sense of that it's good for their bottom line.

I'm probably going to climb into another skinner box when FFXIV comes out, but at least this time I'm not going in so naive. The game is being pitched as a lesser skinner box, but my guard is up and I know how to deal with the conditioning now.

2010-03-18 20:05:00

Author:
Thegide

Posts: 1465

LBPCentral Archive Statistics

Posts: 1077139 Threads: 69970 Members: 9661 Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.