Is it really? Do you know of all of the content that they are releasing for it? For all you know they could be adding a whole new games worth of content... which really wouldn't be that surprising when looking at much of the DLC for most other Rockstar games this gen.

See:
GTA IV- Episodes From Liberty City
LA. Noire- 5 new cases, Badge hunt, New Weapons & Outfits
Midnight Club: Los Angeles- South Central Expansion
Red Dead Redemption- Undead Nightmare, 4 Online expansions, New Weapons & Outfits

Local Justice Map Pack (june)
Disorganized Crime Map Pack (summer)
Deathmatch Made In Heaven Mode Pack (summer)
Hostage Negotiation Map Pack (summer)
New York Minute Co-op Pack (summer)
Painful Memories Map Pack (autumn)
Trickle Down Economics Map Pack (autumn)

Wait, wasn't that like 5$?

We don't have it in Germany, so I never really looked. If it is only 1.5$ I could make my peace with it.

The Hattori Clan pack released at the same time was £2.99 / $4.99, the Blood DLC was 99p / $1.59 from release, or at least it seems that way from this article.

This is everything that is wrong with DLC today. They have a game that they are making, they have content for the game already or at least in production phase, they could wait for all the content to be completed and fully tested to release the game but instead they decide to release most of the game and then charge you for the rest.

It used to be that a game would be released and it would be so popular that the developers would go back and add new content to be rleased as an expansion pack. Not every game got an expansion because it would only happen for games with a large fanbase asking for more. Sometimes a studio would decide to move on to their next game and the publisher would contract another development team to produce an expansion.

One requires looking at the players as a fanbase to be satisfied as it grows the other requires looking at the players as an unlimited source of revenue.

I think you are missing the point... until you know what is included in each pack, you can in no way damn the price. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you can also not guarantee that it is in fact worth it. If you are a big fan of what the game has to offer, then you should be able to safely make the decision to lay down the cash for it... if you aren't, then don't get it. Why complain about the price of something that isn't required to enjoy the game as is? Had you encountered a game similar to what DLC Quest (look it up) portrays, then far forbid me to stop you from complaining as you would have a legitimate reason to... but in all my time as a gamer I never have purchased a game like that & I honestly doubt that I ever will.

That being said, I personally have never understood why On-Disc DLC is made out to be as big of a deal as it is by some people (besides there own lame sense of entitlement). Regardless of what people say about On-Disc DLC, it isn't required to enjoy the game... it harkens back to what I just said about DLC Quest.. Same kind of thing, just a different situation.

In the previous TW games there were no DLC factions and unlocking unplayables was a matter of editing a couple of files. There were also tons of mods adding new factions and making AI-only factions usable by the player. In Shogun 2 CA went to town locking a few clans, and offering them via DLC. And it's not like clan diversity changed much since Shogun 1 - they still use mostly identical units and differ at best in uniform color and some one special character. The greatest difference between clans is the starting location.
What SEGA and CA do is a bit like selling, say, Starcraft with a base package that doesn't let you pick any shades of green and blue for Zerg, and blocks you from starting at specific spawn points in skirmish maps. Of course, with Blue Zerg +Top Left Corner Spawn DLC ready in stores.

One side effect of dlc, and on-disk dlc in particular is a decrese in modding capability. Look at what can be accomplished with Medievil 2 TW and Rome TW compared to Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun 2. CA can't have modders adding in Dahomey Amazons or whatever if it competes with units already in the game, etc. In other words, DLC makes modders competitors with the developers for content-which has caused developers that use dlc to deliberately cut down on modding capability. As someone who used to mod RTW, I most certainly do think that removing modding capability and then charging for what ammounts to a mod *is* a big deal. Also, I am sick and tired of people labeling anyone who criticises any action by the gaming industry in any way as 'entitled'. It's a backhanded, dismissive label that amounts to an ad-hominim attack.

I am proud to say that I am a gamer with a very strong sense of entitlement. It comes from the fact that I actually am entitled. When I pay my hard earned money for a product I am entitled to have that product work as it should. When I buy a book I am entitled to be able to read every word on every page. When I buy a CD I am entitled to be able to listen to every song contained on that disc using whatever device I use to listen to any other CD. When I buy a movie I am entitled to have every second of video footage fully viewable. When I buy a game I am entitled to fully play that game. I work too hard for my money to waste it on an inferior product. I value my time too much to waste it jumping through artificial hoops to make a product I bought usable. If you see something wrong with my sense of entitlement then I suggest looking in a mirror and reevaluating your own sense of value you hold for your time and money.

That's fine and wonderful that you feel that way. I agree that gamers (or any other group of consuemers) are entitled to have their voices heard if they are displeased. However, In many ways, the word 'entitled' has been used to label critical consumers in much the same way someone might call someone a 'spoiled brat' or 'whiner'. The way it is used in context with gamers it is overwhelmingly intended as an insult, and that's something I don't appreciate.

I don't agree with the practices described above in the thread. I also think it's silly that they make stuff before release and make you pay for it after release, but I don't agree with your "it's on the disc I paid for so i'm entitled to it" stance either. You paid for the game that was described to you on the box/sales page. If that wasn't what you wanted then you shouldn't buy it.

But by defenition, isn't the on disc DLC part of the game described on the box? There is a lot more to just about any game that what is advertised on the box, should we have to pay extra for those features as well? Can you point me to the boxed version of the game that doen't have the DLC on it so that I can buy that one?
(I'm really not picking on you since we are otherwise in agreement, I'm just using your post to show my point.)


The way that game companies treat their customers would be wholly unacceptable in any other industry. Gamers everywhere should feel the righteous anger towards this treatment. If gamers continue to demean those who feel "entitled" then game companies will continue take away that which we should have had from the beginning. Even if you don't care about how the current system treats you, still demand more for they will get to something you do care about soon enough.

Those who attack those who criticize such action by game companies bear the responsibility and consequences of being complacent to what ever problems arise.

This Fall Of The Samurai game + all the DLC costs around 45 euro so I don't see what the big deal is if this game is a good game and not some piece of garbage slapped together to make easy money.. 45 euro is 5 euro cheaper than most new games. It is nothing like what EA does with a Bioware games when it is new, charge you over 60 euro if you want a complete game. Example - Mass Effect 3. That is something to be pissed off about.