EA have finally pushed the post-launch DLC thing too far.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Yes but you didn't pay for that content though, you paid for the game that you play when you turn on the console. As one other user above said, the only reason you're really annoyed about it is because you found out it was already on the disc which technically doesn't make a difference.


Yes but costumes and maps are far more time consuming to make now than they were with several people involved in creating them over a longer period of time. Don't get me wrong, I used to love getting the demo discs on PC Zone and finding them stuffed with extra content but I don't begrudge a developer charging for something they've spent the time and resources to create.

Okay, when you pay money for your game, you pay for physical copy of the actuall product ( can be digital these days). So if you got that dlc on disc allready, it means that i don't even own that full game, as developers has theyr own stuff on it... It's like buying a dozen pack of eggs in tesco, pay a full price, but then you can eat Only 10 eggs, you have to pay extra 20 cent to eat ather two!

Developers used make game as full as possible. More content more appeal. Now they make a full game, then they cut part of it which is not critical and make it dlc.

Imagine this now: diablo 2 comes out, you can play 1 2 and 4 act. Act 3 on the disc, but you have to pay anather 10 eu for it. We would pay that and would newer realise that act 3 was actuolly a part of the game!

It brings me to anather point: nobody set a rule or definition - full game. We, as consumers, don't know if that content which was called dlc was not a part of full game. No one has set a rule how many levels or tracks have to be Iin full game. It's a creative entertainment, you can't set this rule!

We had expansions back in the day, it was a big chunk of content for which we payed. We were happy to pay it: d2 lod, war 3 TFT, hl opfor, war 40k expansions. It was alot of content for reasonable money.

Now having to pay for content that is allready developed and on disc you payed for allready is just unfair.

There are companies who use dlc as drm: EA, as long as you get that content with a new game you bought, and only the secondhand owners got to pay fir it, is fair enough paying for content that is allready developed or multiplayer is a joke.

Then you got really nice bits of dlc like fallout did. That was content developed to bring life to game for a small fee. Nothing wrong with that. Paying for a horse armour or costumes is I big nono for me. There were times you were actuolly getting these rewards for playing games, finding secrets. Imagine if back in the day, you would need to pay for B sides of resident evil 2! If it would be out now I bet we would have payed for that!

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Yes but costumes and maps are far more time consuming to make now than they were with several people involved in creating them over a longer period of time. Don't get me wrong, I used to love getting the demo discs on PC Zone and finding them stuffed with extra content but I don't begrudge a developer charging for something they've spent the time and resources to create.

How come the mod community is still able to churn them out at a fast rate at a quality that can eclipse paid for DLC and all for free? I also very much doubt that a costume pack requires much work.

That_Guy

Wow: The list of DLC for this new Tiger Woods game is huge.

Costly too.

Tiger Woods Pga Tour 12: The Masters
Adidas Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Banff Springs Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Birdie Pack (£11.99/€14.99)
Bridgestone Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Callaway Proshop Pack (£3.19/€3.99)
Callaway Sponsorship (£3.19/€3.99)
Cleveland Proshop Pack (£2.39/€2.99)
Cleveland Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
Cobra Proshop Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
EA Online Pass (£6.29/€7.99)
EA Sports Proshop Pack 1 (£0.79/€0.99)
EA Sports Proshop Pack 2 (£0.79/€0.99)
EA Sports Proshop Pack 3 (£0.79/€0.99)
EA Sports Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
Eagle Pack (£19.99/€24.99)
Emerald Dragon (£3.19/€3.99)
Footjoy Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Greek Isles (£5.49/€6.99)
Grip Item Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
Harbour Town Golf Links (£3.19/€3.99)
Hazeltine National Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
The Highlands (£3.19/€3.99)
Loudmouth Golf Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Mizuno Proshop Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
Nike Clothing Pack 1 (£0.79/€0.99)
Nike Clothing Pack 2 (£0.79/€0.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 1 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 2 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 3 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Proshop Pack 4 (£2.39/€2.99)
Nike Sponsorship (£5.49/€6.99)
Oakley Proshop Pack 1 (£0.79/€0.99)
Oakley Proshop Pack 2 (£0.79/€0.99)
Oakmont Country Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Pinehurst (£3.19/€3.99)
Ping Proshop Pack (£2.39/€2.99)
Ping Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
Prototype Starter Suit (£3.99/€4.99)
Quagmire Golf Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
River Course At Blackwolf Run (£3.19/€3.99)
Riviera Cc Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Shaft Item Pack (£1.59/€1.99)
Sheshan Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Spyglass Hill Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Sundog Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Taylormade Proshop Pack (£0.79/€0.99)
Taylormade Sponsorship (£2.39/€2.99)
The Els Club (£5.49/€6.99)
The Predator (£3.19/€3.99)
The TPC Blue Monster At Doral (£3.19/€3.99)
Torrey Pines Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
TPC Boston (£3.19/€3.99)
Wolf Creek, Nv (£3.19/€3.99)

ShadowHearth

Holy ****, is that a brand new game, with so many dlcs?!?!

That_Guy

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Holy ****, is that a brand new game, with so many dlcs?!?!

Madness. You'd probably spend over €150 if you buy the physical copy and download all of these items.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay, when you pay money for your game, you pay for physical copy of the actuall product ( can be digital these days). So if you got that dlc on disc allready, it means that i don't even own that full game, as developers has theyr own stuff on it... It's like buying a dozen pack of eggs in tesco, pay a full price, but then you can eat Only 10 eggs, you have to pay extra 20 cent to eat ather two!

Well not quite, your argument is based around the fact that the DLC should be part of the main game which is not always the case. You're also discounting the point I made earlier which said that the only reason that content was made in the first place was specifically for DLC.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Developers used make game as full as possible. More content more appeal. Now they make a full game, then they cut part of it which is not critical and make it dlc.

Same as above, you're saying the DLC is "cut out" whereas it may have only been added in the first place for DLC purposes. For instance, Assassins Creed II DLC missions, they didn't really fit into the flow of the main story and would not have been missed if you didn't play them but they were slotted in, chronologically speaking at least, with DLC. If there had been no DLC then those missions would simply have been left out of the game.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Imagine this now: diablo 2 comes out, you can play 1 2 and 4 act. Act 3 on the disc, but you have to pay anather 10 eu for it. We would pay that and would newer realise that act 3 was actuolly a part of the game!

Same again, doesn't apply here as you're saying you've paid for a "full game" and are only getting 75% of it whereas in reality, you paid for "100%" of a game and are getting an additional % in most cases.

As a matter of interest, can you think of one game which you deemed "not complete" without the DLC which came out for it later?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Now having to pay for content that is allready developed and on disc you payed for allready is just unfair.

Why is it unfair? What's the difference between a company saying during development "Okay we can dedicate resources to X content for the disk but only if it's sold as DLC" or said company saying after the game is released "Okay now we'll dedicate resources to X content and sell it via DLC"?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Then you got really nice bits of dlc like fallout did. That was content developed to bring life to game for a small fee. Nothing wrong with that. Paying for a horse armour or costumes is I big nono for me. There were times you were actuolly getting these rewards for playing games, finding secrets. Imagine if back in the day, you would need to pay for B sides of resident evil 2! If it would be out now I bet we would have payed for that!

I certainly agree personally on the horse armour issue but did you miss the story the other day where Bethesda said people are still buying it? So clearly some people think it's good value for money.

As for said rewards well there are two issues here. Firstly, said bonuses cost more to make now in terms of resources than they previously did. Secondly, companies realised people are willing to pay for them so why give them away for free when it's costing them money to make them? You could argue that it's showing loyalty to those who purchased the game but given the strict budgets most studios are working on these days, it's unfortunately naive to think every studio can afford to do that.

Kimbot

Tiger Woods Pga Tour 12: The Masters

Banff Springs Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
EA Online Pass (£6.29/€7.99)
Emerald Dragon (£3.19/€3.99)
Greek Isles (£5.49/€6.99)
Harbour Town Golf Links (£3.19/€3.99)
Hazeltine National Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
The Highlands (£3.19/€3.99)
Oakmont Country Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Pinehurst (£3.19/€3.99)
River Course At Blackwolf Run (£3.19/€3.99)
Riviera Cc Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Sheshan Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Spyglass Hill Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
The Els Club (£5.49/€6.99)
The Predator (£3.19/€3.99)
The TPC Blue Monster At Doral (£3.19/€3.99)
Torrey Pines Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
TPC Boston (£3.19/€3.99)
Wolf Creek, Nv (£3.19/€3.99)

What really annoys me is that in all the previous tiger woods you got most of the above for free as standard courses!!!!

cherryghost

€200.46 for the entire DLC

That_Guy

cherryghost wrote: »

€200.46 for the entire DLC

+€50 for the actual game.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

Yes but you didn't pay for that content though, you paid for the game that you play when you turn on the console. As one other user above said, the only reason you're really annoyed about it is because you found out it was already on the disc which technically doesn't make a difference.

I paid for what's on the disk. It does make a difference if it's on the disk or not because they are locking something on the disk and making you pay for it.

Think of it like this. They have already made the content and put it on the disk, before the game is released. That means it's part of the game. So if you buy the game, you have already paid for everything on the disk. By charging for something on the disk, they are charging you twice for part of the disk.

DLC is meant to be stuff they couldnt add to the disk on time or created after the game was released. Then, you are paying for the work which went into the new content.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Well not quite, your argument is based around the fact that the DLC should be part of the main game which is not always the case. You're also discounting the point I made earlier which said that the only reason that content was made in the first place was specifically for DLC.


Same as above, you're saying the DLC is "cut out" whereas it may have only been added in the first place for DLC purposes. For instance, Assassins Creed II DLC missions, they didn't really fit into the flow of the main story and would not have been missed if you didn't play them but they were slotted in, chronologically speaking at least, with DLC. If there had been no DLC then those missions would simply have been left out of the game.


Same again, doesn't apply here as you're saying you've paid for a "full game" and are only getting 75% of it whereas in reality, you paid for "100%" of a game and are getting an additional % in most cases.

As a matter of interest, can you think of one game which you deemed "not complete" without the DLC which came out for it later?


Why is it unfair? What's the difference between a company saying during development "Okay we can dedicate resources to X content for the disk but only if it's sold as DLC" or said company saying after the game is released "Okay now we'll dedicate resources to X content and sell it via DLC"?


I certainly agree personally on the horse armour issue but did you miss the story the other day where Bethesda said people are still buying it? So clearly some people think it's good value for money.

As for said rewards well there are two issues here. Firstly, said bonuses cost more to make now in terms of resources than they previously did. Secondly, companies realised people are willing to pay for them so why give them away for free when it's costing them money to make them? You could argue that it's showing loyalty to those who purchased the game but given the strict budgets most studios are working on these days, it's unfortunately naive to think every studio can afford to do that.

How do you know or any of us: where full game starts and where it ends? If developer had time and recourses to make for release date it means it was possible and can go to game it self. Dragon age dlcs are perfect example of a rip off.

As for the rest of the topic, horse armour just sums it all up, dlcs are profitable becouse there are lots and lots of stupid poeple. Developers see that and use it.

Small dlcs that give content AFTER release is a good thing. Dlcs on the disc, dlcs for costumes and right to play multiplayer aka bc2, moh are rip offs.


Main thing that you can't even argue: we don't know what is a "full" game. Developer can't bull**** ass all day long with dlc ant release, but we all know the true: it was developed before the game even came out, it's on a disc we allready payedcmoney for and we can't use it, unless we pay again!

penev10

There's a parallel between saying when you buy the disc you should own everything on it and the argument the PS3 hackers are making (saying when you a PS3 you should be allowed to do what you like with it)

Until it gets to the stage where, unannounced, you are prompted to pay to play the next level of a game you thought you had purchased in it's entirity, you are getting what you paid for.

gizmo

Barrington wrote: »

I paid for what's on the disk. It does make a difference if it's on the disk or not because they are locking something on the disk and making you pay for it.

Nope, you paid for the game, not what's on the disk.

Barrington wrote: »

Think of it like this. They have already made the content and put it on the disk, before the game is released. That means it's part of the game. So if you buy the game, you have already paid for everything on the disk. By charging for something on the disk, they are charging you twice for part of the disk.

If you read what I wrote above you'd see that's not always the case. Additional development time could have been spent on creating content which was specifically for DLC, if there was to be no DLC then the time would not have been allotted and the content not made. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, notably Tiger Woods above, but the point is not all DLC is created equally.

Barrington wrote: »

DLC is meant to be stuff they couldnt add to the disk on time or created after the game was released. Then, you are paying for the work which went into the new content.

Who said DLC was meant to be that? The term "new content" is what's causing the problem there, a more apt term nowadays is "DLC content" which handles content developed both during and after release.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

How do you know or any of us: where full game starts and where it ends? If developer had time and recourses to make for release date it means it was possible and can go to game it self. Dragon age dlcs are perfect example of a rip off.

No one needs to say it but look at it this way. If you played through Assassins Creed II without the DLC missions or Dragon Age without being ridiculously prompted for that DLC, would you have felt hard done by? Not in the slightest I'd wager. The only reason you're annoyed about the latter is because you were made (painfully in this case) aware of it. Therefore that game was "finished" to you and you weren't ripped off in the slightest.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Small dlcs that give content AFTER release is a good thing. Dlcs on the disc, dlcs for costumes and right to play multiplayer aka bc2, moh are rip offs.

You're clearly not going to agree with any of the rational explanations for this so I won't continue to try. I've given you a couple of reasons why content comes on the disc and I've given other examples and indeed agreed with some of them which are unacceptable but the point I'm getting at is, tarring it all with the same "rip off" brush is simply wrong whether you disagree or not.

super_furry

So anyone who wants the complete Tiger Woods 2012 experience has to fork over €250.

The content is there, it was made during the game's production - which incidently was shortened to coincide with The Masters - and is being held back to bleed more money from consumers. That's fair enough, EA are within their rights to do that, but as a consumer I'm within my rights to see it for the absolute rip-off it is, and tell EA to go fúck themselves. Metaphorically.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

Nope, you paid for the game, not what's on the disk.


If you read what I wrote above you'd see that's not always the case. Additional development time could have been spent on creating content which was specifically for DLC, if there was to be no DLC then the time would not have been allotted and the content not made. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, notably Tiger Woods above, but the point is not all DLC is created equally.


Who said DLC was meant to be that? The term "new content" is what's causing the problem there, a more apt term nowadays is "DLC content" which handles content developed both during and after release.

How is DLC downloadable content if the content isn't downloadable? It's on the disk. You're not paying for it, you're paying for the right to use it. There is a big difference. And I'm not being pedantic about the name. You shouldn't have to pay to access something that was included on the disk for general release. Take any other form of media. Would you pay for an unlock code for extra songs on an album even though they are already on the album? Would you pay to unlock a Making Of feature on a DVD?

I see what you're saying about certain things having time allocated to them so they can recover the cost by charging for it as DLC. But if they're including it on the disk, they are putting stuff on the disk, possibly even at the expense of something else, which you have to pay extra for. And that isn't right.

Take extra costumes for example. What if someone who bought the game didn't have Internet and couldn't go online? Those extra costumes are sitting on the disk with no way to access them. By including a way to unlock them by doing something in the game, that person could use those costumes. Obviously, who gives a **** about extra costumes really, but the example of not being able to play online with others who have downloaded the costumes is bogus because that could be fixed with a free update.

All it boils down to is games companies making more money by putting stuff on the disk and making you pay for it. And that's bull****.

gizmo

Barrington wrote: »

How is DLC downloadable content if the content isn't downloadable? It's on the disk. You're not paying for it, you're paying for the right to use it. There is a big difference. And I'm not being pedantic about the name. You shouldn't have to pay to access something that was included on the disk for general release. Take any other form of media. Would you pay for an unlock code for extra songs on an album even though they are already on the album? Would you pay to unlock a Making Of feature on a DVD?

It's not about the user being pedantic about the name, it's about the industry embracing the term (incorrectly may I add) for all of this type of extra content.

As for the music CD / DVD comparison, I think the "Making Of" feature is the only fair comparison given the manner in which that content is made. Look at it like this for instance, you can buy a standard edition movie for €10 and it comes with the movie on it's own. Alternatively you buy the Special Edition movie which is €15 but which comes with the additional Making Of material. No real problem there is there? Now, what happens if the studio decides to combine both releases into one disc but only allow you to access the additional content for €5 extra but still sells the disc at €10 at retail? Would that be a problem for you?

Barrington wrote: »

I see what you're saying about certain things having time allocated to them so they can recover the cost by charging for it as DLC. But if they're including it on the disk, they are putting stuff on the disk, possibly even at the expense of something else, which you have to pay extra for. And that isn't right.

My above analogy is relevant here too but I don't agree with what you're saying about putting DLC content on the disc rather than content which should have been in the main game, that just doesn't happen.

Barrington wrote: »

Take extra costumes for example. What if someone who bought the game didn't have Internet and couldn't go online? Those extra costumes are sitting on the disk with no way to access them. By including a way to unlock them by doing something in the game, that person could use those costumes.

But doing that would all but eliminate the possible revenue generated from those who could pay for it online because if it was available by simply playing the game, the majority of people would do it rather than unlocking it, thus making it not worth the developers time.

Barrington wrote: »

Obviously, who gives a **** about extra costumes really, but the example of not being able to play online with others who have downloaded the costumes is bogus because that could be fixed with a free update.

It's not free for the developers/publishers though, Microsoft and Sony charge for updates remember.

Gunsfortoys

This will only push piracy further up the ladder in my opinion.

I really loved the GTA IV expansions(nearly better than the original game) and had no problem paying for them as they are an add on.

This is just ridiculous.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

It's not free for the developers/publishers though, Microsoft and Sony charge for updates remember.

Then put out something that justifies the price and stop selling a product with chnks taken out of it.

Helix

Barrington wrote: »

All it boils down to is games companies making more money by putting stuff on the disk and making you pay for it. And that's bull****.

whats the difference between having it on the disk or having it online on launch? none at all

very few games take up all the room on their optical media, so why not save people a big old download and whack the files on the disk for unlocking

Helix

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Then put out something that justifies the price and stop selling a product with chnks taken out of it.

everything is justified in terms of price if people are buying it

i cant understand why on earth people would pay money for some of the utter turd released as dlc, but so long as theyre willing to i bear no ill will towards the developers who want to part them from their money like the fools they are

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Then put out something that justifies the price and stop selling a product with chnks taken out of it.

Well now we're getting some where.

I certainly object to some of the prices being charged for DLC alright. 1200pts for a map pack is outrageous when you consider the work that has gone into it. Compare this to something like the GTA and Borderlands DLC and you can see the problems with the system.

And yes, if a product launches with chunks taken out of it then I'll object to it. That being said, how many games are released days in this manner? The Tiger Woods example looks like a possible candidate but I'd be interested to see how many courses were included in previous iterations compared to this one before grabbing my pitchfork.

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

The Tiger Woods example looks like a possible candidate but I'd be interested to see how many courses were included in previous iterations compared to this one before grabbing my pitchfork.

tiger 11:
* United States TPC Sawgrass
* Scotland Turnberry
* Scotland St Andrews
* United States Bethpage
* United States Oakmont
* England Wentworth
* United States Pebble Beach
* United States TPC Boston
* United States Hazeltine
* United States East Lake
* United States Torrey Pines
* United States Wolf Creek
* Wales Celtic Manor Resort
* United States Liberty National
* United States The Greenbrier
* United States TPC Scottsdale
* United States Whistling Straits

Tiger 12:
* United States Augusta National Golf Club
* United States Augusta National Golf Club Par 3 Course
* Greece The Dunes Course at Costa Navarino
* United States Atlanta Athletic Club
* United States TPC San Antonio
* Australia The Royal Melbourne Golf Club
* United States Pebble Beach
* Scotland St Andrews
* United States TPC Sawgrass
* United States Waialae
* United States East Lake Golf Club
* Wales Celtic Manor
* United States TPC Scottsdale
* United States Whistling Straits
* United States Liberty National
* United States Greenbrier
* United Arab Emirates The Els Club

17 each

gizmo

Okay so, comparing that list with the DLC list it looks like this iteration of Tiger Woods comes with the same number of courses as the old one, with some new courses replacing the older ones. They also appear to be offering some of the courses from the previous iteration as DLC.

Which in effect means those who own the previous iteration won't feel totally robbed when they buy the new one due to the new courses but they're also given the opportunity to get some of their old faves as DLC.

Wow, those bastards! :pac:

penev10

17 courses for €45 (€2.65 a course) and €4 a course after that. Sounds reasonable to me. Far better value than COD map-packs.

ArphaRima

250 Euro

Holy Moly! :eek:
If Tiger Wood's DLC becomes anything like the norm I will switch to Piracy. I buy a lot of games annually and I have no problem doing that to support an industry I love to ensure they make more of them. If they start taking the p1ss I will abandon them completely.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

You're clearly not going to agree with any of the rational explanations for this so I won't continue to try. I've given you a couple of reasons why content comes on the disc and I've given other examples and indeed agreed with some of them which are unacceptable but the point I'm getting at is, tarring it all with the same "rip off" brush is simply wrong whether you disagree or not.

i did not brushed them all in same color, no need making this: i "are" smart, so i wount bother discussing it with you.

i dont need explanation why content is on the disc, we all know why: its easyer to handle content, no need additional servers online, they put it on the disc so its even more cheaper and profitable to make money. moust of us dont AGREE with content that is physicly on your "property" cannot be used unless you pay more money! And if that content was developed allready, why its not part of the game. Moust of us DONT AGREE with stuff which was unlocable by playing games, is now a dlc for which you got to pay more money.

DLC is a great great idea, but like any good idea, when greedy people come near it, they will feck it up.

you cant understand the frustration alot of people have, and just putting it off in " bad avertised at release " wount make your argument solid.

Anything costs money these days, making dlc too.

great ida of dlc: fallout series. Developers gave theyr best and made fallout 3, everyone plays it, some enjoying it, some hating it. when people got all content completed, developers gave anather bit of content for a tenner. It gave people more gametime out of theyr game, to ather - a reason to buy game, as that dlc might be more appealing then original story etc.

bad dlc: making a game like this golf game, before even be able to buy it or seing a review of the game, you allready offered a DLC!!! So you buy a game, and then buy a right to use content on the disc? that game has such a huge dlc list on release date! how can you look at it and say: yup, thats how it should be!

we all know, that EA made crapy way of dlc, becouse of the second hand game market. gamestop can resale one game 5 times and make all the money, while EA got money only from the first sale. So its greed fighting bigger greed. even so, if dlc that comes on release date is free with NEW game purchase, then its reasonable. As it will bite in the arse not a EA customer, but gamestop customer.

Hogzy

jonny24ie wrote: »

Tiger Woods Pga Tour 12: The Masters

Banff Springs Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
EA Online Pass (£6.29/€7.99)
Emerald Dragon (£3.19/€3.99)
Greek Isles (£5.49/€6.99)
Harbour Town Golf Links (£3.19/€3.99)
Hazeltine National Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
The Highlands (£3.19/€3.99)
Oakmont Country Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Pinehurst (£3.19/€3.99)
River Course At Blackwolf Run (£3.19/€3.99)
Riviera Cc Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
Sheshan Golf Club (£3.19/€3.99)
Spyglass Hill Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
The Els Club (£5.49/€6.99)
The Predator (£3.19/€3.99)
The TPC Blue Monster At Doral (£3.19/€3.99)
Torrey Pines Golf Course (£3.19/€3.99)
TPC Boston (£3.19/€3.99)
Wolf Creek, Nv (£3.19/€3.99)

What really annoys me is that in all the previous tiger woods you got most of the above for free as standard courses!!!!

What i highlighted above was free on previous games since the series began. Its an absolute joke how much they are charging. Fair enough if the RRP was like €20 but this game will be €50-60 in shops. Seeing that list puts me off buying from EA ever again.

I dont know why this DLC thing has become so bad on consoles. It was never bad for PC's and they always had access to the internet.

EA are probably the worst out there for DLC though.
Gran Turismo 5. Now theres a game. No DLC and no plans for any. Just FREE updates. Well worth the wait and i am glad i paid full €€€ for the game too.

johnny_ultimate

I don't think there's an easy argument for or against DLC. There are easy arguments for and against certain forms of DLC. Like it or not, the concept is here to stay - look how many people are willing to pay for it. A slow trickle of content with genuine depth is the good side of things: I'm sure Oblivion and Dragon Age fans were delighted with genuine expansion packs like Shivering Isles or Awakenings. And it's hard to bemoan small, cheap DLC - not a ****ing chance I'm going to buy it, but if people want to buy a cheapish new costume set a few months down the line I can't begrudge them. The only DLC I've ever heavily invested in is for Rock Band - which provided me with an opportunity to buy songs I really wanted to add to my playlist. I could be selective and it added a lot of fun to the title (although am a bit iffy about the way they highlight potential DLC songs in menus in RB3).

The clear argument against DLC is that there is the feeling that games are being purposefully circumcised (yeah, I'm sticking with that verb :pac:) to **** us over. If they're tangential or 'extra' quests or the like, it's not nice, but if they don't impact on the main story or depth of the single player game we can grumble but choose to ignore it. When it's being rubbed in our face like in DA2 ("I JUST BOUGHT THE GAME, WHY CAN'T I DO THIS QUEST!!!") that's when we should correctly say "Alright, enough!". Level restrictions in RPGs are a particular worry. The fact that we can't advance past a certain point unless we buy an upgrade pack feels cheeky in the extreme. It won't break the game either in many cases. It just seems like level 20 is quite restrictive when 99 - or 9999 in Disgaea - is the norm elsewhere. Pay now for level 30! Obviously there has to be some level restriction in some game design, but it just feels like you hit the maximum earlier and earlier these days.

As said, I don't buy a lot of DLC, but can see the appeal of hearty content for fans some distance down the line. But when multiplayer components are being restricted, games artificially shortened or content purposefully withheld that the consumer should rightly feel like they've been violated. Game development costs have shot up, no doubt about that. And the best companies have found innovative ways to tackle that. But others see it as an excuse for a quick buck, withholding plethora of content (in the Tiger Woods case) to all but the most wealthy and - dare I suggest - most gullible.

Helix

Hogzy wrote: »

What i highlighted above was free on previous games since the series began. Its an absolute joke how much they are charging.

but what about the new courses that replaced them that werent on previous games?

there are 17 courses in the game, without dlc, same as last year

ShadowHearth

Just curiosity... What does change in newer titles of same golf game? I am talking not the upgrade from normal to hd, but those that are all hd. It's golf... Same idea... Ball, field, hole...

If there are same courses on bouth games, what is tue change then so that it would force me to buy new title?

I am not bashing new one or old one, I newer ever played golf games, so I am just want to know