Lightning Returns will have Lara Croft DLC at launch

Whether the DLC is on disc or not is really not important. Most day-one DLC is either on disc or so small that it would have been unproblematic to put it on the disc if they had wanted to. What you need to ask yourself is "if DLC was not technologically possible, would this have been in the game from the beginning of?" If you feel confident that the answer to this is yes for whichever DLC you're considering, then it's bad DLC and you shouldn't give them their money just to make a point.

Technically, it is fully possible for day-one DLC to be developed in the time between the developers sent the game off to the disc printing press, delivered copies to rating companies, and so forth, and before the game was available in stores. They *could* have spent this time developing more stuff for the game, and then we enter a sort of gray area.

Personally, I especially notice a reduction in stuff such as costumes in game series that used to have a ton of them, only to push these through DLC later. This example is specific to certain game series, but to me a pretty obvious case of spending less time developing the game and charging the same for it, for so to make some extra bucks later, and it's not just a little bit of extra bucks either. If a game usually has 4 costumes per character, but now suddenly only have two included and two as DLC, the DLC will probably put those costumes at 1-2 dollars for each costume, making the extra cost to get the same amount as pre-DLC about 12-24 dollars. Suddenly, a game with the same amount of extra stuff as you're used to costs 80 bucks instead of 60.

To add to this, extra costumes usually take a pretty miniscule amount of time compared to the total development of the game. Many only add a few details and change a few colors to existing skins, and I bet many of them are in reality discarded main design ideas. Charging two dollars for each little costume is in most cases nothing but a ripoff.

Originally Posted by Mirage

Whether the DLC is on disc or not is really not important. Most day-one DLC is either on disc or so small that it would have been unproblematic to put it on the disc if they had wanted to. What you need to ask yourself is "if DLC was not technologically possible, would this have been in the game from the beginning of?" If you feel confident that the answer to this is yes for whichever DLC you're considering, then it's bad DLC and you shouldn't give them their money just to make a point.

Technically, it is fully possible for day-one DLC to be developed in the time between the developers sent the game off to the disc printing press, delivered copies to rating companies, and so forth, and before the game was available in stores. They *could* have spent this time developing more stuff for the game, and then we enter a sort of gray area.

Personally, I especially notice a reduction in stuff such as costumes in game series that used to have a ton of them, only to push these through DLC later. This example is specific to certain game series, but to me a pretty obvious case of spending less time developing the game and charging the same for it, for so to make some extra bucks later, and it's not just a little bit of extra bucks either. If a game usually has 4 costumes per character, but now suddenly only have two included and two as DLC, the DLC will probably put those costumes at 1-2 dollars for each costume, making the extra cost to get the same amount as pre-DLC about 12-24 dollars. Suddenly, a game with the same amount of extra stuff as you're used to costs 80 bucks instead of 60.

To add to this, extra costumes usually take a pretty miniscule amount of time compared to the total development of the game. Many only add a few details and change a few colors to existing skins, and I bet many of them are in reality discarded main design ideas. Charging two dollars for each little costume is in most cases nothing but a ripoff.

What games do you remember having tons of costumes? I never remember having that many outfit choices in any game I played.

I agree with you that the "if it would normally be a part of the game", but I find very few DLCs where that is actually the case.

Most of the "tales of" games, star ocean, at least the third.

DLC's I buy tend to be related to adding to a game in the form on content. I do not find that extra costumes for games add anything to the gameplay, so iI tend to avoid them. League of legends is pretty bad for it, as mos of the additonal content you can pay for with real cash is costumes that don't affect the game at all.

Originally Posted by Mirage

Most of the "tales of" games, star ocean, at least the third.

Now compare this to the dozens of games which now have costume DLC which never had costume choices before. Like Final Fantasy.

Why?

Originally Posted by Mirage

Why?

Because you're grouping most of the industry together based on a practice that 99% of them never followed.

Before the rise of DLC, changeable costumes in games were rare. If they existed at all, they were usually a result of gear that changed your appearance, with each piece having it's own look, and even that was uncommon.

It was almost completely unheard of for games to feature anything more than that, especially bonus outfits that recreate characters from other games.

As you said, "consider if it would be in the game if DLC wasn't an option". Well, let's consider that. How many cosmetic options did we get in Final Fantasy games before DLC? We had Dress-spheres in X-2, and that was it. And if there was a "Lara Croft" Dress-sphere, I missed it.

I said personally, and i also specified which game series I was referring to. Maybe I play these games a lot more than you do, and that's why I noticed it. It was also just one example.

However, day one DLC is another example, and there's a lot of that too, even if some of it possibly is developed after the normal development period is over. Then we also have timed console exclusives that users of the other console needs to pay extra to get when the time exclusivity is over, even if this content was obviously developed before the game was released. Don't even get me started on preorder exclusives and retailer exclusives that the rest of the customers can pay extra to get later. I loathe those too.

They need to launch a DLC that allows you to play as Morgan Freeman instead of Lightning. They do that, I'm in.

I still find the idea of Lightning not wearing combat suitable clothes distasteful, but insofar as the effect of these kinds of DLC, I can tolerate it. Final Fantasy never had changeable costumes, and these are not just aesthetic effects, so fine. I still find their inclusion has an impact on the characterisation but look it's the third Final Fantasy XIII game and god willing it will be the last so I'm happy to look the other way.

Originally Posted by Jiro

I still find the idea of Lightning not wearing combat suitable clothes distasteful

Curious: Why? She's never worn combat suitable clothes. In I'd guess around 90% of Final Fantasy characters never wore combat suitable clothes. There are undoubtedbly some Knights or something that can make up the other 10% xD

I don't care much for DLC, but in this case it makes sense to not include it in the game. I think she looks pretty great in the outfit, though.

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Originally Posted by Jiro

I still find the idea of Lightning not wearing combat suitable clothes distasteful

Curious: Why? She's never worn combat suitable clothes. In I'd guess around 90% of Final Fantasy characters never wore combat suitable clothes. There are undoubtedbly some Knights or something that can make up the other 10% xD

Heh. I actually read an article which was interviewing an armorer/armor historian about video game armor, and how effective it would be in combat. You'd be surprised how few characters, even who wear full armor, are actually geared for combat in video games. The Warrior of Light's armor from Dissidia was ruined by the horns which, in addition to being heavy, also provide great leverage for anyone trying to break your neck. But Kain's Dragoon armor was actually one of the more effective armor sets reviewed.

I don't care much for DLC, but in this case it makes sense to not include it in the game. I think she looks pretty great in the outfit, though.

I agree, the outfit works well on her.

I would love to see that article, if you know where it is!

Seconded. That article seems very interesting! Me want!

Here you go.

I hope that works right. That sort of article is always a little finicky.

"Plays game set in a fantasy world, can't suspend disbelief for inconvenient outfits"

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Originally Posted by Jiro

I still find the idea of Lightning not wearing combat suitable clothes distasteful

Curious: Why? She's never worn combat suitable clothes. In I'd guess around 90% of Final Fantasy characters never wore combat suitable clothes. There are undoubtedbly some Knights or something that can make up the other 10% xD

Heh. I actually read an article which was interviewing an armorer/armor historian about video game armor, and how effective it would be in combat. You'd be surprised how few characters, even who wear full armor, are actually geared for combat in video games. The Warrior of Light's armor from Dissidia was ruined by the horns which, in addition to being heavy, also provide great leverage for anyone trying to break your neck. But Kain's Dragoon armor was actually one of the more effective armor sets reviewed.

I'd like them to review FF11 armor. A lot of that stuff actually looks like it would work pretty well.