Weekend Confirmed 104 - Mass Effect 3, Diablo 3, GDC remainders

I actually commend Jeff for being so honest about his opinions regarding DLC. I don't agree with them whatsoever, but the role of journalism isn't - as some seem to take it - to act as a consumer watch-dog, but rather it is to report the facts objectively, and then to provide both sides of the debate.

That said, for all the reasons discussed thus far I still find his argument to be massively flawed.

But the thing is even ignoring those flaws the most puzzling part for me was at the end when Garnett said he disagreed with EA’s business model on artistic grounds, and Jeff responded "Oh, you're talking artistically? In that case we have no argument."

So on the one hand he makes the case for publishers siphoning off content to be purchased later as DLC because they planned the project with all these different revenue streams, and it had to add up to a particular bottom line in order to make commercial sense. Fine. And then on the other he accepts the practice as being artistically bankrupt and detrimental, as Garnett argued. Also fine.

But surely the conclusion of these competing strains of thought should be some compromise taking into account both considerations? The problem with Jeff's standpoint isn't that he's the only gamer out there with a hint of commercial awareness. It's that when it comes to critiquing commercial practice in his mind this is the only relevant consideration and any artistic concerns should be left at the door entirely.

I just wonder how for he's willing to take this logic. If the board of directors at EA had decided that the launch day on-disc DLC for Mass Effect 3 would not be limited just to some peripheral extra character, but actually to, say, the final third of the game itself, what would Jeff's reaction be? What if when he was playing Madden he took his team to the Superbowl only to find that he had to pay $10 extra to unlock the game itself from the disc?

I'd like to think that as a journalist he'd be outraged, recognise this was a step too far, and kick up a fuss against such a cynical practice. But by his own logic it's the publisher that has the right to call the shots, and if they end up making more money as a result then more power to them, right?

So if you’re reading this Jeff I’d be interested to know from your perspective what would be an example of a publisher going too far with DLC. And secondly, given your apparent belief that the debate begins and ends with the Publishers owning the content and having the right to distribute it via whatever revenue streams they deem most financially beneficial to themselves, in that scenario on what grounds you would object to it?