PDA

View Full Version : EM confirms plans on DLC for DX:HR!



Shinrei
19th Aug 2010, 18:14
As stated in the title a new interview with Producer David Anfossi by VG247 unveils that there are plans for DLCs coming for DX:HR. (source (http://www.vg247.com/2010/08/19/interview-eidos-montreal%e2%80%99s-david-anfossi/))


VG247: What about DLC? Do you have any plans for that?

Anfossi: So you’re right, no multiplayer, it’s a single-player experience. It’s very important for us to deliver a quality game. And that fuels our energy. And yes, we started to work on DLC that will be an extension of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Me and [Jean-Francois] Dugas, the game director, we started to work on that.


Personally I'm not really a fan of DLCs, cause of the lack of cost - performance ratio. Generally speaking there are some good DLCs out there of course, but the best ones are either free or huge content additions - so you are paying for their quality. I hope you all get my point here...normally I would'nt mind DLCs for any game, but this one concerns our beloved DX-Series. I don't really know what to think about the plans of EM for making such a step. I mean both DX games have really good storylines and they are somehow completed in the game, besides some questions which are left open (but I do think that's one thing why we love DX... philosophical/ethnic questions can't be solved by a medium like a videogame).
So according to this interview they are already in the planning phase, which really bothers me. DX:HR isn't even shipped yet (I think it's in beta or late alpha now) and the devs are talking about a DLC after release?

Normally I don't got any problems with such things IF the content is good and it enrichens the game at all...but for a DX game?! What could be a "good" content for a DLC?!

The statement from Anfossi makes clear, they are not going for a multiplayer (as said many times before) so what they gonna do? Too many DLCs out there are just for the sake of money (different weapon skins, new characters...we all know that stuff). Besides that the Deus Ex Series is all about telling a complex, multi-layered story, so the question is: would a DLC ruin that experience or enrichen it!?

It would'nt make sense if they release some sort of mission packs (with no story in it - like the industry does nowadays with a lot of games) so the only reasonable content for a DLC could be the unveiling of the backstory of certain characters or Adam himself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against DLCs for DX:HR BUT they have to be REALLY good to live up to the inital DX 1 and 2. Otherwise it's only making money with our beloved IP and getting it to the mainstream out there...

So what you are thinking about this news!? Discuss...

Nyysjan
19th Aug 2010, 18:18
They could not dissapoint us more if they tried.
Actually, i'm not so certain anymore that they aren't trying.
DLC, next they'll announce retailer bonus items for preorders (different items for different retailers) and that they have decided to skip the pc version alltogether.

K^2
19th Aug 2010, 18:19
Or pre-order bonus augs.

I'm just giving them ideas now, aren't I? I'll stop.

Kodaemon
19th Aug 2010, 18:19
Yay, differently coloured sunglasses for only $5! No, wait, seems it's the other type - 10% of the game cut out and sold separately. Also fun. :/

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 18:20
I definitely don't want DXHR to end in a cliffhanger that can only be resolved through DLC. That's just cruel...

And new floral patterns for the coat would suck too.

However I wouldn't mind some side stories, something similar to The Icarus Effect (is that what it's called? The novel) about secret agents or other characters involved in the cybernetics thing. This is a global conspiracy after all, and there's gotta be a lot going on behind the scenes that Adam never even touches.

Sabretooth1
19th Aug 2010, 18:23
What if they include Deus Ex remade with Human Revolution assets as DLC?

Also, does anyone have a supercomputer handy to calculate the odds of that happening?

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 18:25
What if they include Deus Ex remade with Human Revolution assets as DLC?

Also, does anyone have a supercomputer handy to calculate the odds of that happening?

Beep boop. ANSWER: 1 in a squabbityjillion.

K^2
19th Aug 2010, 18:25
Also, does anyone have a supercomputer handy to calculate the odds of that happening?
I do. It's a sticker that says "No".

sonicsidewinder
19th Aug 2010, 18:30
Didn't see this coming at all.

The only dlc's i want to see are user created mods, that are free.

K^2
19th Aug 2010, 18:32
You know... This could prove beneficial for modding. Depending on how DLCs are added, it might be possible to inject user content the same way.

Ashpolt
19th Aug 2010, 18:33
*Facepalm*, although a not entirely unexpected one. At least the fact that it's coming to Steam means we will actually be likely to get the DLC on PC, unlike a lot of cross-platform games.

The only way I can see this working without damaging the main game (but make no mistake, I have no faith in EM not damaging the main game with this) would be side-stories, as suggested above. Getting to play as another character and see their perspective of how things work.

Of course, this is fairly unlikely, as it will mean the player losing all the augs they gained and having to start again from scratch. Fine by me, but considering EM thinks the bunch of us are drooling imbeciles, I can't imagine them making you do that. As such, it'll most likely take place after the end of the main game, meaning the main game will be left unfinished. Hooray for the industry having grown up!

Shinrei
19th Aug 2010, 18:33
I wouldn't mind side stories about important characters in the game, but the word DLC gets me quiet alerted. :P
Hoping the best that EM gets it right....*fingers crossed* Time will tell!

P.S.: My personal must-have DLC: "The lemon lime complex - the story of the vending machine conspiracy and Gunther Hermann"

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 18:34
I wasn't expecting DLC for a game like this.

I assume they'll do new weapons?

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 18:40
I wouldn't mind side stories about important characters in the game, but the word DLC gets me quiet alerted. :P
Hoping the best that EM gets it right....*fingers crossed* Time will tell!

P.S.: My personal must-have DLC: "The lemon lime complex - the story of the vending machine conspiracy and Gunther Hermann"

It was Walton Simons. It's part of his plan to gradually turn Gunther into a docile MJ12 slave. Also he was thirsty.

Irate_Iguana
19th Aug 2010, 18:47
No, wait, seems it's the other type - 10% of the game cut out and sold separately. Also fun. :/

Probably this. I just wish the industry went back to making full expansion packs for games or proper sequels and spin-offs. I would love to play a DX game that centered on how Gunther, Anna or even Carter came to be where they are now.

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 19:06
I keep thinking I've reached rock-bottom with my expectations for this game, but the hits just keep on coming. :mad2:

DLC? Seriously? The same $10-15 a piece, transparent, cash-grab tactics the "grown up industry" (boy, that quote is going to haunt this game for a loooong time) uses to squeeze as much $$$ out of underdeveloped games as possible?

Unless this DLC is a fully equipped SDK or re-release of a shinier Deus Ex (never gonna happen), consider me officially PISSED. OFF.

Seriously. ***** DLC.

Ashbery76
19th Aug 2010, 19:06
dlc=suck

Rindill the Red
19th Aug 2010, 19:39
The only DLC that should be allowed to exist are true expansions... which are basically just downloadable expansion packs.

ex.
Shivering Isles (Oblivion)
Episodes from Liberty City (GTA IV)

Which basically could be sold on their own.

Selling small downloadable content doesn't bring in that much more cash, and just angers your consumers.

If the company is really strapped for cash, why doesn't it just include everything in the game at release (delay the game a little bit), and sell it for 10 dollars more (60 instead of 50).

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 19:44
If the company is really strapped for cash, why doesn't it just include everything in the game at release (delay the game a little bit), and sell it for 10 dollars more (60 instead of 50).

Er-hem (Modern Warfare 2).

(And Black Ops.)

We shouldn't be encouraging the increase of game prices after Activision did so.

Modern Warfare 2: a short, 4-6 hour campaign with laggy and unbalanced multiplayer. Not worth $60/£45.

Black Ops: Can't comment on it, yet.

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 19:46
Er-hem (Modern Warfare 2).

(And Black Ops.)

We shouldn't be encouraging the increase of game prices after Activision did so.

Modern Warfare 2: a short, 4-6 hour campaign with laggy and unbalanced multiplayer. Not worth $60/£45.

Black Ops: Can't comment on it, yet.

Nah the multiplayer's good.

Rindill the Red
19th Aug 2010, 19:52
Er-hem (Modern Warfare 2).

(And Black Ops.)

We shouldn't be encouraging the increase of game prices after Activision did so.

Modern Warfare 2: a short, 4-6 hour campaign with laggy and unbalanced multiplayer. Not worth $60/£45.

Black Ops: Can't comment on it, yet.

Well, there is a LARGE difference between profiteering (MW2) and delivering superior content at understandably increased prices.

I always thought console games were more expensive because the console manufacturers were taking a big cut?

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 19:53
Well, there is a LARGE difference between profiteering (MW2) and delivering superior content at understandably increased prices.

I always thought console games were more expensive because the console manufacturers were taking a big cut?

True, but publishers like Activision add on an additional cost for no reason.

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 19:54
True, but publishers like Activision add on an additional cost for no reason.

Of course there's a reason. Profit, duh.

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 19:58
Of course there's a reason. Profit, duh.

Duh, of course.

But it's mainly because of greed.

They know their customers will buy the game that has "Call of Duty" on it, so they think they can do whatever they want.

On topic: I hope the DLC for Deus Ex: HR will be worth whatever cost they may be and not a repeat of the $15 for 3 new maps MW2 fiasco.

DeusWhatever
19th Aug 2010, 20:03
On topic: I hope the DLC for Deus Ex: HR will be worth whatever cost they may be and not a repeat of the $15 for 3 new maps MW2 fiasco.

Fiasco? Invest too pick a high number 30000 Dollars fore 6 new and 9 old maps (i hope i got the number right 3 DLCs?), and sell them 20 million times for 15 Dollars -> makes 300 million Dollars, for an investement of 30.000 Dollars ... :nut:

Even the most retarded luxury brands cant even dream of such a margin of profit.

And the really sad thing here, any1 that would price his DLC low would be stupid. Consumers dictate the price, not the other way arround. They simply started with the highes price they thought ppl would accept, people bought like maniacs, so in funture they can even price DLC higher. If people wouldnt have bought like maniacs the price would have droped and adjusted in the future ...

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 20:04
Duh, of course.

But it's mainly because of greed.

They know their customers will buy the game that has "Call of Duty" on it, so they think they can do whatever they want.

On topic: I hope the DLC for Deus Ex: HR will be worth whatever cost they may be and not a repeat of the $15 for 3 new maps MW2 fiasco.

Well we have to assume any DLC will be single player based (I don't think EM would have the audacity to charge for something as silly as new player character outfits or bonus behind-the-scenes material). Either way, if it's not good enough to make it into the main game, or its not developed enough to warrant inclusion in a sequel, then don't release it and certainly don't expect us to pay for it!

JCpies
19th Aug 2010, 20:08
Hurrah, another peice of marketing that Microsoft can take advantage of. Nice work.

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 20:09
Fiasco? Invest too pick a high number 30000 Dollars fore 6 new and 9 old maps (i hope i got the number right 3 DLCs?), and sell them 20 million times for 15 Dollars -> makes 300 million Dollars, for an investement of 30.000 Dollars ... :nut:

Even the most retarded luxury brands cant even dream of such a margin of profit.

And the really sad thing here, any1 that would price his DLC low would be stupid. Consumers dictate the price, not the other way arround. They simply started with the highes price they thought ppl would accept, people bought like maniacs, so in funture they can even price DLC higher. If people wouldnt have bought like maniacs the price would have droped and adjusted in the future ...

Best part was some of those maps were CoD 4 rehashes. Nostalgia pays too.

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 20:10
Fiasco? Invest too pick a high number 30000 Dollars fore 6 new and 9 old maps (i hope i got the number right 3 DLCs?), and sell them 20 million times for 15 Dollars -> makes 300 million Dollars, for an investement of 30.000 Dollars ... :nut:

Even the most retarded luxury brands cant even dream of such a margin of profit.

And the really sad thing here, any1 that would price his DLC low would be stupid. Consumers dictate the price, not the other way arround. They simply started with the highes price they thought ppl would accept, people bought like maniacs, so in funture they can even price DLC higher. If people wouldnt have bought like maniacs the price would have droped and adjusted in the future ...

I call it a fiasco because the price didn't match the content.

I don't care about the profits a company makes, I only care about the quality of the content that I pay for.

That is why I want the DLC for HR to be great and worth the money, if it costs.

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 20:10
well we have to assume any dlc will be single player based (i don't think em would have the audacity to charge for something as silly as new player character outfits or bonus behind-the-scenes material). Either way, if it's not good enough to make it into the main game, or its not developed enough to warrant inclusion in a sequel, then don't release it and certainly don't expect us to pay for it!

multiplayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

DeusWhatever
19th Aug 2010, 20:14
I call it a fiasco because the price didn't match the content.


Still the price doesnt have to match the content, it has to match what people are willing to pay for it, which is value in money of the content i guess. You just have to think about PC-Gaming, almost every title costs the same ammount of money when released, still games are very different in lengh, quality and production costs, so you never really pay "the content".

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 20:20
multiplayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

EM has confirmed several times there will be no multiplayer component (although judging by their flexibility with the truth, this probably means the game will ship with MP included from Day One, lol).

JCpies
19th Aug 2010, 20:21
People that continuously buy COD and its DLC are sheep. Nuff said.

Tecman
19th Aug 2010, 20:24
EM has confirmed several times there will be no multiplayer component (although judging by their flexibility with the truth, this probably means the game will ship with MP included from Day One, lol).

They only confirmed that the game isn't shipping with MP so they can focus on the single player. Dugas has, however, said that once the game has shipped, they'll look into multiplayer. You know, just like the original DX did.

(It was kind of terrible.)

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 20:31
They only confirmed that the game isn't shipping with MP so they can focus on the single player. Dugas has, however, said that once the game has shipped, they'll look into multiplayer. You know, just like the original DX did.

(It was kind of terrible.)

The idea of multiplayer with augs (upgraded with a set amount of xp for each player) is pretty cool. Multiplayer with weapon mods would be cool too, but CoD has that now. I wouldn't mind if it was implemented well.

JCpies
19th Aug 2010, 20:34
The idea of multiplayer with augs (upgraded with a set amount of xp for each player) is pretty cool. Multiplayer with weapon mods would be cool too, but CoD has that now. I wouldn't mind if it was implemented well.

Screw CoD. On cod can you have a scope, laser sight, anti recoil mod and an accuracy mod on one pistol? I think not.

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 20:42
EM has confirmed several times there will be no multiplayer component (although judging by their flexibility with the truth, this probably means the game will ship with MP included from Day One, lol).

You really do have a grudge against Eidos Montreal.

I wonder why.

What he do? Steal your girl?

pringlepower
19th Aug 2010, 20:51
Screw CoD. On cod can you have a scope, laser sight, anti recoil mod and an accuracy mod on one pistol? I think not.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was about quantity.

Screw DX. Can you put a ham, a camel, a homosexual, Pope John Paul II, and a refrigerator on one pistol? I think not.

And it didn't help at all that the laser sight did absolutely nothing.

JCpies
19th Aug 2010, 20:55
Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was about quantity.

Screw DX. Can you put a ham, a camel, a homosexual, Pope John Paul II, and a refrigerator on one pistol? I think not.

And it didn't help at all that the laser sight did absolutely nothing.

Screw Earth. Can you fit 90 billion trillion miles x 3 of nothingness onto it? I think not.

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 20:55
And it didn't help at all that the laser sight did absolutely nothing.

Not to mention that you had to turn it on every time you got out the gun.

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 21:02
You really do have a grudge against Eidos Montreal.

I wonder why.

What he do? Steal your girl?

My grudges against Eidos Montreal:

1. Absolutely no communication with existing fanbase.
2. Repeated failure to deliver on commitments. I won't use the word "promises," but when you say, "We will have a fully dedicated developers' blog to share with the community" or "PC will be the primary development platform," you'd better deliver!
3. Lack of PR/media releases with only a few months remaining until shipping date. Seriously, do these guys even have a marketing department?

Everything else (3rd person cameras, takedowns, silly neo-renaissance crap, black/gold color scheme, cutscenes, DLC, consolification) I can chalk up to a misguided attempt at making something "unique." When I watch or read interviews with guys like Jean Jacques Belletete, I don't detect greed or laziness, just a misplaced zeal in some genuinely bad ideas. I think he's trying to make something special. I think he's going to end up making something mediocre.

But the three things I listed previously are inexcusable.

Sotsiak
19th Aug 2010, 21:26
dlc=suck

^ This.

And something more..























dlc=suck

KSingh77
19th Aug 2010, 21:36
Whats the dlc about?

Is it how Adam bought the apartment and started filling it with renaissance stuff?

Or is it how he got a job as a security guard at Sariff Inc.?

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Aug 2010, 21:37
Nah the multiplayer's good.

You and me are not friends any more. I said you were an IW fanboy, didn't I? :nut:

Err...where was I...oh yeah, EXPUNGE THE HERETIC!!!!


Leaving the craven betrayal of Pringlepower aside, this is bad news. It'll probably be the cut-some-of-the-game-out-and-then-sell-it-as-DLC crap that's become the staple of the, now fully grown-up, industry.

The only redeeming feature would be if they did what Bioware do with PC DLC: make it free.

Chances of that? Small to nothing.

Dr_Bob
19th Aug 2010, 21:38
My grudges against Eidos Montreal:

1. Absolutely no communication with existing fanbase.

I'd expect whoever would come to these forums to talk to us would get torn to shreds.

That's why this thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=110449) was created.


2. Repeated failure to deliver on commitments. I won't use the word "promises," but when you say, "We will have a fully dedicated developers' blog to share with the community" or "PC will be the primary development platform," you'd better deliver!

How exactly have they failed to deliver on those commitments?


3. Lack of PR/media releases with only a few months remaining until shipping date. Seriously, do these guys even have a marketing department?

They've got 5 months, excluding August, to finalise their advertising plans and launch it fully.

That's plenty of time.

For media releases, you may want to check out this thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=110155).

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 21:39
It'll probably be the cut-some-of-the-game-out-and-then-sell-it-as-DLC crap that's become the staple of the, now fully grown-up, industry.

HA! I love that this is becoming a meme. :lol:

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 21:46
I'd expect whoever would come to these forums to talk to us would get torn to shreds.

That's why this thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=110449) was created.

On the contrary, there are quite a few of us who would love to ask some genuine questions to the developers. Especially since these are supposed to be the official game forums.




How exactly have they failed to deliver on those commitments?

Ummm, do you see a dedicated developer's blog lying around anywhere? They've thrown together how many posts on that thing? How about development platform, eh? Multi-console, equal treatment to each, no porting whatsoever.




They've got 5 months, excluding August, to finalise their advertising plans and launch it fully.

That's plenty of time.

For media releases, you may want to check out this thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=110155).

5 months. 5 months before release and we have yet to see any gameplay footage beyond approximately 3 seconds spliced between cutscenes. The few screenshots we've been given are all of the same two missions! :hmm:

DeusWhatever
19th Aug 2010, 21:47
Since we just had a thread about some new gamechanging Option, how about adding the "Deus Ex: Dating Revolution" as DLC ^^

Pinky_Powers
19th Aug 2010, 21:49
I just can't see how a game like this could benefit from DLC. Mass Effect 2 does this beautifully. But Deus Ex should be too linear a story to simply toss in new content without it feeling weird.

Ashpolt
19th Aug 2010, 21:50
I'd expect whoever would come to these forums to talk to us would get torn to shreds.

That's why this thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=110449) was created.

Which, notably, none of the dev team have posted in.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Aug 2010, 21:51
HA! I love that this is becoming a meme. :lol:

Ya rly. Imma let you finish, but I have the most important announcement of ALL TIME. Once it has been used over 9000 times, Lord Astley of Merseyside will proclaim all its base belong in meme-hood, and it will be integrated into the empire of ceiling cat for great justice.

See whut I did thar?

Gordon_Shea
19th Aug 2010, 21:53
I like how everyone always jumps on the DLC BAD PUBLISHERS GREEDY train and ignores that the rapid expansion of the used games market in the 00's has made finding a way to monetize used sales a necessity, especially in games without any kind of multiplayer system. At least with DLC it's optional content that stands a chance of being ignorable (Horse Armor hurrrr), pretty good (Episodes from Liberty City) or even better than the core game (Point Lookout).

Edit:

I just can't see how a game like this could benefit from DLC. Mass Effect 2 does this beautifully. But Deus Ex should be too linear a story to simply toss in new content without it feeling weird.
There are a few ways I could see them doing it. First, they could forgo plot stuff and make it add more options at Limb Clinics/Merchants/Whatever. Second, it could alter actual levels somehow, maybe change the layouts or add equipment dead drops. Third, it could be like Assassin's Creed where it changes it so that instead of going from Point A to Point B in the story, it goes from A to C to B. The last one would obviously suck ass though since it'd mess with the flow of the plot.

Irate_Iguana
19th Aug 2010, 21:54
I'd expect whoever would come to these forums to talk to us would get torn to shreds.

Now. They would get torn to shreds now. If they had started talking three or so years ago when the game was announced things would have been be very different. Even now they would get a polite reception. They might not like the questions, but at the very least the mods would keep things civil.



How exactly have they failed to deliver on those commitments?

Let's see. The Dev Blog came out after a promise spanning almost two years. It contains nine entries and none of those are very interesting or particularly detailed on the whole development thing. The PC was touted as being the primary development platform. It has now been demoted to being one of three "simultaneous development platforms". The consoles has gotten all attention so far as demoing and screenshots are concerned and even some gameplay mechanics seem to be designed to make playing with a controller easier. There is no indication that the PC is anything other than an afterthought.




They've got 5 months, excluding August, to finalise their advertising plans and launch it fully.

That's plenty of time.

It could very well be plenty of time, but it would have certainly helped to get the name into the heads of people early enough. There are some very big releases coming out and they are backed by companies that actually get the idea of marketing.



HA! I love that this is becoming a meme. :lol:

It has been very GREENLIGHT!

Pinky_Powers
19th Aug 2010, 21:55
Which, notably, none of the dev team have posted in.

And how does that make you feel?

Dead-Eye
19th Aug 2010, 22:09
The only way I can see this working without damaging the main game

Dear Fan, you are too attached to the franchise. Deus Ex 3 can't damage Deus Ex. Deus Ex will forever be one of the greatest games of all time. The Citizen Kane of video games and nothing is going to change that. What's happening now is just going to be history a few years from now.


Nah the multiplayer's good.
It's fun, it's in no way shape or form balanced.


People that continuously buy COD and its DLC are sheep. Nuff said.
I feel ashamed and dirty for ever even considering buying that game; much more the fact that I actually did. Congratulations Activations you fill you're customers with regret.

Same with Dragon Age:Awakening.

On the Topic of DLC, confirming that they are working on DLC before the game comes out doesn't prove that they will be releasing DLC when the game comes out. They might just be working on the platform to deliver the content like in Dragon Age. This dose mean however that I'm not going to be pre-ordering a copy of DX3. I'm going to wait and see. If this dose turn into something like MW2... well... I really want to avoid the regret I feel for giving them so much of my money.

WildcatPhoenix
19th Aug 2010, 22:11
Now. They would get torn to shreds now. If they had started talking three or so years ago when the game was announced things would have been be very different. Even now they would get a polite reception. They might not like the questions, but at the very least the mods would keep things civil.


This is an excellent point. The tone of these boards has changed radically since its inception several years ago. I know I've personally made the transition from "giddy, drooling w/ anticipation fanboy" to "bitter, angry old codger shaking his fist at passing cars," and I know I'm not alone.

If EM had taken the time to explain their reasoning for some of these changes, even if I didn't agree with them, I would have given them more credit. They are welcome to take their shot at designing an excellent game, but throwing out condescending platitudes like "the gaming industry, as a whole, has grown up" makes me want to start stabbing small furry creatures....or French Canadians. Or both.


And how does that make you feel?

I sense an imminent "JACKWAGON" reference! :p

pha
19th Aug 2010, 22:11
dlc=suck

That.

Ashpolt
19th Aug 2010, 22:23
Dear Fan, you are too attached to the franchise. Deus Ex 3 can't damage Deus Ex. Deus Ex will forever be one of the greatest games of all time. The Citizen Kane of video games and nothing is going to change that. What's happening now is just going to be history a few years from now.

Dear Poster, you are not attached enough to reading comprehension. By "main game" I meant Deus Ex Human Revolution (as opposed to DXHR's DLC.) If I had meant Deus Ex, I would have said "original game."

I like the Citizen Kane comparison though. Which makes DXHR the sequel where Kane comes back from the dead....and this time, it's personal. Also he has a sassy black sidekick, and they argue about whether to listen to rap or country music in their car.*

*Note: When playing House of the Dead Overkill, I kept joking to my friend that this scene would happen....and then it actually did. I have never been so delighted to see a hideous cliché.

mad825
19th Aug 2010, 22:29
It depends that the DLC is.

if the DLC is a new location with sidequest/NPCs ect then might be for it however if it's "better" guns/Augs, more costumes/skins then they can go **** my broom stick.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Aug 2010, 22:33
It depends that the DLC is.

if the DLC is a new location with sidequest/NPCs ect then might be for it however if it's "better" guns/Augs, more costumes/skins then they can go **** my broom stick.

This would be a good time to point that "new" locations is basically gamespeak for "locations cut from the game so they can be sold as DLC later on".

DeusWhatever
19th Aug 2010, 22:41
This would be a good time to point that "new" locations is basically gamespeak for "locations cut from the game so they can be sold as DLC later on".

No, those DLCs are just appearing magically on your Game-DVD which you bought months before the DLC ^^

pha
19th Aug 2010, 22:49
This would be a good time to point that "new" locations is basically gamespeak for "locations cut from the game so they can be sold as DLC later on".

Same for equipment, missions, or anything else they introduce with DLC's. Even when they aren't literally there all along and cut to be sold separately, the idea of DLC's make the developer teams put less effort into the vanilla game, "Let's just release it, we can always improve it with DLC and they will buy it."

Merely my opinion of course.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Aug 2010, 23:39
All very true. But we must remember, the industry has grown up, so we are not allowed to complain.

sonicsidewinder
20th Aug 2010, 02:18
The days grow dark when DLC dawns.

mad825
20th Aug 2010, 02:23
:scratch:

So I suppose all that we can hope for now, is that they will give away a portion of the DLCs to those with a valid serial key.

Given now that I have been enlightened on this subject.

luminar
20th Aug 2010, 03:43
I like how everyone always jumps on the DLC BAD PUBLISHERS GREEDY train and ignores that the rapid expansion of the used games market in the 00's has made finding a way to monetize used sales a necessity, especially in games without any kind of multiplayer system. At least with DLC it's optional content that stands a chance of being ignorable (Horse Armor hurrrr), pretty good (Episodes from Liberty City) or even better than the core game (Point Lookout).



This has nothing to do with anything but in point look out the main quest involves to characters who have been fighting each other for a long time and it seems to almost be like a game of sorts for them and they act as if they are above humans and that we couldnt understand their "game" let alone their existence. Or something like that. But anywho that very vaguely reminds me of a book/movie/legend/story/something and its killing me trying to figure it out. So does anyone know what I'm talking about?

rokstrombo
20th Aug 2010, 05:51
Do we have any reason at this stage to believe Human Revolution will suffer due to the existence of DLC? I have faith!

Unstoppable
20th Aug 2010, 06:40
I've never bought DLC before mainly cuz I felt once the main mission is complete the side quests don't really interest me much. Not even with Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age. I didn't buy the expansion for Dragon Age since I felt pretty satisfied with Dragon Age: Origins. I felt no need to continue playing something that was complete.

Cronstintein
20th Aug 2010, 06:51
Although they've already been mocked in this thread multiplayer maps are one of the few DLCs that you can get value from. $15 for a 1-2hr mission is a waste. The same price for maps that you can play 1000x is a much better bargain (even if the production cost is lower).
The original game would have to -REALLY- wow me to consider a purchasing DLC mission. Now rewarding people for buying new with 'free' DLC is something I can understand even if it inconveniences me. The company has to make money somehow!


EDIT: DLC idea: new spawn locations for the guards and/or expert mode w/o regen or cover :D

Red
20th Aug 2010, 07:32
Multiplayer? Yeah, I'd wanna see a 16-player cluster***** of 3rdperson takedowns and covers (lol, legal wallhack I guess).

The universe will implode of all the 1st-3rd person transitions. And "FU YOO F4G, I WUZ LAGGED" -> "FU YOO F4G I WUZ IN 3RD PERSON".

I know this is DLC thread, but some of you mentioned multiplayers, so... Yeah.

Pinky_Powers
20th Aug 2010, 07:54
Multiplayer? Yeah, I'd wanna see a 16-player cluster***** of 3rdperson takedowns and covers (lol, legal wallhack I guess).

The universe will implode of all the 1st-3rd person transitions. And "FU YOO F4G, I WUZ LAGGED" -> "FU YOO F4G I WUZ IN 3RD PERSON".

I know this is DLC thread, but some of you mentioned multiplayers, so... Yeah.

The only way I could see Multiplayer working is if they did it like the Splinter Cell matches, and made it primarily a stealth thing. But there's almost no chance of that. More than likely it will be just a regular old CoD sort of thing... only not as good.

DeusWhatever
20th Aug 2010, 12:45
Although they've already been mocked in this thread multiplayer maps are one of the few DLCs that you can get value from. $15 for a 1-2hr mission is a waste. The same price for maps that you can play 1000x is a much better bargain (even if the production cost is lower).

This argument is so full of fail, i dont even want to write here what i think of ppl that bought the MW2 DLCs ...

Btw. since your argument is valid for you, might i sell you a paperweight for a bajillion, since you use it your whole life and even your successors can keep using it till infinity ...

JCpies
20th Aug 2010, 19:02
All very true. But we must remember, the industry has grown up, so we are not allowed to complain.

It's grown up, and somehow older games remain more imaginative than some of the crap the 'industry' creates these days.

Unstoppable
20th Aug 2010, 19:10
I would consider purchasing multiplayer or they can make it a free patch if the game sells well like the original. (Though the origianl sold well it could of done better).

Objective based multiplayer would be very interesting. Large maps where two teams try to complete objectives while stopping each other. Like infiltrating a warehouse. Whoever gets their first start a hack process to access the objective. Meanwhile the other team has many options to infiltrate and can try outside hacks.

The idea being while you're hacking you're vulnerable to being attacked. Sort of like that Mod for Half Life 2 called Dystopia. If you guys never played Dystopia you will love it if you liked Deus Ex.

http://www.dystopia-game.com/

Nyysjan
20th Aug 2010, 19:15
It's grown up, and somehow older games remain more imaginative than some of the crap the 'industry' creates these days.

Grown up, and has alzheimers.

Ilves
21st Aug 2010, 13:24
Imagine the first batch of dlc is going to be a major tweak that makes auto health regen an installable aug, brings back the skills system, nixes the 3rd person camera and replaces Barrett's infamous boy scout catch phrase with a 10 page soliloquy on the nature of man. Ooh, the dilemma!

Xenoc
21st Aug 2010, 14:44
I definitely don't want DXHR to end in a cliffhanger that can only be resolved through DLC. That's just cruel...

And new floral patterns for the coat would suck too.

However I wouldn't mind some side stories, something similar to The Icarus Effect (is that what it's called? The novel) about secret agents or other characters involved in the cybernetics thing. This is a global conspiracy after all, and there's gotta be a lot going on behind the scenes that Adam never even touches.

I cannot see them ending the game prematurely so as to carry on you have to pay £5 for DLC to find out how the game ends? I mean there would be uproar!

hem dazon 90
21st Aug 2010, 15:08
oh boo fookin hoo you don't like DLC don't buy it.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Aug 2010, 15:33
oh boo fookin hoo you don't like DLC don't buy it.

Hem dazon, I think you should change your signature to "I serve none but EM's PR department."

Seriously, could you be more of a "true believer?" DLC is almost universally despised even among the most hardcore fanboys. It's a cynical cash-grab tactic, and we shouldn't encourage it.

pha
21st Aug 2010, 15:38
oh boo fookin hoo you don't like DLC don't buy it.

What an original and cleverly constructed post.

If DLC's will make them neglect the vanilla game, or if they'll introduce crucial gameplay elements which should have been in the vanilla game in the first place (like a health system which doesn't assume we are all braindead morons) it's not a matter of "if you don't like em don't buy em".

Pretentious Old Man.
21st Aug 2010, 16:07
oh boo fookin hoo you don't like DLC don't buy it.

"I SERVE NONE BUT KOTICK" might be a more appropriate signature for you, methinks.

Rindill the Red
21st Aug 2010, 18:05
"I SERVE NONE BUT KOTICK" might be a more appropriate signature for you, methinks.

Oh my god... I've been researching the possibility of Kotick using Call of Duty and World of Warcraft to subliminally brainwash people so that he can create an army of the brain dead to conquer the earth. This just is one more piece of evidence.

Tell me Hem Dazon... do you, or have you, played Modern Warfare 1, Modern Warfare 2, and/or World of Warcraft to any large extent?

When you play do you feel kinda relaxed and focused? After playing, do you sometimes have trouble remembering everything that happened around you and in the game while you were playing?

Have you steadily continued to give Activision more and more of your money? Like buying overpriced extraneous things like all of the World of Warcraft expansions or the Call of Duty games and the DLC maps for MW2?

pringlepower
21st Aug 2010, 18:41
Oh my god... I've been researching the possibility of Kotick using Call of Duty and World of Warcraft to subliminally brainwash people so that he can create an army of the brain dead to conquer the earth. This just is one more piece of evidence.

Tell me Hem Dazon... do you, or have you, played Modern Warfare 1, Modern Warfare 2, and/or World of Warcraft to any large extent?

When you play do you feel kinda relaxed and focused? After playing, do you sometimes have trouble remembering everything that happened around you and in the game while you were playing?

Have you steadily continued to give Activision more and more of your money? Like buying overpriced extraneous things like all of the World of Warcraft expansions or the Call of Duty games and the DLC maps for MW2?

Thanks to alterIWnet, a lovely MW2 multiplayer crack, we don't have to!

KSingh77
21st Aug 2010, 18:58
If the DLC is about a new coat and shades for Adam,I'm in.

Invictus Sol
21st Aug 2010, 19:17
Is it possible that DLC could address stuff that's out of scope for this release due to time/budget constraints? Don't see problem if additional (decent) content comes out a couple months down the line and you can see some thought's gone into it. If it's released alongside the game, then I agree that would appear to be a money-grab. However, we don't know at this point that they're even charging for it, yet, do we?

Fluffis
21st Aug 2010, 19:23
The idea of DLC always annoys me. It just says: "If you want to play the whole game, you need to pay some more money".

Just give us the possibility to mod the game, and leave us alone!

Blackbird SR-71C
21st Aug 2010, 22:46
What, really? They started working on the DLC already, with the game released next year? Ok I get the hate on developers cutting content on games to sell it as DLC, but so far none of them had the guts to flat out admit it like that! They could've just said "We're working on this part of the game, right now when the game is still in development, but we'll sell it seperately even though it's most likely finished when the game is released just to make more money. Problem?"

Kodaemon
21st Aug 2010, 22:55
Ok I get the hate on developers cutting content on games to sell it as DLC, but so far none of them had the guts to flat out admit it like that!

Actually, "day zero" DLC is becoming a standard :/

pha
21st Aug 2010, 23:04
Is it possible that DLC could address stuff that's out of scope for this release due to time/budget constraints?

Buhuhahahaha.

Blackbird SR-71C
21st Aug 2010, 23:12
Actually, "day zero" DLC is becoming a standard :/

Really? To be honest, the only day zero/one DLC I've heard of was for Mass Effect 2, and that was free. Would you mind pointing out some examples? I really didn't hear of any else.

Edit: Also, I was trying to point out how they even admit to it, and not even that, they do it right now when the game is still in development.

ricwhite
21st Aug 2010, 23:34
DLC is rarely as good as the main game. I can't see them contracting back all of the voice actors to record dialogue and plotting and mapping elaborate plot paths. Even games with okay DLC -- such as Mass Effect 2 -- had very limited dialogue and interactions with their DLC. The cost/benefit ratio is often unacceptable as well. Spending $10-$20 on a two hour mission is not really worth it.

At best, DLC might be 70% as good as the main game. As long as people realize that and have realistic expectations, I guess it might intrigue some people as an option worth considering.

Dead-Eye
22nd Aug 2010, 02:46
All very true. But we must remember, the industry has grown up, so we are not allowed to complain.

Damn it! I'm sick of this talk about the industry growing up! (I know you're being sarcastic but now seems like a good time to rant about that quote.)

The industry has not grown up, the world has fallen apart. The whole entire world has become subdued by this idea of bottom line thinking; it's destroying the world! I mean dose it really take someone killing themselves for FoxCom to give people a 33 cent raise and install nets so they can't jump off the roof? Why would people want to jump off the roof in the first place! Maybe because companies treat their employees like S*!*! But they don't do anything about it because that would hinder the bottom line.

Same goes for the video game industry. The industry hasn't grown up it just caters to the bottom line. Gears of War, Halo 3, and Modern Warfare 2 are all bottom line peaces of crap that are made by bottom line thinkers that just so happen to be vary good at what they do. That being the job of bottom feeding off of every penny they can get their greedy little hands on.

I mean Jesus Christ, JC!

Romeo
22nd Aug 2010, 04:02
Hem dazon, I think you should change your signature to "I serve none but EM's PR department."

Seriously, could you be more of a "true believer?" DLC is almost universally despised even among the most hardcore fanboys. It's a cynical cash-grab tactic, and we shouldn't encourage it.
Speak for yourself. I actually like DLC. Those who think it's a cash grab will always percieve it as a cash grab. Myself, I consider a cheap way to keep my game being enjoyable beyond it's normal lifespan. I've done many, many playthroughs of ME2 simply so I can experience the new content. $5 isn't bad for another 12 hours, in my books.

Rindill the Red
22nd Aug 2010, 04:23
They should do like Valve and make DLC completely free! Ah, I love Valve.

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Aug 2010, 04:44
Speak for yourself. I actually like DLC. Those who think it's a cash grab will always percieve it as a cash grab. Myself, I consider a cheap way to keep my game being enjoyable beyond it's normal lifespan. I've done many, many playthroughs of ME2 simply so I can experience the new content. $5 isn't bad for another 12 hours, in my books.

Romeo, it's the same marketing BS used by the film industry on DVD and BluRay. Remember when your DVDs used to come with a dozen page color manual and loads of special features (interviews, commentary, storyboards, artwork, alternate endings, etc)?

Now they release the disc with nothing but the theatrical cut of the film for the same price you used to pay for the whole thing. Then, about 3-4 months later, they release a special "collector's edition" for about $10-15 more, which now has the special features and a different case. Because people can't wait those 3-4 months, they sometimes are able to sucker consumers into buying both copies! A brilliant and scum-suckingly greedy profit strategy that we fall for time and time again.

The same goes for DLC in video games. Now everything is all about pre-orders and special "collectors editions" w/ some tacky figurine or helmet or other knicknack excuse to screw you out of $10-20 extra bucks. Then they'll get you pay even more for undercooked "expansions" or a handful of warmed over recycled multiplayer maps (Modern Warfare 2, I'm looking at you!)

Freddo
22nd Aug 2010, 19:38
Hmm, now I'm not sure if I will buy the game at launch anymore. Maybe I just wait for the Gold Edition or whatever it will be called, that includes the main game and all the DLCs. That's what I've been doing with a lot of other DLC games.

Rindill the Red
22nd Aug 2010, 20:10
Romeo, it's the same marketing BS used by the film industry on DVD and BluRay. Remember when your DVDs used to come with a dozen page color manual and loads of special features (interviews, commentary, storyboards, artwork, alternate endings, etc)?

Now they release the disc with nothing but the theatrical cut of the film for the same price you used to pay for the whole thing. Then, about 3-4 months later, they release a special "collector's edition" for about $10-15 more, which now has the special features and a different case. Because people can't wait those 3-4 months, they sometimes are able to sucker consumers into buying both copies! A brilliant and scum-suckingly greedy profit strategy that we fall for time and time again.

The same goes for DLC in video games. Now everything is all about pre-orders and special "collectors editions" w/ some tacky figurine or helmet or other knicknack excuse to screw you out of $10-20 extra bucks. Then they'll get you pay even more for undercooked "expansions" or a handful of warmed over recycled multiplayer maps (Modern Warfare 2, I'm looking at you!)

Eidos will just release the DLC for free, problem solved.

Blackbird SR-71C
22nd Aug 2010, 20:52
Eidos will just release the DLC for free, problem solved.

Yeah, riiight....

jamhaw
23rd Aug 2010, 18:47
Hmm, now I'm not sure if I will buy the game at launch anymore. Maybe I just wait for the Gold Edition or whatever it will be called, that includes the main game and all the DLCs. That's what I've been doing with a lot of other DLC games.

That is what I think that I shall do now as well. I can accept a lot of things but downloadable content being developed at the same as the game? It just does not sound right to me, I suppose it is a good thing in the end as I will most likely be able to get it for very cheap before too long.

Fluffis
23rd Aug 2010, 18:53
Eidos will just release the DLC for free, problem solved.

Hah! That's a good one. :)

Dead-Eye
23rd Aug 2010, 21:18
Eidos will just release the DLC for free, problem solved.

lol. In you're dreams.


That is what I think that I shall do now as well. I can accept a lot of things but downloadable content being developed at the same as the game? It just does not sound right to me, I suppose it is a good thing in the end as I will most likely be able to get it for very cheap before too long.

Yes this seems to be how I feel too after this announcement.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
23rd Aug 2010, 22:18
Would someone please stop all this whining about DLC? If you don't like it, don't buy it - you're not being forced at gun point. Thanks.

Irate_Iguana
23rd Aug 2010, 22:22
Would someone please stop all this whining about DLC? If you don't like it, don't buy it - you're not being forced at gun point. Thanks.

No, people aren't. What upsets most people about DLC is that in a lot of cases it seems that the main game suffers for it. If it were just an extra it wouldn't matter. The problem is that there are numerous cases where the DLC is actually already part of the main game (even on the CD at times), but the devs cut it out at the last moment to make a quick buck. People don't want to pay full price for an incomplete game.

DeusWhatever
23rd Aug 2010, 23:53
Would someone please stop all this whining about DLC? If you don't like it, don't buy it - you're not being forced at gun point. Thanks.

Its not that easy. DLC is obviously destroying gaming. In singleplayergames its annyoing, in multiplayer games it really destroys the games. Even though MW2 itself isnt a good game, look at the DLC policy, it destroys the community, and kills the livespan of the game (which is exactly what they want), the shorter the lifespan is the faster people will buy new games of the same series (3 New CoD games in the next 2 years are planned :mad2:).

Also DLC destroys the modding-community, which destroys games, look at Half Life, or other MP-Titles, without Modding, or even community-maps multiplayer games are just boring, without mods servers and games get unfair and the problem with cheaters gets even worse.

And like many here already said, most of the DLCs simply are not worth the money, still developers take content out of the game to add it as DLC.

Also DLC destroy Addons. A few years ago many games got good and big addons, nowadays they just get ****ty DLC with almost no content that costs as much as most addons some years ago, its ridiculous.

Also DLCs make the main-game worse, because of a pretty simple thing, new gaming industry is about money, DLC are much better for publishers, they cost almost nothing, still you get ...loads of money. Its pretty normal to try to make main games cheaper and shorter to release more DLC content.

And finally, my main problem is not where we are now, but where we are going, and if this continues the future of gaming will be micropayments in singleplayergames for example to buy your items in an rpg with your real creditcard ingame, or even a model like "pay to play" for actual gameplaytime.

Cronstintein
24th Aug 2010, 01:44
This argument is so full of fail, i dont even want to write here what i think of ppl that bought the MW2 DLCs ...

Btw. since your argument is valid for you, might i sell you a paperweight for a bajillion, since you use it your whole life and even your successors can keep using it till infinity ...


It saddens me that $15 is equivalent to a bajillion dollars for you. But if it was a really cool paper weight and I had use for one, I'd consider it for $15.

MW2 map packs were a rip because most of them were just MW1 maps... lame. But if the main MW2 game didn't suck so bad and their company wasn't run by Satan I'd have considered it.

I like what DICE did with Bad Company 2. New games came with a VIP number that allowed you free access to some of the DLC including map packs. People with used games had to pay for the packs. Seems fair to me: DICE gets a little something from used sales but their supporters don't get jacked.

luminar
24th Aug 2010, 03:07
I like dlc when it's a legitmate expansion like shivering isles or the like. But if I can finish it in under 5 hours I cry foul! I mean why should I pay for something you failed to include in the game?

nomotog
24th Aug 2010, 04:31
It's a catch 22 when it comes to DLC. If you want to make good DLC(and have it come out in in a timely fashion), then you have to start planing it and making it well your still making the main game, but no one wants DLC made till after the game is released.

beastrn
24th Aug 2010, 05:00
It's not a catch 22, it's just ******* retarded.

It's a blight on this industry. Spend the time properly and make an expansion. There is ONLY one point for DLC. To cash in on a game release by inciting ignorant people to pay for things that should be free, a reward for continuing to play your ****ty game.


Now of course people that don't give a toss about games and play a couple games a year won't have any issue with DLC. They barely spend money on games in the first place so a couple of $15 hits here and there are fine. There's a name for those type of people. They're called Casual Gamers. Thus, DLC = Casual Gamers.

And obviously, if you are a Casual Gamer, your OPINION ON THIS TOPIC IS VOID. SHUT. UP. (not aimed at anyone in particular)

pringlepower
24th Aug 2010, 05:11
. Thus, dlc = casual gamers.



good logic!!!

nomotog
24th Aug 2010, 05:21
It's not a catch 22, it's just ******* retarded.

It's a blight on this industry. Spend the time properly and make an expansion. There is ONLY one point for DLC. To cash in on a game release by inciting ignorant people to pay for things that should be free, a reward for continuing to play your ****ty game.


Now of course people that don't give a toss about games and play a couple games a year won't have any issue with DLC. They barely spend money on games in the first place so a couple of $15 hits here and there are fine. There's a name for those type of people. They're called Casual Gamers. Thus, DLC = Casual Gamers.

And obviously, if you are a Casual Gamer, your OPINION ON THIS TOPIC IS VOID. SHUT. UP. (not aimed at anyone in particular)

I'll start by agreeing with you on at least one point. I want to see more Expansion packs made for games.

I don't think DLC is a blight. Multiplayer is the real blight and DLC helps fight that blight. Both multiplayer and DLC fill the same role and that role is to extend the life of the game. To keep people playing it (And talking about it.) longer so it sells better.

I also don't think DLC is aimed at casual players. Casual players are well casual. They buy a game play it a bit and then shelve it. It's the hardcore players that buy the DLC. (I doubt anyone who is reading this is a casual player.)

It's been said before, but if you dont want to buy DLC then you don't have to. Having DLC only adds to the game. Game makers don't don't strip out parts for DLC (OK assassins creed 2 did, but that was more of a case of cut the content all together or put it on DLC). DLC is planed in advanced and gets it's own budget.

Cronstintein
24th Aug 2010, 05:32
I hope that was sarcastic because I bet 90% of casual gamers have never purchased DLC in their lives.

I think these problems arise due to the accelerated schedule of sequels in the gaming industry. They're already trying to cram 1 game per year per franchise down our throats. Now to get more cash/year they have to add DLC before the next series iteration. With such limited time we have our current situation of DLC in production before the main game is even produced (kinda shady).

EDIT: Multiplayer a blight? Yikes I disagree strongly. Having a tacked on MP is obviously going to be lame and is not worth the bother. But properly designed MP is one of the best elements of gaming.

beastrn
24th Aug 2010, 05:39
I'll start by agreeing with you on at least one point. I want to see more Expansion packs made for games.

Sure.


I don't think DLC is a blight. Multiplayer is the real blight and DLC helps fight that blight. Both multiplayer and DLC fill the same role and that role is to extend the life of the game. To keep people playing it (And talking about it.) longer so it sells better.

I know what you're trying to say about Multiplayer. Devs being forced to include arbitrary and horrible multiplayer in their primarily single player games because "most people" won't buy a game unless there's at least the chance that it might get some play time after the single player (never does). But DLC's role ISN'T to extend the life of the game.

The role of DLC (from a publisher and developer point of view) is to make you pay money for barely anything. You have a passing interest in Saints Row 2? You don't play games much so you haven't finished it yet? Well guess what, here are a couple of cars and a generic mission or two. That'll be 15 bucks thanks.

The player just wants the complete package so they're going to throw money at this sudden hole in their gameplay experience. That's the idea.

Paid DLC = More money. That's the only goal and the only point. Be it through forcing you to buy DLC for multiplayer (thus splitting communities like DeusWhatever mentioned), forcing you to pay for the full story, forcing you to pay for 'the coolest' stuff. It's just money. Money there for the taking because people are still willing to throw it at them.

If the only role was to extend the life of the game and keep people talking about it, then they should be releasing this for FREE. The only reason they can get away with forcing people to pay for the "complete experience" is because the console generation is stupid and don't know any better. Harsh but true. You don't see PC exclusive companies demanding $15 dollar chunks for rubbish, because they respect their target audiences and want them to enjoy more content. Did The Witcher devs ask you to pay for their Enhanced Edition upgrade that took months of full-team work to make? NO. If that was a console title they could have put that up for 3000ms points and made a killing. But they didn't because their audience isn't full of idiots.


I also don't think DLC is aimed at casual players. Casual players are well casual. They buy a game play it a bit and then shelve it. It's the hardcore players that buy the DLC. (I doubt anyone who is reading this is a casual player.)

There's always going to be a disconnect between what me (a person who has played and been invested in gaming for the past 20 years) and the general public (who has at best had a passing interest since Guitar Hero 2). I'll just say that your idea of 'hardcore' is my idea of 'casual'. Playing Halo of CoD4 doesn't make anyone a 'hardcore' gamer.


It's been said before, but if you dont want to buy DLC then you don't have to. Having DLC only adds to the game. Game makers don't don't strip out parts for DLC (OK assassins creed 2 did, but that was more of a case of cut the content all together or put it on DLC). DLC is planed in advanced and gets it's own budget.

It's been said before and it continues to be delusional. It's not about whether or not I buy the DLC. It's about the league of idiots that DO buy DLC and show publishers, hey, we're willing to be complete ******* idiots and give you our money in exchange for copy and paste content that probably was already on the disc and/or took the interns that aren't on holiday a week to make.

And you say "game makers" don't strip out parts for DLC? Is that your expert opinion? If you were EA and you realized you could take out a car or two here and include it later on in a "Super Cool Pack" for 10 bucks knowing that you just make an extra 500 grand for nothing, you wouldn't do it? Don't kid yourself man.

This isn't some conspiracy chatter or anything. It's just business. Take advantage of the lowest common denominator and make millions.

Can only hope people will wise up, but if anything we're getting dumber and dumber.

mad825
24th Aug 2010, 06:01
I like what DICE did with Bad Company 2. New games came with a VIP number that allowed you free access to some of the DLC including map packs. People with used games had to pay for the packs. Seems fair to me: DICE gets a little something from used sales but their supporters don't get jacked.

That's called "project Ten Dollar".

EA has been doing this project for a while now and they have something else planned as well to prevent people selling their games by everything to have multiplayer in it.
I'm still going to play this:
-bzWSJG93P8

nomotog
24th Aug 2010, 06:05
I think we are thinking of different DLC kinds of DLC. There are basically two kinds of DLC. Item DLC which is small things like new items and content DLC which is Larger things like new missions and levels (Think of the DLC for fallout3 or borderlands). I think DX:HR will have the content kind (Because they are working on it now).

Cronstintein
24th Aug 2010, 06:06
Yeah I don't like the disabling of multiplayer, that's weak.

But free add-ons for the original purchasers feels closer to a reward than a punishment.

beastrn
24th Aug 2010, 06:34
I think we are thinking of different DLC kinds of DLC. There are basically two kinds of DLC. Item DLC which is small things like new items and content DLC which is Larger things like new missions and levels (Think of the DLC for fallout3 or borderlands). I think DX:HR will have the content kind (Because they are working on it now).

Indeed.

Though I'd still prefer an expansion pack or a really big update over some generic 1-2 hour missions any day. And still, even with the larger packs, it's mostly a grab for money for less content.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
24th Aug 2010, 07:01
Its not that easy. DLC is obviously destroying gaming. In singleplayergames its annyoing, in multiplayer games it really destroys the games. Even though MW2 itself isnt a good game, look at the DLC policy, it destroys the community, and kills the livespan of the game (which is exactly what they want), the shorter the lifespan is the faster people will buy new games of the same series (3 New CoD games in the next 2 years are planned :mad2:).

Also DLC destroys the modding-community, which destroys games, look at Half Life, or other MP-Titles, without Modding, or even community-maps multiplayer games are just boring, without mods servers and games get unfair and the problem with cheaters gets even worse.

And like many here already said, most of the DLCs simply are not worth the money, still developers take content out of the game to add it as DLC.

Also DLC destroy Addons. A few years ago many games got good and big addons, nowadays they just get ****ty DLC with almost no content that costs as much as most addons some years ago, its ridiculous.

Also DLCs make the main-game worse, because of a pretty simple thing, new gaming industry is about money, DLC are much better for publishers, they cost almost nothing, still you get ...loads of money. Its pretty normal to try to make main games cheaper and shorter to release more DLC content.

And finally, my main problem is not where we are now, but where we are going, and if this continues the future of gaming will be micropayments in singleplayergames for example to buy your items in an rpg with your real creditcard ingame, or even a model like "pay to play" for actual gameplaytime.

Also you have not taken into account "preowned" games, which are another discussion entirely but one of the many reasons for additional content required to play. DLC is necessary in a time where the publishers are being screwed by the very retailers that stock the games.

It's in the businesses best interest to make money. If DLC is such a "stupid" concept then people wouldn't be buying it. But they are. It makes sense.

Xenoc
24th Aug 2010, 08:52
Not a fan of DLC and refuse point blank to pay for it...

I am more than happy to pay for an expansion pack that will add 15-20 hours more gameplay, but refuse to pay for DLC that adds a **** weapon/armour or 1-2 hours of below average gameplay!

Dead-Eye
24th Aug 2010, 08:59
DLC = bad; expansions = good.

So if the DLC is actually more of an expansion rather then some sales guy asking for my credit card (I.E. Dragon Age) then I won't be too unhappy. If it's the bad DLC thing, I think I can wait for my copy of DX3.

DeusWhatever
24th Aug 2010, 13:04
It's in the businesses best interest to make money. If DLC is such a "stupid" concept then people wouldn't be buying it. But they are. It makes sense.

I never said DLC was a "stupid" concept for business. Yet that doesnt mean its good for gaming. There are hundrets of busness-concepts that are "good for business" or for some people, yet that doesnt say they arent retarded systems that exploit others (pyramid scheme for example).

Also the next thing, lets take the "pyramid scheme", just because lots of people are joing in, doesnt mean that the concept is good. The only thing it tells us, is that people are greedy and stupid ...

demon boy
24th Aug 2010, 13:23
I have been the eternal optomist when it comes to this game. I wanted it to be fully 1st person but the announcement of 3d person elements didn't ruin it for me. I have been willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt on that and hope that they can make it work. I didn't even bat an eye-lash when I heard about health regen. Again, I trust that they can make it work and the rest of the game looks so great that I'm not going to cry about it.

This DLC thing though, really rubs me the wrong way. I hate DLC. To be more specific; I hate it when DLC is being worked on before the game is even in its release window. To me, whatever they're working on right now should be included in the game. Otherwise, they're just holding back a portion of the complete game to squeeze more money out of us. I really don't appreciate that.

I'm not OCD or anything but when I get a game that I really like, I like to try to get everything possible out of it. There are maybe only 1 or 2 games a year that I really get into like that and I like to be able to experience everything the game has to offer. When they create these gimmicks, it just messes with you because you realize that there are certain elements of the game that you won't get to experience unless you reserve the game here or there or if you buy the downloadable version, etc. This was the biggest drawback to Mass Effect 2 for me-the excessive use of DLC to release resources that existed early enough to just be included in the game. I just really hate this particular trend in gaming.

Now if, 3 months after the game comes out, they have some new content ready to be released as DLC, I'm all for it but enough with the planned gouging of customers.

nomotog
24th Aug 2010, 15:37
I have been the eternal optomist when it comes to this game. I wanted it to be fully 1st person but the announcement of 3d person elements didn't ruin it for me. I have been willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt on that and hope that they can make it work. I didn't even bat an eye-lash when I heard about health regen. Again, I trust that they can make it work and the rest of the game looks so great that I'm not going to cry about it.

This DLC thing though, really rubs me the wrong way. I hate DLC. To be more specific; I hate it when DLC is being worked on before the game is even in its release window. To me, whatever they're working on right now should be included in the game. Otherwise, they're just holding back a portion of the complete game to squeeze more money out of us. I really don't appreciate that.

I'm not OCD or anything but when I get a game that I really like, I like to try to get everything possible out of it. There are maybe only 1 or 2 games a year that I really get into like that and I like to be able to experience everything the game has to offer. When they create these gimmicks, it just messes with you because you realize that there are certain elements of the game that you won't get to experience unless you reserve the game here or there or if you buy the downloadable version, etc. This was the biggest drawback to Mass Effect 2 for me-the excessive use of DLC to release resources that existed early enough to just be included in the game. I just really hate this particular trend in gaming.

Now if, 3 months after the game comes out, they have some new content ready to be released as DLC, I'm all for it but enough with the planned gouging of customers.

You motioned Mass effect 2. Yes Mass effect 2 had DLC on the first day it was released, but I could tell this content was not content that was cut out of the game. The mission worked differently then the other missions in the game(You could tell it was made after the other missions in the game). and your companion who was fully viced didn't come with ship upgrades that he would if he was cut content.

How these things work is in an assembly line fashion. You have the main game and it goes down the line your conceptualizing it out then you make the art and the levels before sending it off to beta testing. The DLC follows the main game down the line. When the main game finishes it concept phase you take those people and put them on DLC 1. That is what has happen the main game has reached final cut and gone into beta testing, so rather then firing all the concept and art people they put them on DLC.

mad825
24th Aug 2010, 16:06
You motioned Mass effect 2. Yes Mass effect 2 had DLC on the first day it was released, but I could tell this content was not content that was cut out of the game. The mission worked differently then the other missions in the game(You could tell it was made after the other missions in the game). and your companion who was fully viced didn't come with ship upgrades that he would if he was cut content..

one thing...project Ten Dollar.

and the rest was either from a promotional item,Dr pepper (that where 3 poor helmets and not worth getting), one was from who pre-oreded the CE edition, the Incisor Sniper Rifle

the Inferno Armor Set, Terminus Armor and a Weapon weapon were a promotional offer to those pre-ordered at certain retailers and lastly a bouns to those who brought Dragon age (not pre-owned) the Blood Dragon Armor.

the missions were part of the project Ten Dollar

Pretentious Old Man.
24th Aug 2010, 16:53
There's no point me writing my opinion here. Just read what Beastrn wrote, that's pretty much exactly what I would have said phrased more succinctly and articulately.

JCpies
24th Aug 2010, 17:36
Peanuts over DLC 6 days a week.

H.D.Case
24th Aug 2010, 21:42
The point is - is it going to be free or not? If not, you just made a big PR mistake. Second thing - steam? Seriously? I mean, seriously? If it is confirmed - seriously?

DeusWhatever
30th Aug 2010, 20:56
Wow we just got the new worst example for why DLC suck. Where even the creator of the game posts links to a petition to release the full game:

Mafia 2 ...

(obviosly lots of the content was cut out of the game and is planned to be reintroduced by DLC (which is the reason why 2k Games was even attacking Modding-Sites that activated some features that were meant to be DLC ...)

I was about to buy this game, but now im really glad i didnt buy this crap.

But i think its really great to state this so open, i wonder what the publisher will do now.
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83774&page=1

I really hope DX:HR wont choose this path.

pha
30th Aug 2010, 23:54
As long as there are ignorant clowns who are willing to buy overpriced DLC, these greedy chumps will keep cutting content from vanilla games and promoting them as separate content. The only way to prevent this nonsense is ignoring this sham altogether but I don't see that happening any time soon.

If Mafia 2 didn't have any so-called extra content and included them into the vanilla game, and the game was 10 bucks more expensive than it is now, many people would whine. But the exact same people are willing to buy the same "extra" content for more than 10 bucks total.

Romeo
31st Aug 2010, 00:43
As long as there are ignorant clowns who are willing to buy overpriced DLC, these greedy chumps will keep cutting content from vanilla games and promoting them as separate content. The only way to prevent this nonsense is ignoring this sham altogether but I don't see that happening any time soon.

If Mafia 2 didn't have any so-called extra content and included them into the vanilla game, and the game was 10 bucks more expensive than it is now, many people would whine. But the exact same people are willing to buy the same "extra" content for more than 10 bucks total.
As long as there's still ignorant clowns who believe that all the DLC given (Some of it free, no less) from games like Mass Effect 2 was clearly a cash grab, DLC will always be made into a pariah. Sure, I'm sure there are more examples like Mafia 2, but to paint every game with the same brush is, frankly, stupid.

pha
31st Aug 2010, 01:09
Touchy are we? :D

Apparently our definitions of cash grab are different. Every. Single. DLC. which could have been a part of the vanilla game is a scam. It's especially insulting when 1. the DLC is on the disk and needs to be unlocked with ca$h 2. the DLC isn't on the disk but its release coincides with the vanilla game and you need to buy "extra stuff" starting from day one 3. the studio works on DLC when the vanilla game still requires a patch.

However, DLC's which function similar to expansion packs, i.e. designed after the vanilla game is 100% complete without problems and major bugs, takes up in different areas with unique design, music, textures, etc. if possible instead of recycling vanilla content (actually this depends on the genre and structure of the game, but I hope you'll understand) and adds up to the fun with a satisfying amount of extra content are perfectly fine by me, especially if they aren't overpriced and they are released on disk medium in addition to digital.

Romeo
31st Aug 2010, 01:26
Touchy are we? :D

Apparently our definitions of cash grab are different. Every. Single. DLC. which could have been a part of the vanilla game is a scam. It's especially insulting when 1. the DLC is on the disk and needs to be unlocked with ca$h 2. the DLC isn't on the disk but its release coincides with the vanilla game and you need to buy "extra stuff" starting from day one 3. the studio works on DLC when the vanilla game still requires a patch.

However, DLC's which function similar to expansion packs, i.e. designed after the vanilla game is 100% complete without problems and major bugs, takes up in different areas with unique design, music, textures, etc. if possible instead of recycling vanilla content (actually this depends on the genre and structure of the game, but I hope you'll understand) and adds up to the fun with a satisfying amount of extra content are perfectly fine by me, especially if they aren't overpriced and they are released on disk medium in addition to digital.
I gotta say, THAT I can agree with. But I still cut ME2 slack with regards to the DLC, given that it was all free despite being at launch. And yet, people still complained. It was amazing. lol

pha
31st Aug 2010, 01:48
Actually ME2 isn't the best example.

They converted some of the vanilla game into "free DLC", which was a move to retaliate against second hand market. Their attempt to cover their benefits without causing too much hassle to legit customers is worthy of respect, because buying a second hand game is practically identical to piracy, you enjoy the whole thing but the dev/publisher doesn't earn a zilch from you. Still, there's no reason to praise them for the awesome "free" content, because Zaeed is obviously meant to be part of the vanilla game and Cerberus Network extras are... meh. I don't appreciate Zaeed more than I appreciate Tali, Thane, you get the idea.

They also released armor and weapon packs, IMO it's a way of saying "We know we blew it with the poor inventory, now please buy more stuff to enrich it.". They deliberately refrained from releasing modding tools, and made people dependent on these item packs. These may be cheap, but there's no justification to sell them separately.

http://i35.tinypic.com/30135ky.gif

Romeo
31st Aug 2010, 02:16
Actually ME2 isn't the best example.

They converted some of the vanilla game into "free DLC", which was a move to retaliate against second hand market. Their attempt to cover their benefits without causing too much hassle to legit customers is worthy of respect, because buying a second hand game is practically identical to piracy, you enjoy the whole thing but the dev/publisher doesn't earn a zilch from you. Still, there's no reason to praise them for the awesome "free" content, because Zaeed is obviously meant to be part of the vanilla game and Cerberus Network extras are... meh. I don't appreciate Zaeed more than I appreciate Tali, Thane, you get the idea.

They also released armor and weapon packs, IMO it's a way of saying "We know we blew it with the poor inventory, now please buy more stuff to enrich it.". They deliberately refrained from releasing modding tools, and made people dependent on these item packs. These may be cheap, but there's no justification to sell them separately.

http://i35.tinypic.com/30135ky.gif
It's a fantastic example. I consider it a great way to get people to not buy used (Which doesn't get the develloper any money) without costing the original owner anything. Also, I think it's pretty clear Zaeed was not part of the original contest, seeing as how he has no on-ship dialogue. As for the new weapons, the original weapons are already varied, so no one has a gun to your head forcing you to buy. I have no issue with any of the DLC so far, except perhaps the alternative appearance pack.

pha
31st Aug 2010, 07:10
no one has a gun to your head forcing you to buy.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2wr1cg9.gif

Remember this when vanilla DX4 only has 6 augs and an augmentation pack DLC is announced. The industry keeps on growing up!

Isterio
31st Aug 2010, 08:21
I have no problems with DLC per se, but it is strange that they are already working on DLC, before the game is released. I'd rather have them work on it, when the game is already out. Like that the Content is really additional and it's less a "cutting the original game into pieces".

I did pay for some DLC in Fallout 3 and Dragon Age Origins. Yes, it is quite expensive for what they offer, but as a huge fan of those games, I was willing to pay for it (I have never bought a collector's edition or any "outfit" DLC though).

So I guess there is a good and a bad way to do it. Most Add-ons, which I have bought did bitterly disappoint me. The DLCs on the other hand were okay so far. Let's see, how they solve it here...

JCpies
31st Aug 2010, 08:44
If I get this game on PC. And I have to go through steam to play it. I'm getting it on PS3.

Isterio
31st Aug 2010, 09:57
If I get this game on PC. And I have to go through steam to play it. I'm getting it on PS3.

Seriously? You prefer playing an action game on the console? I don't mind STEAM, but I would get frustrated using a gamepad for DXHR. Not that I can't use it. It's more like I don't want to use it. When I was playing HALO on my XBOX I just asked myself ... why? WHY? It's like a brain operation with a toolbox.

DeusWhatever
31st Aug 2010, 11:46
As long as there's still ignorant clowns who believe that all the DLC given (Some of it free, no less) from games like Mass Effect 2 was clearly a cash grab, DLC will always be made into a pariah. Sure, I'm sure there are more examples like Mafia 2, but to paint every game with the same brush is, frankly, stupid.

Well honestly, i think all DLC is crap. The problem is, that i differentiate between DLC and Addon. Yet it seems publishers arent differentiating anymore. For example "DLC" that i thouhgt was good value for the money it costed was the GTA IV "DLC" yet i would call this sort of DLC "Addon". So if your "DLC" is priced and content like good "Addons" were (i know not every Addon was good) i would be satisfied, still you could simply call it "Addon" then. (Still GTA IV was the biggest crap i ever bought pls dont do anything that this game did ... (i would never buy something like that again (GFWL, Social-Club, worst port ever etc. ...)

I think the main problem nowadays is the definition of DLC, because it seems that it can be anything, yet most of the DLC was not worth the money and i think thets the big problem many customers have, so why use that stupid word knowing every1 hates it? If i were a publisher i would simply call my "DLC" addon and every1 will be pleased if the content matches the price.

Yet your just getting more like the fail-industries every year. Unable to adept to changes in the market, fighting them exactly like the music-industry. And the outcome is clear you will fail ...


It's a fantastic example. I consider it a great way to get people to not buy used

And i think this is stupid. I mean really, what makes gaming-industry so special? There are used-sales in every industry yet no one is fighting it, its free market. And even if you bind content to accounts, honestly i can still sell all without any problem, i just make a new account for every game and sell the account with the disc and there would be nothing you could do.

And a personal question, how would you feel, if the car/film-industry decided to fight the used sales, and you wouldnt be able to sell your used-car or your DVDs anymore? The only problem i see with used sales in the gaming-industry i see, is that the gaming industry was to slow to adept to this new market. If you want to get money from this market, start beeing part of it, dont try to fight windmills ...

Cause if you do you will simply end like the music-industry, slowly beeing destroyed by your own inability to adept to any changes. I mean honestly, arent they the best example to see the problems of modern companies? If they would have adepted to the market as they should have, they would make much more money. Yet now others have established themselfes on the market this industry could have taken years ago ...

Also there are lots of studies about pricing in the gaming industry, yet every1 still charges the same price, which is stupid, you could simply undermine used sales by pricing your games in the price segment where people reach out for porducts without thinking about it too much which is (if i remember correctly) about 39 Euros. And im pretty shure the increase in sales would compensate the cheaper price pretty well. Also by having a bigger crowd with the game, you would have a bigger base for any addons. And this would also fight piracy.

Yet you are just becoming more and more like the music industry, unable to adept to any changes in the market, fighting everything that is new while every1 can tell you that you cant win, and then people of the industry wonder when other companies profit from their market by adapting ...

So even if the "grown up industry" doesnt get it, the market ist still the same, consumers decide themselfes what and how they buy, its nothing companies could dictate. And if companies dont get this simple thing, there will be other companies that will gladly take the money (like for example gamestop, apple with itunes, amazon with their mp3 sales etc.) ...

AxiomaticBadger
31st Aug 2010, 15:16
Oh, god, the bile.

Dlcs that add actual content, or alter gameplay mechanics for replayability are good. Dlcs which give you a new hat are not.

Also, I find it hilarious that people are outraged that the game designers are working on new content instead of, oh, sitting at thier desks looking at porn. Remember that they'd already finished the main game.
Sure, without dlcs they might still be working on the main game. Equally likely is that they'd have moved on to thier next project.

Vladimyre
31st Aug 2010, 16:09
The more studios talk about DLC the more it is turning me to not buying at launch and waiting for the GOTY editions to pop up. Ala Borderlands, Oblivion, Fallout 3, etc.

DeusWhatever
31st Aug 2010, 18:12
You should have bought Borderlands at the steamsale, 17 Euros for Borderlands with all DLCs ;)

Cronstintein
31st Aug 2010, 20:31
That huge DLC rant a few posts back about not moving with the times is funny. DLC is them moving with the times: using recent technology to get more money because the old system is breaking down.
Used game sales and piracy aren't a new phenomenon, they've been done for over a decade. So unless you want them to go the route of the record industry you should be embracing DLC.
Now is all DLC good? Um no. Is some of it good? .... maybe?
I think the kind that doesn't punish the first buyer is the best; it's not fair to jack up the price on the people who are actually supporting your industry.

MrFoxter
31st Aug 2010, 21:36
You should have bought Borderlands at the steamsale, 17 Euros for Borderlands with all DLCs ;)

Yeah, that was very good sale. I've been waiting for Borderlands to get cheaper, and finally I bought Knoxx DLC too. Damn sales :D



I think the kind that doesn't punish the first buyer is the best; it's not fair to jack up the price on the people who are actually supporting your industry.

This has effect only for used game selling, to get few extra bucks from people, who actually have not paid any money to developers. I think it is fair to give some free content to people who directly supported developers by buying their game. Pirates have free access to all DLCs and all pre-purchase bonuses, so this DLC stuff won't affect piracy rate.

For me, the best expansion ever was Half-Life: Opposing Force, adding new layer to the story as well as new great weapons and enemies. Considering HL1 was strictly linear game, adding new story-layer was not so complicated as adding new layer to non-linear game such as Deus Ex. I hope that DX:HR DLC will be some new locations with new missions to complete, not messing with main storyline. It would be awesome to get this kind of DLC, because that fits mission-based nature of DX most. Of course, it must be some high-quality add-on. Just imagine getting location as complex as for example Hong Kong from original game as bonus location! That would be appropriate DLC, even if it was half the size!

Romeo
1st Sep 2010, 02:41
Well honestly, i think all DLC is crap. The problem is, that i differentiate between DLC and Addon. Yet it seems publishers arent differentiating anymore. For example "DLC" that i thouhgt was good value for the money it costed was the GTA IV "DLC" yet i would call this sort of DLC "Addon". So if your "DLC" is priced and content like good "Addons" were (i know not every Addon was good) i would be satisfied, still you could simply call it "Addon" then. (Still GTA IV was the biggest crap i ever bought pls dont do anything that this game did ... (i would never buy something like that again (GFWL, Social-Club, worst port ever etc. ...)

I think the main problem nowadays is the definition of DLC, because it seems that it can be anything, yet most of the DLC was not worth the money and i think thets the big problem many customers have, so why use that stupid word knowing every1 hates it? If i were a publisher i would simply call my "DLC" addon and every1 will be pleased if the content matches the price.

Yet your just getting more like the fail-industries every year. Unable to adept to changes in the market, fighting them exactly like the music-industry. And the outcome is clear you will fail ...



And i think this is stupid. I mean really, what makes gaming-industry so special? There are used-sales in every industry yet no one is fighting it, its free market. And even if you bind content to accounts, honestly i can still sell all without any problem, i just make a new account for every game and sell the account with the disc and there would be nothing you could do.

And a personal question, how would you feel, if the car/film-industry decided to fight the used sales, and you wouldnt be able to sell your used-car or your DVDs anymore? The only problem i see with used sales in the gaming-industry i see, is that the gaming industry was to slow to adept to this new market. If you want to get money from this market, start beeing part of it, dont try to fight windmills ...

Cause if you do you will simply end like the music-industry, slowly beeing destroyed by your own inability to adept to any changes. I mean honestly, arent they the best example to see the problems of modern companies? If they would have adepted to the market as they should have, they would make much more money. Yet now others have established themselfes on the market this industry could have taken years ago ...

Also there are lots of studies about pricing in the gaming industry, yet every1 still charges the same price, which is stupid, you could simply undermine used sales by pricing your games in the price segment where people reach out for porducts without thinking about it too much which is (if i remember correctly) about 39 Euros. And im pretty shure the increase in sales would compensate the cheaper price pretty well. Also by having a bigger crowd with the game, you would have a bigger base for any addons. And this would also fight piracy.

Yet you are just becoming more and more like the music industry, unable to adept to any changes in the market, fighting everything that is new while every1 can tell you that you cant win, and then people of the industry wonder when other companies profit from their market by adapting ...

So even if the "grown up industry" doesnt get it, the market ist still the same, consumers decide themselfes what and how they buy, its nothing companies could dictate. And if companies dont get this simple thing, there will be other companies that will gladly take the money (like for example gamestop, apple with itunes, amazon with their mp3 sales etc.) ...
You're opening line alrighty alerts me to the senselessness which will inevitably follow... In any case, I can think of many examples of fair priced add-ons. See, I'm the kind of guy that much prefers bits and pieces of DLC, rather than a single large expansion.

Yes, of course any downloads that add content to a game are going to be called DLC. That has quite a lot to do with it's name... Downloadable Content.

Embracing change makes me unable to change... This, I find ironic. And rather stupid, if we're being honest.

Good luck with selling your account - you let me know how that goes. As for the gaming market being special, I don't consider it special - I hold it to the same rights and obligations as any other market. Which is why I have such a resentment of piracy.

Frankly, the car industry does attempt to promote new cars sales, hence the sales, lease options and trade-ins. As does the movie industry with bonus content and special offers. I'm not saying don't allow used games, but I'm in total support of the devellopers trying to ensure they make some money from new sales.

If it were that easy, do you not think someone would've done so by now? You need to remember, game companies are in business to make money. If under-cutting the market actually worked, it would've happened already.

So, brainiac, perhaps you'd like to present a viable alternative for the music industry to survive? They're absolutely PLAGUED by piracy, and attempts to lower their prices via digital downloads doesn't help, because people will always take free over cheap.

You're going to label Gamestop as an example of moving forward? The company who's only real specialization is offering exclusive DLC? Conflicting information is conflicting.

FrankCSIS
1st Sep 2010, 03:28
So, brainiac, perhaps you'd like to present a viable alternative for the music industry to survive? They're absolutely PLAGUED by piracy

Must we really go over this again, Romie? :p

There is little viable solution to an industry which has always been only half-subject to the so-called laws of the market. Truth is that since its modern commercialisation, it has been enjoying the benefit of being very limited in terms of artists and distributors, with a relatively large market. That was then, this is now. The same players, today, are hoping what was true yesteryear can still hold today, but it's simply not the case. The world is available today. As it turns out, there are tons of John Lennon's or Bono's out there, which can and are discovered on a monthly basis. The world is full of talent, and attempting to market it all as super hits is simply not viable, unless you systematically bet on the right horse, every time.

Music as a billion dollar industry is a luxury we can hardly afford, as are hundred-million dollar movies. It worked well for perhaps two decades, work alright for one more, and now it's showing signs of failure, as the market opens to all sorts of newcommers, and distribution is no longer artificially reduced to cinema, DVD and network tv.

In the case of music, movies and games, distribution has altered the true market values of their respective products. Now that the networks are becoming less prominent, the real worth is starting to take shape, and that's not something that is going to change over time. Litterature is perhaps the model which has been living with this reality for the longest time, with libraries being a concept as old as scriptures themselves. And so while I understand why those who presently control the entertainment market are striving to protect what was once theirs, this battle is bound to be lost, and its rightfulness is not something I consider clear as day. Why should it be true for music, when it does not apply to books? Why should movies be automatically and systematically earning such large profits and be artificially protected from larger distribution, when litterature has always been considered a luxury for developped societies?

It's not "just" another product. Never has been, never will be. Anyone who enters this business hoping for this statement to be true is looking to get bankrupt within a decade. Incidently, that's about how long the average production house lasts, if not less.

Edit: While I'm at it, don't think for a second that I consider this reality to be justified, or plain just. Nothing is justified in free-market. It wasn't fair for the whales oil producers and distributors when electricity replaced candle lights, and it's not fair for milk producers to earn a penny on the dollar the distributor makes. Sad as it may be, no one is safe in capitalism, and the wealthy markets of yesterday can fall apart at any time. Change does not require justification to occur, it simply does.

And as such I refer you to "Anything Goes" lyrics:

"and that gent today
you gave a cent today
once had several chateaux"

Romeo
1st Sep 2010, 05:49
You see Frankie, the problem I have with that, is when you tell people to start giving their stuff away for free, we go from a nice, varied market down to a small, limited market virtually overnight. Libraries work because the overwhelming majority of people still buy their books. In comparison, I think I may be the only person left in Vancouver that actually still buys music, and I can't count the number of times someone has told me to download "movie x". That, in and of itself, is the primary issue. Ignoring the intellectual rights and investment of time and mass co-ordination of video games, music and movies, there's also a very, very sizable cost to all of these things. You claim the market can no longer sustain large teams and large budgets - it had damn well better. I know I'd much rather pay my $60 a game for a nice, lengthy, attractive and typically well-orchestrated game than survive on a sea of flash games from now until death, but perhaps that's just my crazy limited view talking again... Same goes for music (I'd much rather go watch something like Slipknot than some drum 'n' strum duo at the bus stop) and the same goes for movies (Granted, there are some limited budget movies I thought were very well done, such as moon). You see, the funny thing is, the market is sustainable, in my opinion. Video games have been supposedly ready to collapse for the last couple decades, and yet they recently grew to become the single highest-value entertainment market on the planet. Movies are apparently spiralling out of control with costs, yet the single highest grossing film was just recent, and ironically, had the biggest budget of all time. Music was supposed to have collapsed several times over, but the bands that are doing great are the ones with excessive cost and hype, the one's with the $20 CDs. Everyone always clamors for lower prices, but at the end of the day, lower prices never save the day. Hell, if one analyzed my beloved car market during the recession, most affordable companies were on their hands and knees, while Porsche posted their highest quarter. Ever. Analyzing even further into that company revealed that even the "affordable" Porsches weren't what was pushing them to those profits, it was mainly the hideously expensive Carrera GT2s, GT3s and Turbos. Because at the end of the day, no matter how much they hate shelling out for it, people WILL pay for quality.

lithos
1st Sep 2010, 16:42
I know I'd much rather pay my $60 a game for a nice, lengthy, attractive and typically well-orchestrated game

Let me know when you find a nice, lengthy, attractive and typically(?) well-orchestrated game for that price.

Hell, let me know if you find one for $70US, or even $80US. Still less than what I'll have to pay on launch. There's a world that exists beyond the US, you know.

TrickyVein
1st Sep 2010, 20:06
There is a world that exists beyond the US, but it really doesn't matter. Hate all you want, I'm American and have good teeth. :D

DeusWhatever
2nd Sep 2010, 00:35
You're opening line alrighty alerts me to the senselessness which will inevitably follow... In any case, I can think of many examples of fair priced add-ons. See, I'm the kind of guy that much prefers bits and pieces of DLC, rather than a single large expansion.
And thats where the problem starts, exactly that kind of DLC has a price-content ratio that is ridiculous. Even 2 dollars for one ingame-outfit would be too much.

Yes, of course any downloads that add content to a game are going to be called DLC. That has quite a lot to do with it's name... Downloadable Content.
And i think this is a big problem, DLC can be anything, there should be different categories.

Embracing change makes me unable to change... This, I find ironic. And rather stupid, if we're being honest.
There is a big difference between trying to initiating change in the market yourself, or adepting to actual changes in the market.

Good luck with selling your account - you let me know how that goes
I dont see the problem here. I make a new E-Mail account on some random site, register the Game with some random name. If there is nothing personal in the account, i have no problem to hand it over with the retail disc.

Frankly, the car industry does attempt to promote new cars sales, hence the sales, lease options and trade-ins. As does the movie industry with bonus content and special offers. I'm not saying don't allow used games, but I'm in total support of the devellopers trying to ensure they make some money from new sales.
Yes, still the car industry is also benefiting from the used car sales, they even lease their own cars to make them affordable so people can buy them as used cars. And yes, you can promote new sales, still that shouldn't be on accomplished by screwing your customers.

If it were that easy, do you not think someone would've done so by now?
Honestly, no. Just take a look at the music-industry, they completely ignored the internet-market for years, and it even took years before any1 like apple took the oportunity. I honestly even believe that if the internet would have offered good shopping oportunities earlier even piracy would have been less these days. Also if the prices were lower it would also be better. Its common knowledge these days that humans when they buy have different price ranges. Depending on the range they think more or less before they buy, in a low price range (i think it wouse up to 30 or 40 Dollars) they even tend to buy spontaniously. And i think the steam-sales are also a good indicator for the benefit lower prices can have.


So, brainiac, perhaps you'd like to present a viable alternative for the music industry to survive?
I hardly care about the music industry i dont even want it to survive. And im pretty shure they will have a hard time in the years ahead. They completely ignored one of the biggest markets for years. They just woke up and now it has been taken be other companies like Itunes and Amazon. Their next problem is, like some previous poster said some years ago the music-industry decided what was "hip" by being in contorl of almost every media. Which is not the case anymore. Also lots of musicians are starting to try to get rid of the industry for a simpel reason i guess its comon knowledge that the music-industry is ripping off artists.
Digital distribution works, but they have done something about it too late and they completely messed up their last chance by crappy DRM. Honestly even a 5-year-old can predict that someone who bought music wants to have access to it from any of his music-devices (car radio, pc, console, normal hi-fi etc.) if you chose DRM or some Formats that wont allow this ...
But i think im pretty lucky since i dont listen to mainstream music.

You're going to label Gamestop as an example of moving forward? The company who's only real specialization is offering exclusive DLC? Conflicting information is conflicting.
Gamestop was an example for a company jumping into a market no one cared about. (used sales)

Hell, if one analyzed my beloved car market during the recession, most affordable companies were on their hands and knees, while Porsche posted their highest quarter. Ever.
And this is "new" to you? I think its pretty logical that the people that can afford to buy luxury-cars wont be affected by the recession as much as others (maybe if they have business themselfes which arent in luxury-business). Sry but i think this is a pretty bad example. You cant compare luxury-cars only very few people can even afford to "luxury" anyone buys these days. Luxury-cars are hardly something where the people that buy them will even need to think about how to afford them. So we are talking about people with millions on their bank. They wont even be affected by the recession (at least if they dont speculate with their money too much).

Romeo
2nd Sep 2010, 01:37
Let me know when you find a nice, lengthy, attractive and typically(?) well-orchestrated game for that price.

Hell, let me know if you find one for $70US, or even $80US. Still less than what I'll have to pay on launch. There's a world that exists beyond the US, you know.
There's been a few that have kept my attention for a while. And the quality of proper games is leaps and strides ahead of flash games. Hell, even a no-minder like Call of Duty still holds one's attention longer than a flash game. And $80 US? Man, where are you buying? Gamestop? I don't even pay that much in weaker Canadian dollars! $60 for a normal game, $70 if I splurge and get a collector's edition.

There is a world that exists beyond the US, but it really doesn't matter. Hate all you want, I'm American and have good teeth. :D
I'm Canadian and have good teeth, and your country is below mine. =)


DeusWhatever, here we go:

-Combined cost of all my Mass Effect 2 add-ons is sixteen bucks. Shivering Isles from Oblivion cost me thirty. Shivering Isles lasted me about ten hours. Those add-ons have inspired me to play through Mass Effect 2 three more times, lasting north of twenty hours. Name a reason why I should be in favour of a large expansions, especially considering that means I have to download everything, whereas smaller things allow me to pick and choose what I want.
-There is different catagories, but they all fall under the branch of DLC. Because, as I said, DLC actually stands for Downloadable Content...
-How the hell am I going to change the gaming market? Are you on illicit substances? lol
-So you do that each and every PC game you do. With consoles, you're screwed (As you sell off the internet that comes with it too). And you're also relying upon an individual who's going to buy your game (Rather than a store, which is typical) and willing to buy your email. Like I said, let me know how that goes for you.
-Not that much they don't, I worked at a dealership. Our used sales constituted - are you ready for this - less than a percent of our profit. We didn't even bother putting them in the charts. Sales, service and parts maintain profits, which would be akin to sales, connection fees and DLC for computer games. As for the leases, I labelled that as an example of how they want to get you into a new car. Also, bare in mind that while a dealer can make money on a used car, a develloper cannot. They need to protect themselves even more. I don't see how something that cost me absolutely not a damn penny is screwing me.
-And yet, again, like I said, if one looks at the recent success stories - Avatar, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto - they all have one thing in common: An outrageously large investment. Keep pushing low-buck all you want, but the simple fact is big and extravagent is what works.
-Not even really worth rebuddling this point, after all, you don't care...
-Every single game retailer I know does used sales, that's not what gets Gamestop sales - their exclusive deals do. It's not exactly a big secret.
-My point is that the market will always save those with a price tag associated with them. Speaing of that, don't be so sure that the luxurious-buyers didn't care. Don't forget, the recession hit the little guy second-hand, as a result of hitting business owners and CEOs first. Those same business owners and CEOs are the market for Porsches. While GM, Chrylser Volkswagen and Nissan floundered, Porsche, Pagani Ferrari and Lambourghini were either untouched or doing better, because the market will always look out for it's high-dollar items.

TrickyVein
2nd Sep 2010, 01:59
I'm Canadian and have good teeth, and your country is below mine. =)

Ahhhh yes, little America. Our neighbors from the great white North. Just remember that when the UN disbands and China invades Anchorage, we'll be the ones to annex your sorry hides.

lithos
2nd Sep 2010, 04:27
There's been a few that have kept my attention for a while. And the quality of proper games is leaps and strides ahead of flash games. Hell, even a no-minder like Call of Duty still holds one's attention longer than a flash game. And $80 US? Man, where are you buying? Gamestop? I don't even pay that much in weaker Canadian dollars! $60 for a normal game, $70 if I splurge and get a collector's edition.

I'm in Australia. You're ignorant, but anyway. Granted, Eidos isn't the worst one for this - that would be Activision and 2K Games ($89US for both MW2 and Bioshock 2, on Steam,) - but in terms of boxed, brick-and-mortar sales, Eidos is just as bad as everyone else. I prefer boxed games.

Sixty US is a good price for a game. Or, in AU dollars at the moment, sixty-six dollars (check xe.com.) You know, Australia has the highest piracy rates amongst the developed countries, and you don't think dropping the price is a good thing? Gaming's one of the biggest industries in the world that doesn't involve petroleum or flogging weapons, and they're whinging about profits? Don't make me laugh. Bobby Kotick makes millions of dollars of profit off MW2, and then refuses to pay the developers? That's just greed.

Game production values haven't gotten better with the monetary increase, either. The budget normally gets spent of fripperies that look good on press releases:

* Music licences.
* Stuntcasting Hollywood voice actors, who often end up doing a worse job than a proper, less expensive voice actor.
* Making sure the veins on the leaves of that tree you see for five seconds on the third level are realistically normal-mapped.
* Making sure your booth is the biggest and best at whatever games expo, and has the most scantily-clad marketing tarts.
* Paying for lawyers to defend the controversial elements shoe-horned into the game (T&A, excess gore, killing civilians - or worse, Western civilians,) because you "wanted to make a statement," or "be realistic," or "be 'edgy.'" (read: "There's no such thing as bad publicity.")
* Paying hundreds of thousands of dollar for ads in the media to ensure a high score (or at least to get the head of the reviewer who gives an honest opinion of your game,) *cough*.
* Hiring PR companies to try to convince magazines to delay their reviews of your games for a month so as to delay the release of negative reviews and get more uninformed purchases *cough, cough*.
* If there's any budget left over, maybe try to make the game fun. But go easy. It's eats into the stock dividends and the CEO's paycheque. Use a lot of scripted sequences, and make it easy for the player, so it can closely match the trailers. And remember: for every hour the gamer is entertained, we lose money. Keep is short.

So let me know when there's a game that avoids all that. I'll keep waiting, I'm used to it.

pringlepower
2nd Sep 2010, 04:41
I'm in Australia. You're ignorant, but anyway. Granted, Eidos isn't the worst one for this - that would be Activision and 2K Games ($89US for both MW2 and Bioshock 2, on Steam,) - but in terms of boxed, brick-and-mortar sales, Eidos is just as bad as everyone else. I prefer boxed games.

Sixty US is a good price for a game. Or, in AU dollars at the moment, sixty-six dollars (check xe.com.) You know, Australia has the highest piracy rates amongst the developed countries, and you don't think dropping the price is a good thing? Gaming's one of the biggest industries in the world that doesn't involve petroleum or flogging weapons, and they're whinging about profits? Don't make me laugh. Bobby Kotick makes millions of dollars of profit off MW2, and then refuses to pay the developers? That's just greed.



The piracy might be because of the overzealous censorship.

pringlepower
2nd Sep 2010, 04:53
Ahhhh yes, little America. Our neighbors from the great white North. Just remember that when the UN disbands and China invades Anchorage, we'll be the ones to annex your sorry hides.

The hat of Canada is there to hide your bad haircut.

lithos
2nd Sep 2010, 05:03
The piracy might be because of the overzealous censorship.

Name three decent games in recent years that were censored down here. Left 4 Dead 2 - there's a free on for you, though I don't care for zombie games myself (mostly for all the COD jockeys who go ape over the Zombie mode.)

pringlepower
2nd Sep 2010, 05:30
Name three decent games in recent years that were censored down here. Left 4 Dead 2 - there's a free on for you, though I don't care for zombie games myself (mostly for all the COD jockeys who go ape over the Zombie mode.)

Well "decent" might be contested, but the GTAs, Resevoir Dogs, the Postals, Left 4 Dead 2.

And another part might be how late games are released in PAL regions

Romeo
2nd Sep 2010, 05:40
Ahhhh yes, little America. Our neighbors from the great white North. Just remember that when the UN disbands and China invades Anchorage, we'll be the ones to annex your sorry hides.
Little America? We're bigger. As to your second point, try that in a couple years, it'll make a splendid anniversary to the war of 1812. ;)

I'm in Australia. You're ignorant, but anyway. Granted, Eidos isn't the worst one for this - that would be Activision and 2K Games ($89US for both MW2 and Bioshock 2, on Steam,) - but in terms of boxed, brick-and-mortar sales, Eidos is just as bad as everyone else. I prefer boxed games.

Sixty US is a good price for a game. Or, in AU dollars at the moment, sixty-six dollars (check xe.com.) You know, Australia has the highest piracy rates amongst the developed countries, and you don't think dropping the price is a good thing? Gaming's one of the biggest industries in the world that doesn't involve petroleum or flogging weapons, and they're whinging about profits? Don't make me laugh. Bobby Kotick makes millions of dollars of profit off MW2, and then refuses to pay the developers? That's just greed.

Game production values haven't gotten better with the monetary increase, either. The budget normally gets spent of fripperies that look good on press releases:

* Music licences.
* Stuntcasting Hollywood voice actors, who often end up doing a worse job than a proper, less expensive voice actor.
* Making sure the veins on the leaves of that tree you see for five seconds on the third level are realistically normal-mapped.
* Making sure your booth is the biggest and best at whatever games expo, and has the most scantily-clad marketing tarts.
* Paying for lawyers to defend the controversial elements shoe-horned into the game (T&A, excess gore, killing civilians - or worse, Western civilians,) because you "wanted to make a statement," or "be realistic," or "be 'edgy.'" (read: "There's no such thing as bad publicity.")
* Paying hundreds of thousands of dollar for ads in the media to ensure a high score (or at least to get the head of the reviewer who gives an honest opinion of your game,) *cough*.
* Hiring PR companies to try to convince magazines to delay their reviews of your games for a month so as to delay the release of negative reviews and get more uninformed purchases *cough, cough*.
* If there's any budget left over, maybe try to make the game fun. But go easy. It's eats into the stock dividends and the CEO's paycheque. Use a lot of scripted sequences, and make it easy for the player, so it can closely match the trailers. And remember: for every hour the gamer is entertained, we lose money. Keep is short.

So let me know when there's a game that avoids all that. I'll keep waiting, I'm used to it.
I don't know your country of origin, and thus, I'm ignorent? My apologies, I will dedicate myself towards stalking you from here-on-in. In any case, I don't think dropping the price is a viable alternative as everyone thinks it is. Everyone touts this ideal that lower prices will suddenly cause this massive surge of sales that will even out. As I've pointed out before, I still distinctly recall the bundle of five games where the seller allowed the buyer to select ANY price, even just a single penny (And let's be honest, that's the lowest price possible). Despite this, piracy still accounted for more than half the copies of the game, which is on par with normal $60 games. Don't tell me the price is the reason for piracy, it's not. People just want something for nothing.

lithos
2nd Sep 2010, 05:48
And another part might be how late games are released in PAL regions

That one bothers me more. I actually wish they'd stop making "mature" games using your average thirteen-year-old's definition of "mature" (censor-bait, eg, "BOOBIES!") but the late release is unforgiveable. Especially when a lot of games can be finished in a day...you turn up to an international forum, and you might be greeted with a thread title on front page the day after the launch with something like "Anyone else think that John dying in the fourth level sucked?"

They can sync up Harry Potter releases, for the love of Pete, but not much else?* It happens with everything. The funny thing about the digital economy is that the media companies want to be able to punish everyone equally, but not distribute equally. AFACT, for example, is trying to sync up punishment of movie pirates down under with that of the states, but it's not like they're doing anything to make movies get released the same as the US.

There's a theme to explore in a DX game. Globalisation and the digital economy. Companies with instantaneous access to content creating regional artificial scarcity.

HR doesn't look to be one of those games. They've said they've got a solid amount of gameplay in there, thank God. That's also another attraction of piracy. Is a game that's entertaining for seven hours worth $60?

* Side note. Want to hear a joke? "The Australian Book Publishing Industry." Under Australian law, Tom Clancy is an Australian author...

lithos
2nd Sep 2010, 06:04
I don't know your country of origin, and thus, I'm ignorent? My apologies, I will dedicate myself towards stalking you from here-on-in. In any case, I don't think dropping the price is a viable alternative as everyone thinks it is. Everyone touts this ideal that lower prices will suddenly cause this massive surge of sales that will even out. As I've pointed out before, I still distinctly recall the bundle of five games where the seller allowed the buyer to select ANY price, even just a single penny (And let's be honest, that's the lowest price possible). Despite this, piracy still accounted for more than half the copies of the game, which is on par with normal $60 games. Don't tell me the price is the reason for piracy, it's not. People just want something for nothing.

No, you're ignorant because you assumed I was in the US.

And you're cherry picking those facts about the Humble Indie Bundle - not that you care, 'cause they weren't Triple-A, big-budget releases, as you've previously made clear.

And no, buddy, piracy didn't account for "more than half" as you've pulled out of your rectum: it accounted for, according the guy who ran the Bundle, 25%. (http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle) Try reading the source you're citing, instead of just making stuff up. Your distinct recall needs some work.

Also, Steam sales figures would seem to disagree with you "higher price = more profit."

Take a look here: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/693342/Live-Blog-DICE-2009-Keynote---Gabe-Newell-Valve-Software.html


During the Holiday sales:
10% sale = 35% increase in sales (real dollars, not units shipped)
25% sale = 245% increase in sales
50% sale = 320% increase in sales
75% sale = 1470% increase in sales

At 75% off, they are making 15% more money than they were at full price.

Will the sales even out? Who knows? No one's had the balls to try it.

Besides, as I've said, game companies waste far too much money on stuff that doesn't result in better gameplay, in my opinion. Or Gabe Newell's...


"It works because the people that built that [video] are the same people that built the game."

Instead of, you know, hiring Goldtooth.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 00:43
No, you're ignorant because you assumed I was in the US.

And you're cherry picking those facts about the Humble Indie Bundle - not that you care, 'cause they weren't Triple-A, big-budget releases, as you've previously made clear.

And no, buddy, piracy didn't account for "more than half" as you've pulled out of your rectum: it accounted for, according the guy who ran the Bundle, 25%. (http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle) Try reading the source you're citing, instead of just making stuff up. Your distinct recall needs some work.

Also, Steam sales figures would seem to disagree with you "higher price = more profit."

Take a look here: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/693342/Live-Blog-DICE-2009-Keynote---Gabe-Newell-Valve-Software.html



Will the sales even out? Who knows? No one's had the balls to try it.

Besides, as I've said, game companies waste far too much money on stuff that doesn't result in better gameplay, in my opinion. Or Gabe Newell's...



Instead of, you know, hiring Goldtooth.
You listed US currency. That typically implies US resident.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle
'Despite the ability to get the games at nearly zero cost, Wolfire Games estimate that 25% of the traceable downloads have come from software piracy by links provided in some forums that bypass the payment screen to access the games; Wolfire further surmises an additional 25% piracy occurred through BitTorrent-type peer-to-peer sharing services.'


And right, right... Would you mind telling me how much profit GTAIV, MW2 and Halo 3 (About the three best-selling games of all time) made from cheap sales? Then perhaps compare that to the ridiculous levels they pulled in when they were new and expensive.

lithos
3rd Sep 2010, 04:16
You listed US currency. That typically implies US resident.

I said that so as to keep the same scale, so as not to compare apples with oranges, so to speak. Besides, it's the currency Steam uses.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle
'Despite the ability to get the games at nearly zero cost, Wolfire Games estimate that 25% of the traceable downloads have come from software piracy by links provided in some forums that bypass the payment screen to access the games; Wolfire further surmises an additional 25% piracy occurred through BitTorrent-type peer-to-peer sharing services.'

From my link to the original article (you know, the one written by Rosen himself.)


Some might want to donate, but it seems a whole lot easier to just click on a hyperlink than it is to enter a credit card number. Sure, it only takes a couple seconds, but for many, this is a few seconds too long. The most successful online stores all allow one-click buying, including Amazon, Steam and iTunes. In the words of one gamer, Steam showed him that he "wasn't cheap, just lazy," and I'm sure he's not alone in that realization.

Some users may want to share the bundle with their friends, and decide that it's easier to just make one donation for a larger amount than it is to make separate gift donations.

Some users may live in countries where none of our three processors (PayPal, Google Checkout, and Amazon) are accepted. These users might pay if they could, but they feel that they have no choice but to search for shared copies.

Some users just want to "stick it to the man", and be edgy and rebellious. It doesn't matter if they're sticking it to indie developers, sick children, and online civil liberties... they're sticking it to someone, so they feel cool.

He acknowledges issues which none of the big developers do: distribution and payment problems, rather than just assuming it's easy to buy the game in the US, so therefore it's just as easy to buy in Borneo. Developers and publisher will take all of five seconds to send lawyers after someone anywhere in the world, but sure drag their arses when it comes to actually, you know, distributing their product - which would solve a bunch of problems.

Rosen also acknowledges that, ultimately, which you seem to be forgetting, the whole jaunt bloody successful.


And right, right... Would you mind telling me how much profit GTAIV, MW2 and Halo 3 (About the three best-selling games of all time) made from cheap sales? Then perhaps compare that to the ridiculous levels they pulled in when they were new and expensive.

I can't. Nope. Why? Because I don't have those numbers, and I don't think they've bothered to put any of those games on sale. Those are all sequels to best-selling games - Halo's three generations old, GTAIV's four (more if you count the 2D and handheld versions,) and MW2's six - and that's always gonna result in increased zero-day sales.

And, well, if $60US is good enough price for a game, why aren't those games $60US everywhere? According to SteamPrices.com's "Top Rip Offs" function, Modern Warfare 2 is 33.34% more expensive in Aus than in the US - $89.99US on Australian Steam, versus $59.99 on US Steam. GTAIV is 33.34% more expensive in Aus as well - at the moment, $29.99US dollars on Australian Steam, $19.99US on US Steam.

Actually, come to think of it, the games industry owes more to Australian customers than the North American ones.

Besides, if the poor widdle games developers are sick of seeing piracy, they should sue Gamestop and EB.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 05:54
I said that so as to keep the same scale, so as not to compare apples with oranges, so to speak. Besides, it's the currency Steam uses.



From my link to the original article (you know, the one written by Rosen himself.)



He acknowledges issues which none of the big developers do: distribution and payment problems, rather than just assuming it's easy to buy the game in the US, so therefore it's just as easy to buy in Borneo. Developers and publisher will take all of five seconds to send lawyers after someone anywhere in the world, but sure drag their arses when it comes to actually, you know, distributing their product - which would solve a bunch of problems.

Rosen also acknowledges that, ultimately, which you seem to be forgetting, the whole jaunt bloody successful.



I can't. Nope. Why? Because I don't have those numbers, and I don't think they've bothered to put any of those games on sale. Those are all sequels to best-selling games - Halo's three generations old, GTAIV's four (more if you count the 2D and handheld versions,) and MW2's six - and that's always gonna result in increased zero-day sales.

And, well, if $60US is good enough price for a game, why aren't those games $60US everywhere? According to SteamPrices.com's "Top Rip Offs" function, Modern Warfare 2 is 33.34% more expensive in Aus than in the US - $89.99US on Australian Steam, versus $59.99 on US Steam. GTAIV is 33.34% more expensive in Aus as well - at the moment, $29.99US dollars on Australian Steam, $19.99US on US Steam.

Actually, come to think of it, the games industry owes more to Australian customers than the North American ones.

Besides, if the poor widdle games developers are sick of seeing piracy, they should sue Gamestop and EB.
Fine logic, but then don't complain when others assume you're from that area then.

As to the 'lazy instead of cheap' logic, for many, they either stole it from his own site still, which requires even more effort than normal (as one needs to go through the hassle of bypassing his own payments), or they stole it from BitTorrent, which still requires a decent amount of effort. And besides, people dedicate alot of their own time to making it, the least you can do is take a few seconds of your own time to repay them. Either excuse is still inexcusible.

And that is true, he reached a million in sales. But if that other half paid, that would have been two million, which means alot more money for charity and the devellopers.

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's HIGH, given that they're some of the best-selling games in history. As to them being sequels, there's been sequels even since the nineties. Hell, how many Marios have there been over the years? And yet they didn't sell like the big budget games of today do.

As to your final points, I don't know why prices are so abhorrent there. I feel for you, I truly do, $60 is just on the border of expensive, so if they're gouging you more, that is unfortunate. I'm not sure how much of a gaming market Australia constitutes. Price-wise, they're making alot on every sale, but I'm guessing in terms of raw sales North America is right up there, if not the largest market.

lithos
3rd Sep 2010, 07:43
As to the 'lazy instead of cheap' logic, for many, they either stole it from his own site still, which requires even more effort than normal (as one needs to go through the hassle of bypassing his own payments), or they stole it from BitTorrent, which still requires a decent amount of effort. And besides, people dedicate alot of their own time to making it, the least you can do is take a few seconds of your own time to repay them. Either excuse is still inexcusible.

How, if you're not in a country that doesn't support the payment methods? Or if you don't have a credit card? Frankly, until games developers do everything humanly possible to make their game easy to obtain, they can shut the hell up. Region-delayed launches? Screw you. Pricing discrepancies? Ditto.

Ultimately, you're argument is worthless, because Rosen's not complaining about the piracy. (Prove to me that every single person who pirates a game was going to buy it, and I'll show you a green dog. Go on. I'll wait.) And, as both Rosen and you have said, about all he's really lost is bandwidth.


And that is true, he reached a million in sales. But if that other half paid, that would have been two million, which means alot more money for charity and the devellopers.

Ah, greed, for want of a better word, is good, no? That's the problem. Everyone sets these arbitrary sales goals, and then gets pissed when the numbers they pulled out of nowhere aren't hit. Dev says jump this high, and we're all meant to start springing.

Your argument also works perfectly the other way around: he could've made much less. Half full, half empty, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be...

And, no, you don't get to project Rosen's moral goodness of donating to charity onto Triple-A devs. When was the last time you saw EA donate a significant proportion of their profits to charity? Eidos? Activision? 2K? Hmmm?


Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's HIGH, given that they're some of the best-selling games in history. As to them being sequels, there's been sequels even since the nineties.

Since we're just hypothesising, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they didn't make as much as they could've.

Besides, I find it laughable you're trying to paint MW2 (a game, by the way, which was significantly crippled in many key areas,) as some sort of victory for the industry. What happened to Infinity Ward, anyway? Jason West and Vince Zampella? Can you tell me which CEO said "I would rather pay my lawyers than my developers"? Where did Respawn Entertainment come from?


As to your final points, I don't know why prices are so abhorrent there. I feel for you, I truly do, $60 is just on the border of expensive, so if they're gouging you more, that is unfortunate. I'm not sure how much of a gaming market Australia constitutes. Price-wise, they're making alot on every sale, but I'm guessing in terms of raw sales North America is right up there, if not the largest market.

The only official line I've heard is "Australian consumers are used to paying those prices." (ie, "it's a licence to gouge!") No, really. I'm glad whoever said that aren't judges in spousal abuse cases - "Well, I don't see why I should convict your husband - you've been beaten by him for ten years, surely you're used to it now?" (hyperbole, I know.)

I don't mind it being more expensive in stores - I don't mind paying for tangible goods (boxes, manual, etc,) and not having to use my quota to get the game.

But it's a puzzler with Steam. Take Bioshock 2: it was released at $89.99US on Steam, about $95-$100AU at the time. Big W (department store here) had the physical version for $88AU on release. So did DSE, and a few other places (none of the dedicated games retailers, funnily enough, though they do price match.) I find it hard to believe that Steam's distribution costs are more than a retail store's....

Of course, if you tweak your account to make it seem like you're buying in the US, Steam bans your arse.

Eidos, however, are kickarse at flat pricing. Just Cause 2 was $49.99, straight up, over steam. And unlike 2K's games, Eidos are a lot more amenable to sales and discounts. That's why I bought JC2 during the launch week - fifty greenbacks everywhere, and no Games For Windows BS (I hate Games For Windows Live - what does it do, exactly?) Took me all of half a second to decide. Didn't regret it, either. Brilliant game (best emergent gameplay I've seen in a while - what if I tie this to this?)

DeusWhatever
3rd Sep 2010, 14:18
Since im not online so much these dasys i didnt answer yet, still lithos pretty much said what i would have said.

@Romeo
Sry but your argumentation is seriously lacking, i mean doesnt it bother you for example that you are trying to argue about something with wikipedia conent whilste even beeing pointed at statements directly from the person you are talking about?

Also, you chose another bad example just to prove your point. "Super Mario" is not comparable to other multiplattformtitles today, mario i s plattform-exclusive so its ridiculous to even try to compare sales figures.


And that is true, he reached a million in sales. But if that other half paid, that would have been two million, which means alot more money for charity and the devellopers.

And like lithos said just because people downloaded a game doesnt mean they would have bought it. It doesnt even mean that they didnt buy the game. Just read trough forums, many even download games just to "outsmart" retarded copy-protections while still buying the game. (which is still really stupid, since if you do that you will force even stronger protection since whith your purchase you indicate that you dont care about the DRM and by downloading the game you verify their fears) (which is why i for example simply dont buy any games from certain publishers like Ubisoft, i dont even inform myself since i simply dont care anymore)

Its all about the right price and the point where people buy without thinking too much about it. The same thing even applies to me for example in steam, when games are on sale and the price reaches a certain level there is a point where i buy without thinking much about it and i think this price region would be the best for every title. Sales would skyrocket if games had a price that would promote spontanious purchase.

But as it is now im measure every purchase i make, i read reviews, forums. After this "first phase" i try to find a demo. If i dont find one most of the time i simply dont buy the game and move on to something else. And this is not my fault, its the fault of the industry. Years ago there were times when i simply walked into a store and bought a game that looked fun, because most of the time it was fun. Nowadays if you do that, and judgte the games by their presentation you will simply get ripped of 90% of the time. If your interresed in my last spontanious full price purchase: "Supercar Street Challenge" ...