PDA

View Full Version : The idiocy of downloadable content stiffing the players...



Rindill the Red
29th Sep 2010, 02:39
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1123999p1.html nuff'said.

Tverdyj
29th Sep 2010, 02:47
gotta love market-speak....

"hey, the number of gamers who download content via consoles is up SIX PERCENT from the last quarter! Great news!"

who cares that it went from 0 to 6...... sigh.

naturally, no one will stop to think "hmm, maybe this is just a waste of time", instead they see the 94% who don't give a crap as an "untapped market"....

Jerion
29th Sep 2010, 02:50
Having experienced some of the Borderlands DLC firsthand, I think I can say that DLC by it's nature isn't a ripoff. When what is offered amounts to significant expansions of the game as individual, easily added-on parcels, it's a solid deal. I recognize that this isn't the case for a lot of titles though, where DLC is treated as single missions or throwaway items that have marginal impact on the experience. Basically, I'm of the opinion that Borderlands DLC is DLC done right. Compared to the initial price:scale of the original title it might be slightly expensive, but 5+ hours of solid play time for $10 is hardly a ripoff. Perhaps with better marketing and in fact, with a better reputation, it would be more widely accepted and pursued by the gaming public.

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 02:52
Was there something you wanted to discuss? Do you have some points to raise? That article is about the percentage of users who download DLC, and makes no differentiation between free and paid DLC.

What exactly are you trying to say? There certainly wasn't "nuff said."

Rindill the Red
29th Sep 2010, 02:55
Was there something you wanted to discuss? Do you have some points to raise? That article is about the percentage of users who download DLC, and makes no differentiation between free and paid DLC.

What exactly are you trying to say? There certainly wasn't "nuff said."

No, no... that was it... um... yeah... hmmm.... maybe this thread was a little a pointless... oh well, no harm done, eh?... eh.... good day!

II J0SePh X II
29th Sep 2010, 02:57
Aren't EM working on DLC right now? If so, are they making fresh stuff, or carving up the full game to sell to us later - Mafia II-style?

Dead-Eye
29th Sep 2010, 03:30
Human Revaluation has all the signs of a game that's just looking to rip us off. Let's hope this doesn't happen.

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 03:31
Human Revaluation has all the signs of a game that's just looking to rip us off. Let's hope this doesn't happen.

Don't buy the game and you can't be ripped off.

Tverdyj
29th Sep 2010, 03:40
Aren't EM working on DLC right now? If so, are they making fresh stuff, or carving up the full game to sell to us later - Mafia II-style?

as of right now, they announced there may be DLC, but I don't recall them saying they are working on it yet.

if they start working on DLC before the original game is out, that is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

AJacobson
29th Sep 2010, 03:48
No they'll finish the game then decide what to cut out to sell us later.

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 04:11
as of right now, they announced there may be DLC, but I don't recall them saying they are working on it yet.

if they start working on DLC before the original game is out, that is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

How so? Once the game is mostly finished and is in a testing stage, the content guys are mostly sitting on their hands. Might as well get them to work right away. No sense in paying them to do nothing.

nomotog
29th Sep 2010, 04:25
as of right now, they announced there may be DLC, but I don't recall them saying they are working on it yet.

if they start working on DLC before the original game is out, that is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

As I understand it they work it like an assembly line. The story guy writes the story for the game, then when that is done he gets put onto the DLC story. When the animation people are done they get put on the DLC ect ect. That way you don't have to fire all your staff, or pay them to do things they are not good at.

Serendip1ty
29th Sep 2010, 05:00
No they'll finish the game then decide what to cut out to sell us later.

Touché. Not saying it's like this all the time but it's definitely here to stay...

Any oldskool Unreal Tournament fans out here? Epic Games (the developer) was very generous with free DLC, they released HUGE inhouse developed "bonus packs" every 6 months or so.. that was back in 2000-2002. I think they were among the first to do this kind of stuff and they did it with style & how it still should be done today: Absolutely free & adding tons of value... but sadly this simply isn't possible anymore nowadays since there is WAAAAAAAY more money/development time involved. :hmm:

Tverdyj
29th Sep 2010, 05:10
I miss good ol' days of quality expansion packs....

Romeo
29th Sep 2010, 05:18
I've always been so surprised at how long it took devellopers to use the modding community effectively, such as the original Starcraft. New content every month, with Blizzard doing no work.
Content is free: Gamers win.
More players playing: Devs win.
Devellopers look at modders with potential, and the pride associated with infamy: Modders win.

Dagganoth
29th Sep 2010, 06:00
yer if anyone here's played DA:O then you know how not to do DLC some of the ones they did are good ( the golems of Ar-whatever-its-called, and the darkspawn chronicals where very well done) but all the other ones would cost $7-8 and only be reused places or one small new one. so i hope that any DLC eidos make will be worth its $$$

Jerion
29th Sep 2010, 06:06
I've always been so surprised at how long it took devellopers to use the modding community effectively, such as the original Starcraft. New content every month, with Blizzard doing no work.
Content is free: Gamers win.
More players playing: Devs win.
Devellopers look at modders with potential, and the pride associated with infamy: Modders win.

The biggest problem with modding is that most of the content produced isn't of any sort of quality and without some active participation on the developer's part to catalogue mods, the good stuff gets lost in the rubbish. It's a shame more devs don't encourage it. The DLC route almost effectively cuts out community modding so I think there's going to have to be a shift here for the two to coexist; community mods offer free content that isn't guaranteed up to par with the original game. DLC will have to transition to full-blown expansions with the promise of quality to justify the pricetag.

beastrn
29th Sep 2010, 06:08
Don't buy it and you can't be ripped off.

But you can and that makes me a sad panda and fear for the rest of the industry.

pringlepower
29th Sep 2010, 06:22
yer if anyone here's played DA:O then you know how not to do DLC some of the ones they did are good ( the golems of Ar-whatever-its-called, and the darkspawn chronicals where very well done) but all the other ones would cost $7-8 and only be reused places or one small new one. so i hope that any DLC eidos make will be worth its $$$

That DLC is only supposed to last 2-3 hours but this Harvester battle is SO DAMN HARD.

Xenoc
29th Sep 2010, 09:20
Having experienced some of the Borderlands DLC firsthand, I think I can say that DLC by it's nature isn't a ripoff. When what is offered amounts to significant expansions of the game as individual, easily added-on parcels, it's a solid deal. I recognize that this isn't the case for a lot of titles though, where DLC is treated as single missions or throwaway items that have marginal impact on the experience. Basically, I'm of the opinion that Borderlands DLC is DLC done right. Compared to the initial price:scale of the original title it might be slightly expensive, but 5+ hours of solid play time for $10 is hardly a ripoff. Perhaps with better marketing and in fact, with a better reputation, it would be more widely accepted and pursued by the gaming public.

I smell a payoff... Paid to say this?

Jerion
29th Sep 2010, 09:31
I smell a payoff... Paid to say this?

You would smell this why? I have zero ties to 2K Games, Nor Gearbox, nor any gaming journalism company. I'm not even paid by Square to moderate this board.

It's my honest opinion. I feel that the General Knoxx Borderlands DLC is a quality expansion worth $10 for both the playtime and the enjoyment of bringing considerable fresh air to what I view as an excellent title. If expansions like it got better exposure the system might be more popular. Is it so hard to believe that an honest PC gamer could actually approve of DLC? Especially if it's DLC with a bang for buck reminiscent of proper expansions from days gone by?

Kodaemon
29th Sep 2010, 09:53
The only DLC I had the chance to play that didn't make me feel ripped off was Shivering Isles for Oblivion (indeed I liked it better than Oblivion itself). And I bought the boxed version anyway.

Unstoppable
29th Sep 2010, 11:01
At least people are smart enough not to buy into it.

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 11:05
But you can and that makes me a sad panda and fear for the rest of the industry.

How can you be ripped off if you don't buy something?


I smell a payoff... Paid to say this?

Yeah, companies have the money to go around paying off volunteer moderators on small forums.


At least people are smart enough not to buy into it.

Buy into what? This article includes free DLC as well. People aren't even downloading what is free, so I doubt it has anything to do with cost.

Bottom line is, if people didn't want paid DLC, they wouldn't buy it, and companies would stop making it.

Unstoppable
29th Sep 2010, 11:12
What I meant was the % of players is really small compared to say expansion packs which is like at least 30%. I would of thought DLC was much higher.

Corpus
29th Sep 2010, 11:28
The one thing that gets me is when people say "should have been included in the game" when its obvious the content would have set the game back even longer. I've heard people say ballad of gay tony should have been in GTAIV from the start. :/

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 11:43
The one thing that gets me is when people say "should have been included in the game" when its obvious the content would have set the game back even longer. I've heard people say ballad of gay tony should have been in GTAIV from the start. :/

The problem is that people aren't aware of the behind-the-scenes development stuff. They just assume that all DLC content was going to be in the game but the mean ole publisher forced the developer to cut content and sell it later.

From what I understand, that's actually one of the least common scenarios.

Usually, DLC is planned from the very beginning, with separate funding based on a separate revenue stream. Without the promise of getting paid for it, the content would never have been created in the first place. So nothing is lost. You get the option to buy additional content, or not.

The second scenario is that DLC development begins if the game gets enough pre-orders or sales. (Pre-orders are used in the industry to extrapolate what actual sales will amount to. It's a fairly reliable comparison, too.) In this case, they often peel off a few members of the team just before or after the game is released to work on DLC. Again, content is created that would not have been in the original game.

Yes, on occasion content is seemingly cut for later sale as DLC, but most of the time that content was never destined to ship with the game anyway.

Remington
29th Sep 2010, 12:38
Mass Effect 2's DLCs are done THE RIGHT WAY(TM). See Overlord, Shadow Broker's Lair.

Same goes for Borderlands, Knoxx kept me playing for hours.

This increases replay value of games by a lot, but I do admit they are somewhat expensive and price should be cut off in half.

Kodaemon
29th Sep 2010, 12:50
How can you be ripped off if you don't buy something?

By paying the full price for a game that had part of the content cut to be sold at a later date.

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 13:00
By paying the full price for a game that had part of the content cut to be sold at a later date.

Hence not buying the game... I wasn't suggesting not buying DLC. I was suggesting not buying the game period.

Kodaemon
29th Sep 2010, 13:21
Ugh, this is a decidedly silly argument. "Don't like content being cut from a game you like? Don't buy the game at all and you'll be perfectly happy!"

NKD
29th Sep 2010, 14:32
Ugh, this is a decidedly silly argument. "Don't like content being cut from a game you like? Don't buy the game at all and you'll be perfectly happy!"

Well if you think you're being ripped off, then it's probably smart not to buy the game. Or, if you think the DLC is a ripoff but the original game is worth it, buy the game and not the DLC. Alternatively, people who like it all can have it all.

There's a choice for everyone. You're perfectly free to not purchase anything you don't feel is worthwhile. But don't try and rob others of their ability to buy additional content that they may feel is worth it. Remember, the debate isn't about getting the content for free or getting it for money. The debate is whether we get the content at all.

That's the two options the developer has. They either make the content, and expect to get paid for their work, or they don't make it. Like I said earlier, most of the time DLC won't even be created unless there's a chance they are going to get paid for it. Most of the time it isn't just "cut content" like people imply, but content that was specifically created because there was the promise of additional revenue. No revenue, no content. Getting it for free isn't a realistic option that is on the table.

You'll never convince a developer to change anything by saying "Hey I know you make a lot of money off DLC, but can you please stop offering it? Better yet, give it all to us for free."

Kodaemon
29th Sep 2010, 14:42
I think I'll just stick to not buying DLC. There's no reason to cut games up if the DLC doesn't sell.

Pinky_Powers
29th Sep 2010, 15:26
Having experienced some of the Borderlands DLC firsthand, I think I can say that DLC by it's nature isn't a ripoff. When what is offered amounts to significant expansions of the game as individual, easily added-on parcels, it's a solid deal. I recognize that this isn't the case for a lot of titles though, where DLC is treated as single missions or throwaway items that have marginal impact on the experience. Basically, I'm of the opinion that Borderlands DLC is DLC done right. Compared to the initial price:scale of the original title it might be slightly expensive, but 5+ hours of solid play time for $10 is hardly a ripoff. Perhaps with better marketing and in fact, with a better reputation, it would be more widely accepted and pursued by the gaming public.

This is exactly how I feel about the recent Mass Effect 2 DLC. Bioware did the Industry Standard DLC Rip-Off to begin with, but they didn't stop there. The Kasumi, Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC is just mind-blowing good. It's the perfect example to point to for "DLC done right". :)
It wasn't cut form the game at all, but took a towering effort to make, long after release.

On the other side of things, I find it a heinous crime to chop up a game and sell it full price + DLC on release day.


Human Revaluation has all the signs of a game that's just looking to rip us off. Let's hope this doesn't happen.

How so?

Fuzzman
29th Sep 2010, 16:37
My two cents:

DLC can be valuable when it's appropriate and done well. What does that mean? Well, each one of us could probably come up with a description, and then some.

But my question is, whatever happened to the good ol' fashioned expansion pack?

Rather than getting periodic content releases that are often small and unrelated, I would much rather wait a longer stretch of time for a significant addition of content. There used to be a time when expansion packs provided anywhere from half the content to an equal amount of content (or more) than the original game. Seeing a resurgence in expansion packs in gaming would make my day.

FrankCSIS
29th Sep 2010, 21:40
I find expansion packs to be more interesting as well, most of the time. Pound for pound, the goodness has proven to have a better value in the packs, so far anyway. Btween Opposing Force and a compilation of random unrelated missions and costume additions, the choice is a no-brainer here. Same is true for many RPG expansions, such as Baldur's Gates'.

This is subject to evolve, of course. Size and content limitation are restraining the full potential of DLC, and so the mindset in which each "addition" is made. Nothing stops a developper from releasing an expansion pack through DLC however, and so it may become a widely interesting option over time.

Facebyface
29th Sep 2010, 22:17
I think that adding content onto a Deus Ex game would be sort of ridiculous. It is a bit inputting my own predictions (I think Adam will die) but adding on additional content to the story just doesn't work especially in a prequel. I think though that them doing this for the addition of multiplayer at a later date is a good idea so that we can get the whole experience first hand then try and experiment with co-op.

Also an SDK. -drool-

mad825
29th Sep 2010, 23:04
I never have brought a DLC in my life, when it comes down to it I don't really have any care but when it comes to expansion packs I'm always first in line.....rather strange, perhaps it's the good old nostalgia

Dead-Eye
29th Sep 2010, 23:24
Like if they added DLC that was basically Deus Ex redone in the DX3 engine... that would be worth $20.

VectorM
29th Sep 2010, 23:34
What I meant was the % of players is really small compared to say expansion packs which is like at least 30%.

How do you know this? Links pls.

BigBoss
3rd Oct 2010, 09:03
Human Revaluation has all the signs of a game that's just looking to rip us off. Let's hope this doesn't happen.

how does it look like that in any way? If the campaign is under ten hours, and there is some pointless mp mode then i'' agree with you but until then there is no reason to jump to that conclusion

Aqueous
4th Oct 2010, 14:30
Right now I don't have a problem with DLCs at all but I can see them establishing a dangerous and rip-off prone precedent in the near future: shelve out a barely complete game for 60 bucks and just add in the rest later on for extra.

AlexOfSpades
4th Oct 2010, 16:40
Right now I don't have a problem with DLCs at all but I can see them establishing a dangerous and rip-off prone precedent in the near future: shelve out a barely complete game for 60 bucks and just add in the rest later on for extra.

... but reducing the time the game will take to be released.

Ever thought of that?

Pinky_Powers
4th Oct 2010, 17:02
... but reducing the time the game will take to be released.

Ever thought of that?

I'd rather wait a few extra months to get a complete game, than to get an incomplete game earlier, for the same price, and then have to buy the "extras" just so I can have the proper experience.

AlexOfSpades
4th Oct 2010, 17:13
I'd hate to wait months more just to see Fallout 3 with that Point Lookout area.

Mindmute
4th Oct 2010, 17:14
I'd rather wait a few extra months to get a complete game, than to get an incomplete game earlier, for the same price, and then have to buy the "extras" just so I can have the proper experience.

I had that feeling with Assassin's Creed 2 "bonus" sequences.

Pinky_Powers
4th Oct 2010, 17:37
I'd hate to wait months more just to see Fallout 3 with that Point Lookout area.

I don't know about that game's development time, or its DLC, so I can't say if it's a good example or not. But I do know that I would gladly wait for Deus Ex if it meant getting it in its entirety.

Aqueous
4th Oct 2010, 17:47
Exactly what Pinky said. DLCs are meant to be there to extend an already complete game whereas my post was basically predicting DLCs being used - in the future - as a means of "completing" an incomplete game. Honestly, I can see it happening :/ (even if that is a cynical point of view).

Pinky_Powers
4th Oct 2010, 21:13
Exactly what Pinky said. DLCs are meant to be there to extend an already complete game whereas my post was basically predicting DLCs being used - in the future - as a means of "completing" an incomplete game. Honestly, I can see it happening :/ (even if that is a cynical point of view).

It's not cynical. It has happened. It continues to happen. And it's shameful.

There are good examples of DLC, and there are terrible ones. We just need a way to punish those developers who do it wrongly. :D

II J0SePh X II
4th Oct 2010, 21:37
We need some kind of gaming manifesto of what is acceptible behaviour from publishers concerning DLC. A lot of players are a bit pissed off by it all.

NKD
4th Oct 2010, 21:50
I'd rather wait a few extra months to get a complete game, than to get an incomplete game earlier, for the same price, and then have to buy the "extras" just so I can have the proper experience.

That really depends on what you mean by "incomplete." Technically, the game isn't complete until there are no more developers on the project. If anyone is working on any DLC, the game will be incomplete until they are done. Whether that completion has any bearing on the enjoyment of the game is another matter. For example, none of the DLC for Mass Effect 2 is really required to feel that you've completed the game, yet technically unless you have all the DLC, it isn't complete.

So I guess my question is where do you, personally, draw the line?

OwlSolar
5th Oct 2010, 04:00
I think it's when there's something obviously missing, like Assassin's Creed 2 (which was already mentioned).


We need some kind of gaming manifesto of what is acceptible behaviour from publishers concerning DLC. A lot of players are a bit pissed off by it all.
Hey, that's an interesting idea. Remember how Nintendo used to put Seals of Quality or whatever on their games? Maybe a company could do something like that with DLC (or even in general). As an added bonus, it could help them gain some more respect.

Pinky_Powers
5th Oct 2010, 04:43
I think the gaming community should pool our monies and hire the Mob to bust knees whenever a studio releases a game and DLC on the same day or week.

We could collect their commission at PAX Prime and East and open up a PayPal account.

OwlSolar
5th Oct 2010, 05:17
I was completely interested at "Mob" and "bust knees."

Fuzzman
5th Oct 2010, 05:46
In an earlier post, I more or less professed my love for expansion packs over DLC. I want to expand on those previous ideas.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, with DLC is one of value. I'm sure you've heard that term thrown around before, particularly if you're a fan of Valve (which I most certainly am).

DLC usually comes with a price tag, and as such, many people feel it is a rip-off. More often than not, players are asked to return to a game that they may have already finished (whether it be weeks, months, or years) for a few short hours, at most, of extra content.

Compare this with expansion packs. With expansions, players are asked to return to a game after a moderate to long duration of time for a larger price than that of DLC, but the content provides anywhere from half to as much as the original game in some cases. In terms of value, this is great value. DLC generally does not offer much value, let alone incentive to return to the game, especially when we are bombarded by more and more games each month.

I feel that if developers and publishers held back DLC content and released it in one larger package, for a slightly larger price tag than most DLC, but with significantly more content, you would have a much better package -- a package full of value.

Essentially, this would result in expansion packs all over again. Which are fine; I don't ever recall hearing about players complaining (in masses) about expansion packs. DLC then, in the form we currently see it as mini-bundles of minor content boosts, should simply be free of charge. When you create value, you create customers, and more customers will lead to more profit. Then everyone is happy.

Just some food for thought.

cythetyx
10th Oct 2010, 18:57
i hate dlc, wat happen with the expansions??? did they lack of working of something, we've have to conform ourselves with a new hat for our character?? or a new car? or a new virtual girfliend?? i hate dlc!

JCpies
10th Oct 2010, 19:11
I think the gaming community should pool our monies and hire the Mob to bust knees whenever a studio releases a game and DLC on the same day or week.

We could collect their commission at PAX Prime and East and open up a PayPal account.

What if they're trying to stop used console games sales?

OwlSolar
10th Oct 2010, 19:12
Go vandalize a GameStop or something.

...I'll help if you want. :)

Kodaemon
10th Oct 2010, 19:15
What if they're trying to stop used console games sales?

We do it anyway, because it's no excuse.

Ephemeral
11th Oct 2010, 09:48
In an earlier post, I more or less professed my love for expansion packs over DLC. I want to expand on those previous ideas.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, with DLC is one of value. I'm sure you've heard that term thrown around before, particularly if you're a fan of Valve (which I most certainly am).

DLC usually comes with a price tag, and as such, many people feel it is a rip-off. More often than not, players are asked to return to a game that they may have already finished (whether it be weeks, months, or years) for a few short hours, at most, of extra content.

Compare this with expansion packs. With expansions, players are asked to return to a game after a moderate to long duration of time for a larger price than that of DLC, but the content provides anywhere from half to as much as the original game in some cases. In terms of value, this is great value. DLC generally does not offer much value, let alone incentive to return to the game, especially when we are bombarded by more and more games each month.

I feel that if developers and publishers held back DLC content and released it in one larger package, for a slightly larger price tag than most DLC, but with significantly more content, you would have a much better package -- a package full of value.

Essentially, this would result in expansion packs all over again. Which are fine; I don't ever recall hearing about players complaining (in masses) about expansion packs. DLC then, in the form we currently see it as mini-bundles of minor content boosts, should simply be free of charge. When you create value, you create customers, and more customers will lead to more profit. Then everyone is happy.

Just some food for thought.

Exactly, but distributors seem to believe there is more monetary gain, or at least revenue over development cost from instead offering a smaller, lesser value but cheaper option.

Without seeing their balance sheets, it's hard to tell. Obviously it's worth keeping in mind that it's not purely important to consider DLC and expansion packs, but the development time foregone working on an older game and engine over developing the next sequel (and that's really what the industry is nowadays).

I would hazard a guess that with the complexity and cost of developing AAA games nowadays, the kind of technical skills, and the number of people who possess them are in quite short supply, putting a premium on the time and effort of these individuals. In that sense, that's what might have led to the death of expansion packs.

BigBoss
17th Oct 2010, 04:57
Having experienced some of the Borderlands DLC firsthand, I think I can say that DLC by it's nature isn't a ripoff. When what is offered amounts to significant expansions of the game as individual, easily added-on parcels, it's a solid deal. I recognize that this isn't the case for a lot of titles though, where DLC is treated as single missions or throwaway items that have marginal impact on the experience. Basically, I'm of the opinion that Borderlands DLC is DLC done right. Compared to the initial price:scale of the original title it might be slightly expensive, but 5+ hours of solid play time for $10 is hardly a ripoff. Perhaps with better marketing and in fact, with a better reputation, it would be more widely accepted and pursued by the gaming public.

I think this guy's kind of right, but only as far as dlc that isn't an add on of the initial games story. The dlc should have something that is either completly new in terms of setting or plot, or have a new central character if it will involve the plot of the initial game. If one of those two chriteria are not met, then it is usually a waste of time. btw That new red dead undead dlc looks AWESOME. Take note eidos, that is how you make good dlc.

JCpies
17th Oct 2010, 08:15
I think this guy's kind of right, but only as far as dlc that isn't an add on of the initial games story. The dlc should have something that is either completly new in terms of setting or plot, or have a new central character if it will involve the plot of the initial game. If one of those two chriteria are not met, then it is usually a waste of time. btw That new red dead undead dlc looks AWESOME. Take note eidos, that is how you make good dlc.

Yes, take note Eidos. You need zombies in DLC to make it good.

pha
18th Oct 2010, 11:41
I won't bother explaining my opinion about DLC for the millionth time, sometimes a link speaks a thousand words. (http://www.google.com.tr/search?q="no+dlc+for+pc")

BigBoss
19th Oct 2010, 07:44
Yes, take note Eidos. You need zombies in DLC to make it good.

Yea i'm not excited for a new 6 hour campaign, new mp maps, coop modes and skins for 10$, I'm ONLY excited that there are zombies in it.....you idiot....btw way to actually read what I posted

Mindmute
19th Oct 2010, 10:05
Yea i'm not excited for a new 6 hour campaign, new mp maps, coop modes and skins for 10$, I'm ONLY excited that there are zombies in it.....you idiot....btw way to actually read what I posted

Cill down, mate, I think he was just being snide.

If it helps, I assumed that's what you meant from the get go ;) (though in my honest opinion, considering the insane ammount of time I spent with Throne of Bhaal and Mask of the Betrayer, 6 hours of content is still far too small and I'd have preffered a full-fledged expansion anyway).

JCpies
19th Oct 2010, 15:52
Yea i'm not excited for a new 6 hour campaign, new mp maps, coop modes and skins for 10$, I'm ONLY excited that there are zombies in it.....you idiot....btw way to actually read what I posted

Maybe you should've explained to Eidos what parts of the Red Dead DLC they should learn from. lmao.

LeMoN_LiMe
19th Oct 2010, 17:05
I download DLC from time to time. Hey I'd rather have companies try and sell me DLC than do that online pass-code crap if you rent....

BigBoss
19th Oct 2010, 18:51
I download DLC from time to time. Hey I'd rather have companies try and sell me DLC than do that online pass-code crap if you rent....

Yea that new thing EA is trying to pull with its sports games is total bs. I REALLY hope that doesn't catch on......

Kodaemon
3rd Nov 2010, 17:52
More DLC fun: crapton of "downloadable" content found in The Force Unleashed 2. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411627) Some of it already got unlocked and works.

Mindmute
3rd Nov 2010, 19:09
More DLC fun: crapton of "downloadable" content found in The Force Unleashed 2. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411627) Some of it already got unlocked and works.

That's pretty incredible. Cutting a game and selling the content later as DLC is bad enough, but actually including the content on the disk and simply locking it away until a condition (payment) is met is just a bit too much, even if most of it looked like Collector's Eddition/Pre-Order Bonus stuff... The sad part is that if there is a TFU 3, most of those people will still just buy it up anyway, perpetuating that cycle.

Ilves
3rd Nov 2010, 19:51
And the folder on the original disk is named DLC? That's just beautiful. :lol:

rubiomhs
3rd Nov 2010, 20:16
dlc lessens the likelihood of modding options. if you don't see this, you're an idiot. no offense.

pha
3rd Nov 2010, 20:34
That's pretty incredible. Cutting a game and selling the content later as DLC is bad enough, but actually including the content on the disk and simply locking it away until a condition (payment) is met is just a bit too much, even if most of it looked like Collector's Eddition/Pre-Order Bonus stuff... The sad part is that if there is a TFU 3, most of those people will still just buy it up anyway, perpetuating that cycle.

FU is a much more appropriate abbreviation for that franchise.

Kodaemon
3rd Nov 2010, 22:04
"TFU" works nice in polish. It's the effect for spitting.

Pretentious Old Man.
3rd Nov 2010, 22:10
where do you, personally, draw the line?

Not directed at me I know, but I shall answer anyway: At the point that I get to about 50 hours. If I can't get 50 hours out of a title, whether due to bugs or just plain shortness, then I will judge it as incomplete. Naturally replays and multiplayer count towards this.

BigBoss
4th Nov 2010, 00:10
More DLC fun: crapton of "downloadable" content found in The Force Unleashed 2. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411627) Some of it already got unlocked and works.

Didn't battlefield or something pull this exact same ****, and got horrible reaction to it? Did these guys not hear about it, or did they not care?

OwlSolar
4th Nov 2010, 01:08
More DLC fun: crapton of "downloadable" content found in The Force Unleashed 2. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411627) Some of it already got unlocked and works.
Do you know how they did this? :D

Kodaemon
4th Nov 2010, 04:58
How who did what? :confused:

Pinky_Powers
4th Nov 2010, 07:12
I was really looking forward to The Force Unleashed II. But all the reviews I've seen have been quite dismal.

How could they have got it so wrong?! :(

Deus_Ex_Machina
4th Nov 2010, 09:02
Don't buy the game and you can't be ripped off.

Here's another solution. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0yM4Qnz4Ns)

Not that I would advocate that kind of thing...;)

Mindmute
4th Nov 2010, 09:53
How who did what? :confused:

That thing about the stuff.

BigBoss
4th Nov 2010, 17:07
That thing about the stuff.

lol

OwlSolar
4th Nov 2010, 23:42
How who did what? :confused:
How it got unlocked. From what I've seen, most of the criticism against that game is about lack of content.
...Maybe I could just rent it...

Kodaemon
4th Nov 2010, 23:53
Just check the thread I linked to. In case you're wondering how it got found, someone just poked through the game's files. I often do that myself, usually looking for the music.

nomotog
6th Nov 2010, 18:13
dlc lessens the likelihood of modding options. if you don't see this, you're an idiot. no offense.

How? You don't explain how you come to this conclusion, but I disagree. DLC can improve modding by adding new options that come with DLC. Need an example. Fallout 3, It has five DLCs and a crazy amount of modding.

pha
6th Nov 2010, 18:49
Bethesda games aren't examples, they are exceptions.

BigBoss
7th Nov 2010, 06:15
I think the criterea you guys seem to be holding for dlc is that it needs to be campaign related. Am I wrong?

nomotog
7th Nov 2010, 16:20
Bethesda games aren't examples, they are exceptions.

Ok then. Half life 2 and The sims 3. I can go on listing all kinds of games that have both DLC and modding, but I can't think of any game that axed modding so they could put in DLC.

Pretentious Old Man.
7th Nov 2010, 18:12
Ok then. Half life 2 and The sims 3. I can go on listing all kinds of games that have both DLC and modding, but I can't think of any game that axed modding so they could put in DLC.

Empire and Napoleon Total Wars. Even more for the upcoming Shogun II, which is all but unmoddable. This from the series that used to be known as one of the most moddable around.

nomotog
8th Nov 2010, 17:35
Empire and Napoleon Total Wars. Even more for the upcoming Shogun II, which is all but unmoddable. This from the series that used to be known as one of the most moddable around.

I will have to take your word for it. When I looked I saw quite a few mods for empire ans napoleon.

Falcon084
9th Nov 2010, 08:01
Alas I can't get DLC's :( my modem doesn't work on my PS3 and 360 and even if it did the speed in my area is so slow it'd never happen.

Kodaemon
19th Nov 2010, 13:18
There's a trailer out now for the "Casino" DLC to Test Drive Unlimited 2. A game which isn't out yet. And that's not even the best part: the content of the DLC is already present and working in the game's beta.

CoDEllite
19th Nov 2010, 17:11
So this game will have DLC? Cool

Rindill the Red
19th Nov 2010, 17:37
There's a trailer out now for the "Casino" DLC to Test Drive Unlimited 2. A game which isn't out yet. And that's not even the best part: the content of the DLC is already present and working in the game's beta.

THQ is taking a new approach to downloadable content that I'm not really sure how I feel about.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105237-THQ-The-Future-of-Gaming-Is-Lower-Prices-More-DLC

on the one hand games are cheaper... but on the other hand are they going to cut out a lot of stuff just so they can sell it back to us?

And this kinda screws renting.

thedosbox
21st Nov 2010, 18:38
THQ is taking a new approach to downloadable content that I'm not really sure how I feel about.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105237-THQ-The-Future-of-Gaming-Is-Lower-Prices-More-DLC

on the one hand games are cheaper... but on the other hand are they going to cut out a lot of stuff just so they can sell it back to us?


I'm more inclined to give a game a chance at $40 than I am at $60. Seeing as the average percentage of people who finish SP campaigns (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4171/staying_power_rethinking_feedback_.php) is fairly low, this may work out well for everyone.

nomotog
21st Nov 2010, 20:23
I'm more inclined to give a game a chance at $40 than I am at $60. Seeing as the average percentage of people who finish SP campaigns (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4171/staying_power_rethinking_feedback_.php) is fairly low, this may work out well for everyone.

Nice. One of my pet peeves is that games not only cost too much, but that they all cost the same. So long as both the main game and the DLC are worth the money you pay for them, I don't see a problem with it.

Blackbird SR-71C
21st Nov 2010, 20:36
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1123999p1.html nuff'said.

"Total gamers"

Including:
- Wii gamers: I dont think any Wii game has DLC. Probably due to Ninteno's *****ty online management.
- PC gamers: Most PC games don't have DLC either, and even then you can't just simply log into a "PC Store" and
purchase a DLC if avaiable. Excluding GfWL of course.

thedosbox
22nd Nov 2010, 00:08
"Total gamers"

Including:
- Wii gamers: I dont think any Wii game has DLC. Probably due to Ninteno's *****ty online management.
- PC gamers: Most PC games don't have DLC either, and even then you can't just simply log into a "PC Store" and
purchase a DLC if avaiable. Excluding GfWL of course.

You might want to re-read that article:



According to a new report by market research firm NPD Group, only six percent of total gamers in the U.S. have downloaded content through home gaming consoles.


It goes up to 15% for PC and Mac users.

Ronin_Denton
5th Feb 2011, 22:43
DLC is good, if the quality is high (ex:The Golems of Amgarrak, Overloard or Lair of the Shadow Broker). One can even forgive lesser DLC if it's free or relatively cheap. Some DLC is hard to justify to most people though (ex:horse armor or witch hunt). Launch day DLC is not a good sign, though mostly because we all know (or suspect by now), that all of it will be available in 1 or 2 years with the game and any expansions for the price people pay just to pre-order a game without such content. Expansions are usually a better value, though that is not always going to be the case. We can only hope that any DLC for DX:HR is high quality and not more than we can afford to budget for it. We will all have a much better point of view in hindsight after the game is released.

BigBoss
6th Feb 2011, 02:16
Dead space 2 had 2 chapters of the game announced as dlc a day before the game even launched. If Dxhr tries to pull this, i'm pulling out on my CE preorder

nomotog
6th Feb 2011, 02:38
Dead space 2 had 2 chapters of the game announced as dlc a day before the game even launched. If Dxhr tries to pull this, i'm pulling out on my CE preorder

Why? If I remember right, the DLC covers the story of a different character, so you don't miss out on the story. What is wrong with day 1 DLC? If the game is good and worth what you paid for it, then I don't see anything wrong with it. If the game is not good or not worth the money, then the problem is with the game not the DLC.

BigBoss
6th Feb 2011, 03:39
It's just my personal opinion. If you work on content before a game comes out, then I believe it should be on the game, not segmented off or locked on the disc.

Romeo
7th Feb 2011, 01:47
I suppose it all depends on if it feels like I'm missing out or not, and whether or not it's priced appropriately. Mass Effect 2 had day one DLC, but it didn't feel like it was incomplete without the content, nor did it cost anything if you bought the game new.

BigBoss
7th Feb 2011, 03:58
Really? The whole game consisted of gathering your party members and only having 8 out of the 11 from the initial product? To me that sounds like only 72% of the party gathering.......

Rockn-Roll
7th Feb 2011, 10:47
DLC covers a wide range of stuff. For TF2 DLC totally rocks...totally free...includes mod content...a win-win scenario. For Bioshock 2, another 2K deal, DLC totally sucked...it was included in the original content but was locked so that we couldn't play it i.e. we were being asked to pay for content which we already purchased...fail-fail.

So, while it seems reasonable for a game studio to develop more content before the game is released and then sell it after the game has been released it is unreasonable for that additional content to be finished and included in the originally purchased content. If we allow this to happen then the next logical step is for game companies to sell an entire game but instead of the next mission becoming available after the current mission is completed the game will stop and display a shopping cart so that if we want to play the next mission we must purchase it. I don't understand what they were thinking when they released Bioshock 2 with content that we would need to pay to play.

Mindmute
7th Feb 2011, 11:13
Really? The whole game consisted of gathering your party members and only having 8 out of the 11 from the initial product? To me that sounds like only 72% of the party gathering.......

Going to have to agree with BigBoss on this one. To be honest, I miss the days when some expansions were roughly the price of 1-2 DLC and offered quite a few hours of additional content. Not stuff related to or cut from the main campaign.

NKD
7th Feb 2011, 13:56
It's just my personal opinion. If you work on content before a game comes out, then I believe it should be on the game, not segmented off or locked on the disc.

Well, that's a nice thought, but it is not reality. That content probably wouldn't have been created in the first place without the promise of additional revenue. Most of the time they aren't arbitrarily cutting stuff originally slated for the game and attaching a price to it. Occasionally some companies do that, but generally speaking DLC is not such a big deal that having it in the original game would make or break it for anyone.

Does the core game have enough content to be worth your $50? If so, buy it. If not, don't buy it.

There's no point in quibbling over whether or not the DLC was finished prior to the game shipping. It's rather absurd to expect a company to sit on their hands and wait some arbitrary number of days before making DLC available or indeed even starting work on the DLC. They are a business and they have a responsibility to complete projects efficiently. That means starting work on the DLC as soon as possible so team members can be freed up to go on to other projects. That means occasionally the DLC will be done by the time the game launches, or soon after.

That doesn't mean they lose the right to charge for it because it was done before some arbitrary date.

Kodaemon
7th Feb 2011, 14:03
Yes, from a purely business standpoint it makes sense. However, it is also morally wrong and a total dick move.

nomotog
7th Feb 2011, 14:23
Yes, from a purely business standpoint it makes sense. However, it is also morally wrong and a total dick move.

Why is it morally wrong?

BigBoss
7th Feb 2011, 17:28
Well, that's a nice thought, but it is not reality. That content probably wouldn't have been created in the first place without the promise of additional revenue. Most of the time they aren't arbitrarily cutting stuff originally slated for the game and attaching a price to it. Occasionally some companies do that, but generally speaking DLC is not such a big deal that having it in the original game would make or break it for anyone.

Does the core game have enough content to be worth your $50? If so, buy it. If not, don't buy it.

There's no point in quibbling over whether or not the DLC was finished prior to the game shipping. It's rather absurd to expect a company to sit on their hands and wait some arbitrary number of days before making DLC available or indeed even starting work on the DLC. They are a business and they have a responsibility to complete projects efficiently. That means starting work on the DLC as soon as possible so team members can be freed up to go on to other projects. That means occasionally the DLC will be done by the time the game launches, or soon after.

That doesn't mean they lose the right to charge for it because it was done before some arbitrary date.

I'm not saying that a company should just sit on their hands when they are done with the content of the game that they plan to ship it with. I'm saying that there is a difference between planning out a project, cutting a piece off of it, and selling it separately versus someone planning out a project, finishing and selling it, and then working on a new piece for it that adds something. Try and apply this towards another type of medium. How many books or movies can you think of that have chapters or scenes taken out in order to sell them later? (Extended editions of movies don't count, because those are usually parts that are still in development at the release of the theatrical run of the film)

And believe me, the only time I ever pay full price for a game is if it's A) a collectors edition and B) a game i'm really excited for

NKD
7th Feb 2011, 18:58
Yes, from a purely business standpoint it makes sense. However, it is also morally wrong and a total dick move.

In what way is it morally wrong? They aren't lying to anyone, or trying to trick anyone out of their money. They don't send out review copies with a bunch of DLC included to boost their reviews and then only give the customer the core game. No one is being ripped off. People who purchase the game or DLC know full well what they are getting for their dollar, provided they do basic research on the game.

If I offer to sell you a car I feel is worth $5000, that you feel is worth $4000, I'm not doing anything immoral. We simply disagree about the value of the product and you're free not to purchase it.


I'm not saying that a company should just sit on their hands when they are done with the content of the game that they plan to ship it with. I'm saying that there is a difference between planning out a project, cutting a piece off of it, and selling it separately versus someone planning out a project, finishing and selling it, and then working on a new piece for it that adds something.

True, but generally that's not what they do anyway. An over-simplified way of looking at it: They are given X budget to make the game, and, usually based on preorder figures or something, they are given Y budget to make DLC. They can't dip into the DLC budget to make more content for the core game.


How many books or movies can you think of that have chapters or scenes taken out in order to sell them later? (Extended editions of movies don't count, because those are usually parts that are still in development at the release of the theatrical run of the film)

How many games do? Not many. Generally DLC is fluff crap like weapons, maps, little sidequests. Nothing that makes the game feel like there is a huge gaping hole in it. Extended editions are exactly like DLC. They don't go and shoot new scenes for them, by and large. They go back to footage that was cut from the release of the film and re-add it. It's worse even. They don't charge you a little for the extra scenes. They make you buy the whole movie over again. Books are the same way. Authors often have a ton of material laying around they cut from their book but later on decided might add something to do.

Romeo
7th Feb 2011, 23:19
Really? The whole game consisted of gathering your party members and only having 8 out of the 11 from the initial product? To me that sounds like only 72% of the party gathering.......
Liara was not Day One DLC, so you weren't missing that. Kasumi wasn't programmed in properly at first, so you weren't missing that. So, you could possibly miss out on Zaeed, if you bought the game used. Zaeed, who, like Liara and Kasumi, had no important relevence on the single player campaign, and wasn't a fully fleshed out character anyways. So yeah, my point still stands.

Ninjerk
7th Feb 2011, 23:20
How many games do? Not many. Generally DLC is fluff crap like weapons, maps, little sidequests. Nothing that makes the game feel like there is a huge gaping hole in it. Extended editions are exactly like DLC. They don't go and shoot new scenes for them, by and large. They go back to footage that was cut from the release of the film and re-add it. It's worse even. They don't charge you a little for the extra scenes. They make you buy the whole movie over again. Books are the same way. Authors often have a ton of material laying around they cut from their book but later on decided might add something to do.

I don't know if it adds to the discussion or not, but this brings to mind the Bladerunner director's cut.

FrankCSIS
7th Feb 2011, 23:48
I don't judge teams who do it, I don't judge players who buy it, but I'll never ever pay for it.

BigBoss
8th Feb 2011, 01:24
Liara was not Day One DLC, so you weren't missing that. Kasumi wasn't programmed in properly at first, so you weren't missing that. So, you could possibly miss out on Zaeed, if you bought the game used. Zaeed, who, like Liara and Kasumi, had no important relevence on the single player campaign, and wasn't a fully fleshed out character anyways. So yeah, my point still stands.

You could argue that any one of the characters could have been taken out because they "had no important relevence on the single player campaign" It's not like the quests that the characters gave you before they could join were interwoven at all. It was compartmentalized and completely episodic. The shadow broker level was just as relevant as Thane finding his son or Garrus fighting the mob. So yeah, my point still stands.

Unless you hold some knowledge that I don't about how development began after the game shipped and not before for those 3 characters, then i'll reconsider my point. As far as I know, it's a fact
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/231135/news/mass-effect-3-already-in-development/
that they were working on 3 before 2 was even done. That's a far stretch to say that they started a project(2), then started another project(3) then shipped the first, and worked on dlc at the same time as 3, shipped that dlc, begin working on another while continuing to work on 3. I know that they are NOW working on more dlc which was confirmed as being initiated after the release(can't find the link, but i've seen it) But that's different

Hope that made sense

sonicsidewinder
8th Feb 2011, 02:14
And i looked up to the sky at night as I whispered to myself in dispair...

"Why is it that they do this?..."

Vasarto
12th Feb 2011, 03:57
DLC's can add quite a bit to a game. Indeed some things are more for luxery like in Dead Space for example. Its more of opinion really. Some games have what players want. Like for Oblivion. Almost ALL of its content is worth it. The Castle, The Mages Tower and Pirate ship and Sithis Shrine.

Its just gonna take a while before Developers learn what kinds of things people want to actually pay for and wat what price before they start making it in large quantities.

nomotog
12th Feb 2011, 04:22
You could argue that any one of the characters could have been taken out because they "had no important relevence on the single player campaign" It's not like the quests that the characters gave you before they could join were interwoven at all. It was compartmentalized and completely episodic. The shadow broker level was just as relevant as Thane finding his son or Garrus fighting the mob. So yeah, my point still stands.

Unless you hold some knowledge that I don't about how development began after the game shipped and not before for those 3 characters, then i'll reconsider my point. As far as I know, it's a fact
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/231135/news/mass-effect-3-already-in-development/
that they were working on 3 before 2 was even done. That's a far stretch to say that they started a project(2), then started another project(3) then shipped the first, and worked on dlc at the same time as 3, shipped that dlc, begin working on another while continuing to work on 3. I know that they are NOW working on more dlc which was confirmed as being initiated after the release(can't find the link, but i've seen it) But that's different

Hope that made sense

It's kind of a shame, because I did explain how you can tell that the DLC where made at different times and/or by a different team. You can start with how they don't have intro quests, just loyalty quests. Next, the fact they don't come with ship upgrades and you can't even talk to them well on ship. If they where included in the main game, they would stand out as store thumbs.

BigBoss
12th Feb 2011, 05:41
It's kind of a shame, because I did explain how you can tell that the DLC where made at different times and/or by a different team. You can start with how they don't have intro quests, just loyalty quests. Next, the fact they don't come with ship upgrades and you can't even talk to them well on ship. If they where included in the main game, they would stand out as store thumbs.

Key point there is that none of that is actual proof. I need proof beyond a "you can kind of tell" argument. They also could have just as easily came up with the characters, figured which they could cut, and being dlc they knew that they could ship them with whatever the hell they wanted regardless if it was a good deal or not.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
14th Feb 2011, 19:44
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1123999p1.html nuff'said.

Actually one of the reasons for DLC is because games publishers get screwed by retailers selling mass used games. With DLC at least the publisher gets something back.

Rindill the Red
14th Feb 2011, 21:13
Actually one of the reasons for DLC is because games publishers get screwed by retailers selling mass used games. With DLC at least the publisher gets something back.

Yeah, but in the end it's screwing the player for the company's benefit. The game companies should just refuse to deal with stores that sell used games or switch to a system that prevents reselling used games.

BigBoss
14th Feb 2011, 23:00
Yeah, but in the end it's screwing the player for the company's benefit. The game companies should just refuse to deal with stores that sell used games or switch to a system that prevents reselling used games.

Yeah......like some kind of code.....that makes the game only good once.......

Gordon_Shea
14th Feb 2011, 23:06
If only 6% of gamers buy DLC then obviously the game experience is complete and satisfying Without it the vast majority of the time. Ergo, arguments about nickle and diming and cutting content just for DLC are
Valueless and Baseless.

DLC owns, unlike your posting RtR.

Cronstintein
15th Feb 2011, 01:32
I could see DLC taking over a bigger percentage of the general game experience as time goes on.

Say a $25 game at release with several $10 DLC expansions. This way the developers could try and grab a larger % of the game dollar.

And as a user you can control how much you want to spend on a given game.

jtr7
15th Feb 2011, 03:36
But the player wants control over how much game they get from the main purchase, and not buy it in pieces, so the DLC shouldn't ever feel like one pie sliced and sold that way.

Rindill the Red
15th Feb 2011, 03:51
But the player wants control over how much game they get from the main purchase, and not buy it in pieces, so the DLC shouldn't ever feel like one pie sliced and sold that way.

I don't know, I could get behind it.

What if you just bought all your games in pieces... kinda like in episodes.

The very first part of the game is a free demo.

Like the demo? You can purchase the next chapter... 10$

Like that chapter... you can purchase the next chapter... 10$

Get tired of the game? Don't pay any more.

Pick it up again later and decide to continue... 10$.

Play the next chapter... 10$

etc. etc.

I'm a value gamer, and being able to test, then buy part of the game and decide if it's worth my time and money is a plus in my book.

So long as the actual value of what I am paying for is not decreasing.

As it is right now. You buy the game for 50$ and then you have to pay more for over-priced extras. This makes DLC very extra-y (and low value), and increases the total price of the whole game.

Now if you cut the whole game up like a pie... sell it in pieces, but where 50$ worth of those pieces is the same you would pay for the whole game... that I can get behind.

BigBoss
15th Feb 2011, 04:09
that's a slippery slope, pretty soon they'd be charging rental by the hour for multiplayer or some **** like that.

jtr7
15th Feb 2011, 04:19
The game would have to be designed fromm the ground up to work with that, which a whole new original IP is fine for, but taking something complex, established, and especially integrated with a rich story that does have a linearity to it, wouldn't work well. It's its own business model, and it would also be better if it didn't look like the developers were copying the community of modders, making episodic fan-missions with an official stamp.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
24th Feb 2011, 20:30
Yeah, but in the end it's screwing the player for the company's benefit.

Erm, how is the company screwing anyone? They developed a game so should be paid for it. Mass used game sales = less profit = new methods for companies to protect their revenue.

mahmoudd
24th Feb 2011, 20:58
The biggest problem with modding is that most of the content produced isn't of any sort of quality and without some active participation on the developer's part to catalogue mods, the good stuff gets lost in the rubbish. It's a shame more devs don't encourage it. The DLC route almost effectively cuts out community modding so I think there's going to have to be a shift here for the two to coexist; community mods offer free content that isn't guaranteed up to par with the original game. DLC will have to transition to full-blown expansions with the promise of quality to justify the pricetag.

just give the people tools, they will make awesome mods

maybe it's 1 awesome mod for 50 ****ty ones, who cares? the point is that people will try

Yzerman
25th Feb 2011, 20:04
Human Revaluation has all the signs of a game that's just looking to rip us off. Let's hope this doesn't happen.

I have no problem with being ripped off by a great game.

Reven
25th Feb 2011, 20:11
I dont think that we will be ripped off. i mean think about what would happen if EA was publishing...

Cronstintein
25th Feb 2011, 20:22
@Rindil the Red

I could see games actually going that way. I think I posted something very similar to this somewhere on these forums. This way the publisher/developer gets all the sales and the customer has control over how much that particular game is worth to them.

Obviously some gametypes work better with this than others. Something at least semi-linear is required. Having an open world would be tough to implement in this way.



that's a slippery slope, pretty soon they'd be charging rental by the hour for multiplayer or some like that.

You mean like an MMO subscription? ;)

BigBoss
26th Feb 2011, 01:15
The game would have to be designed fromm the ground up to work with that, which a whole new original IP is fine for, but taking something complex, established, and especially integrated with a rich story that does have a linearity to it, wouldn't work well. It's its own business model, and it would also be better if it didn't look like the developers were copying the community of modders, making episodic fan-missions with an official stamp.

Yeah, it's called arcade machines. But that model isn't sustainable anymore because of the rapid growth of tech. All that leaves to be exploited in such a way are the things that are complex, established, and especially integrated with a rich story that does have a linearity to it.

nomotog
26th Feb 2011, 23:44
I don't know, I could get behind it.

What if you just bought all your games in pieces... kinda like in episodes.

The very first part of the game is a free demo.

Like the demo? You can purchase the next chapter... 10$

Like that chapter... you can purchase the next chapter... 10$

Get tired of the game? Don't pay any more.

Pick it up again later and decide to continue... 10$.

Play the next chapter... 10$

etc. etc.

I'm a value gamer, and being able to test, then buy part of the game and decide if it's worth my time and money is a plus in my book.

So long as the actual value of what I am paying for is not decreasing.

As it is right now. You buy the game for 50$ and then you have to pay more for over-priced extras. This makes DLC very extra-y (and low value), and increases the total price of the whole game.

Now if you cut the whole game up like a pie... sell it in pieces, but where 50$ worth of those pieces is the same you would pay for the whole game... that I can get behind.

They are trying. Oh are they trying. You can buy fable 2 in episodes and there is going to be a Jurassic park game that comes in episodes. It's not quite working yet. A lot of other games tried to episodic (Alan wake, Fahrenheit) only to be forced into releasing a normal game, so they are working on it.

Shralla
27th Feb 2011, 21:00
There's nothing wrong with episodic games. Jurassic Park is being made by Telltale, who is working on the Back to the Future game, the first episode of which I understand is very good.

MaxxQ1
27th Feb 2011, 21:36
There's nothing wrong with episodic games. Jurassic Park is being made by Telltale, who is working on the Back to the Future game, the first episode of which I understand is very good.

Not according to the latest issue of PC Gamer. They gave it a 45 (out of 100). The summary: "A waste of time. This game is dull, shoddy and a complete failure at delivering anything that made the movies so fun."

Ninjerk
27th Feb 2011, 21:41
There's nothing wrong with episodic games. Jurassic Park is being made by Telltale, who is working on the Back to the Future game, the first episode of which I understand is very good.

No way bro, film is an inherently superior medium to television. keke

EDIT:
PC Gamer

Not that I care about BttF game atm, but this just seems tongue-in-cheek.

Pretentious Old Man.
27th Feb 2011, 21:48
No way bro, film is an inherently superior medium to television. keke

http://www.carltonassociatesinc.com/images/No%20Art%20050425e.jpg

sonicsidewinder
27th Feb 2011, 23:21
Ahem...


A better practice, you will find,
Is to leave you're world behind.

Just buy your game a ye'arr late;
Don't worry, you're not a cheap-skate :)

You'll save yourself a pretty penny.
Could use to buy a...spinning jenny?

Cus in the end the game's the same.
You only have yourself to blame.

To buy when new is so damn dear.
JUST USE YOUR HEAD! Then all will be clear.

:cool:

Pinky_Powers
27th Feb 2011, 23:31
^... That didn't make a lick of sense. :scratch:

sonicsidewinder
27th Feb 2011, 23:49
^... That didn't make a lick of sense. :scratch:

If you have the inner will (and thats the hard part) to purchase games a year behind everyone else, (Think of daylight saving time just on a yearly basis), you will end up buying the games that came out brand new a year later...but to YOU, you're just buying the next brand new game, at a cheaper price.

(this is bs)

Right, i don't buy games brand new anymore; as in 'upon release' - (There are a MINOR few that i will), but for the most part it's just not financially sound.

Just waiting half a year after release, you can get the game for considerably less. Use ur noggins. I got New Vegas for £20 in a sale a month or two after release.

Then there's the point of episodic content. Love it or hate it, whatever. If you wait for when all episodes are complete, you can save so much more.

"But waiting is hard" you may say.

PoppyCock! and Balderdash!

There's a mountain of games to play. New and old. I only started playing Morrowind a few weeks back and i'm having a proverbial blast.

If you're feeling cheated then do something about it. Don't 'just buy' the game cus it'll leave a sour taste in your mouth, and you won't enjoy it.

Wait it out. Play something else you've never played before. Who knows, you might find something better than what you first wanted.

Red
3rd Mar 2011, 10:02
Yohoho, it's christmas!

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/dragon-age-ii-dlc-already-this-is-silly/

AlexOfSpades
3rd Mar 2011, 16:40
Yohoho, it's christmas!

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/dragon-age-ii-dlc-already-this-is-silly/

This is absurd! This is BULL****!

That is, i'm heading to my garage now. Its time to make a few modifications in my DeLorean.

Anyone know how to build a flux capacitor?

Irate_Iguana
3rd Mar 2011, 17:29
This is absurd! This is BULL****!

No, you're looking at this all wrong. This is all extra. There is no way that this is cut from the main game. I mean, come on. How could DLC that is being marketed a full week before the release of the game be anything but precious extra content that they didn't simply have enough time to finish before sending the game off?

Gordon_Shea
3rd Mar 2011, 17:37
No, you're looking at this all wrong. This is all extra. There is no way that this is cut from the main game. I mean, come on. How could DLC that is being marketed a full week before the release of the game be anything but precious extra content that they didn't simply have enough time to finish before sending the game off?

Um, virtually none of the Dragon Age 2 DLC began life as core game content. It was developed at the same time as the game, but it was conceived and designed from the ground up to be extraneous. That's why so little of it is actual content DLC.

I'm not saying that this huge glut of preorder DLC is a good thing, it's EA Bioware trying to snap up as many sales as they can because they delusionally believe that they can get Call of Duty numbers if they just market it hard enough. But that doesn't mean that DLC, or even preorder incentives, are inherently bad. Just that Bioware is a bad developer, which we've known all along.

Cronstintein
3rd Mar 2011, 18:12
Yeah this one has a stinky smell all over it. If you're going to have day1 DLC you should give it to everyone who buys your game at full price. Doing it this way makes you look greedy.

Especially since the cutoff for the free DLC was before the demo came out.

Mindmute
3rd Mar 2011, 18:16
I like where this is going... :rolleyes: a comment on that link says it all:



Lol I can see it now,

*interacts with NPC”

NPC “Hi! For only 9.99 you can talk to me and find out what I have to say! Visit Bioware.com NOW!”

Reven
3rd Mar 2011, 18:32
Speaking of Bioware i found this quote last night on RPS and would like to share it.


"Remember how in the first game, after you’d done a bit of pixie slaying and flower collecting and forgetting to do the doggie quest not realising this failure would be reeled out to taunt you in the form of now-useless artifacts strewn across the entire world? Remember how you then gained access to a cosy little campfire scene where you could while away the hours invading your companion’s underwear by alternately agreeing with everything they said and presenting them with pointless crap? and remember that horrid little man that stood in the corner drawing you in with some old cliched yarn about trolls or ponies or cardboard or something and then demanding REAL MONEY from the REAL WORLD before you go any further? That man ruined my game. Every time I returned from a mind numbing side quest he’d be there, telling me about another mind numbing side quest I was too poor to embark upon, pissing up my fourth wall and generally mocking me for continuing to breath. so I stopped playing, and because of him this tawdry sequel holds nothing for me. I don’t like dlc."

Irate_Iguana
3rd Mar 2011, 18:38
But that doesn't mean that DLC, or even preorder incentives, are inherently bad.

DLC isn't inherently evil. It's crap like this that I find evil.

Aegrim
3rd Mar 2011, 19:26
This thread needs more Bobby Kodick.

http://gamernode.com/upload/manager///News%20Images/Industry%204/bobby_kotick_credits_treyarch_for_cod_multiplayer1293119076.jpg

BigBoss
3rd Mar 2011, 20:28
That is one ugly dude

Reven
3rd Mar 2011, 20:30
Activision VS EA who is more evil....FIGHT !

Gordon_Shea
3rd Mar 2011, 20:46
DLC isn't inherently evil. It's crap like this that I find evil.

Bioware fans deserve it. Have you ever read their forums?

Reven
3rd Mar 2011, 20:48
Bioware fans deserve it. Have you ever read their forums?


That horde of perverts and lusting teens ? they deserve everything they get and more.

Gordon_Shea
3rd Mar 2011, 20:54
That horde of perverts and lusting teens ? they deserve everything they get and more.
You say it like that and it sounds like any forum. Those people are really on their own level of awful.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4816/hahahahahai.png

Reven
3rd Mar 2011, 20:58
Funny thing is i like tali but iam far from a lusting talimancer, and very far from a pervert like that. the bioware forums wasnt so bad when KOTOR came out. but now its just disgusting Bioware should purge it and ban people like this.

CoDEllite
3rd Mar 2011, 21:00
I would definitly go with Tali. licking Thane ... just EEEU

Gordon_Shea
3rd Mar 2011, 21:01
Funny thing is i like tali but iam far from a lusting talimancer, and very far from a pervert like that. the bioware forums wasnt so bad when KOTOR came out. but now its just disgusting Bioware should purge it and ban people like this.

They can't! These people are their core fanbase, and if the devs posts are anything to go off of, the developers are just as bad.

ZakKa89
3rd Mar 2011, 21:10
I find people on the the bioware forums more creepy than furries.

Reven
3rd Mar 2011, 21:13
They can't! These people are their core fanbase, and if the devs posts are anything to go off of, the developers are just as bad.


True but even with all this pervertion i will hand Bioware one thing...they know how to sell a game to the masses, most of there Mods are on the production team and they are more then happy to take questions and start threads, i think EM could learn alot from that idea. as for the forums i know they purged the Tali thread when it got out of hand but i just dont see how bioware can let this continue when it gives them a bad name. if we had a thread like tali's for Malik or megan we would be banned within 5 posts.

Dresden
3rd Mar 2011, 21:22
I like where this is going... :rolleyes: a comment on that link says it all:

Yep. The only way to stop it is to vote with your dollar/euro/rupee/gil. Either wait for the inevitable "Game of the Year" edition or don't buy the DLC at all. I usually just do the latter since 90% of DLC is a worthless weapon or sidequest (that includes a worthless weapon). It may just be pissing in the wind though since casual gamers who don't follow these trends probably don't know any better.

Irate_Iguana
3rd Mar 2011, 21:36
Bioware fans deserve it. Have you ever read their forums?

There isn't enough eyebleach in the world to make me forget the depravity of most of the members there. I've seen hardcore hentai datingsims that are less revolting than the average "romance thread" on that forum.

Reven
3rd Mar 2011, 21:49
There isn't enough eyebleach in the world to make me forget the depravity of most of the members there. I've seen hardcore hentai datingsims that are less revolting than the average "romance thread" on that forum.

Ever seen one of them rant about why they think Tali and shepard should have kids ?, then the other day they said Miranda cant have kids either...

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/265955_f520.jpg

xeoncat
8th Mar 2011, 12:27
I've seen hardcore hentai datingsims that are less revolting than the average "romance thread" on that forum.

Would that, by any chance, be a reference to Illusion Japan games?

Reven
8th Mar 2011, 12:31
Im guessing hardcore hentai sites are less revolting then Biowares forums.

Irate_Iguana
8th Mar 2011, 12:52
Would that, by any chance, be a reference to Illusion Japan games?

My legal council informs me that I should not comment on that statement.

xeoncat
8th Mar 2011, 14:00
My legal council informs me that I should not comment on that statement.
Yeah, let's leave it at that ^^; nothing to see here, move along

ZakKa89
8th Mar 2011, 15:23
WHAHA Irate! Too funny! Seriously though, I hope DEHR won't any stupid flirting or awkward dialogue with women. Of course, I could choose not to, but I am the kind off guy who wants to check out every dialogue option ;)