Erradicate DLC ?

[philcelery]

No the world can be ALOT better than the 80's and 90's if they'd put the effort into it. Companies that release DLC land themselves on my automatic NO BUY list. Ya I'm pretty damn bored these days. But I'm not wasting my money on crap.

Seriously? So a company finishes a game, but because they DARE to give people more content (and expect to actually get paid for their hard work) you get angry? That's some of the most self-entitled crap I've ever heard.

HOW DAAARRE someone on the internet take a stand in what they're willing to pay money for?

 

[Solid Reece]

This is a touchy subject, DLC is always optional, and people vote with thier wallets. day 1 DLC is complete bullshit designed to generate preorders and make more money, but so what, publishers have a right to offer anything they want at whatever they think we will pay for it. What really Irks me is how people complain about it. mass Effect 2 was a 30 hour complete game. If you think thats not worth $60 then fuck you. The arrival DLC was written to give a teaser to ME3 and add more gameplay to an already fantasic game. Same goes for the elephant in the room, the stimulus package, If you hate COD, then fine, but 15 bucks for what amounted to an extra 24-50 hours of gameplay is well worth it. when its a game Ill gather friends round to play nightly, any extra content is good value. Anyone that says "Ill never buy a game that supports DLC" is a fucking tool, DA2 shipped with a stupid amount of DLC and preorrder bonuses, but none of the extra content was essential, it was all fluff that was only worth it if you were a completist, you still have a 100 hour game to enjoy so quit whining about them holding back a 2 hour mission.

A game is $60-70 new release with most times 20+ hours
A movie now is around $20 new release for 2 plus hours.
Gamers are cheaper even with DLC than movies in time.
If you want it buy it but if you think the DLC is overprice OPEN YOUR EYES. EVERYTHING IS OVER PRICED. ITS CALLED SUPPLY AND DEMAND for those of you who droped out of school. I dont spend money on map packs because i only put less than a hour online most of the time.
And if you wondering why games and products are so expensise they need a profet for wages,bills,transpotation,marketing and so on. If they sold only one copy of the game to one person you would have to pay them millions of dollers just for them to make the game.
Get DLC if you want it or shut up about it. It runs the econime.
Also i am only writing this becuase i am trying to waste time.


SPEND YOUR MONEY ON WEED OR CRACK insted if you want. ITS YOUR MONEY!

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Doing away with DLC just isn?t going to happen. To boycott them, you would need a good number of people to agree with you. And when people still buy DLC, then what is the next step in your master plan? You can?t force people to comply. I am not implying that that is your plan, but people like me will continue to give companies incentive to release DLC.

DLC may care for itself in its own right, but anything that makes entitled fools fume and rant warms my heart.

Honestly, I don?t mind shelling out another $5-$10 on extra content. I had a ton of fun with all the DA:O DLC, which was well worth my money. And Borderlands newest one was something I enjoyed with my friends, as a chance to enjoy the game we loved a year ago. DLC is great, as it allows a story to be continued. Not all DLC is good, I will admit, but a boycott is just infeasible.

As an example, has anyone else read The Book of Vile Darkness, or Exhaled Deeds? Those are, in essence, DLC for 3.ed D&D. Yet I see very, VERY few players demanding they should be ?free?. They may be different to play without, but getting them adds an extra level of play to the game.

 

[Mallefunction]

I don't mind DLC unless it's needed to move the story along. It should always be optional.

 

[philcelery]

When all their taking a stand for is "MOAR MOAR MOAR, I DESERVE EVERYTHING! WAH WAH WAH!" they don't deserve an opinion.

How is "I'm not buying something", "MOAR MOAR MOAR, I DESERVE EVERYTHING! WAH WAH WAH!"?

 

[Grey_Focks]

you know, I'm just gonna disagree, to a point. If I play and beat a game, and I don't feel like anything was really missing, then some DLC comes out that adds replay value, I'm happy. On the other hand, if it feels like it genuinely belonged in the game to begin with, and was just taken out, then yea, I'm a little peeved.

Oddly enough, Bioware are prime examples for both cases. ME2's DLC really just added and didn't feel like it was ripped from the release game....whereas Sebastian, and his missions, were clearly just ripped out of DA2, considering how important he kinda is to the overall plot end-game wise. Also, how his missions were really the only times that the Grand Cleric got any screen time...

 

[ScorpSt]

To everyone who's against DLC, what would these games look like if they never made DLC for them? Answer: They'd look exactly the way they do when you first buy them. Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number.

This is what I hear: "Remember the good old days, when you played through a game once and that was it. If you wanted more content, you had to wait 2 years for them to make a sequel. If there were any bugs, as long as they weren't game breaking, nobody patched it because no one was being paid for it. That's the way it was and we liked it!"

Why don't you guys get off your high horse, drop a little money into your favorite developer, and buy something for a game you enjoyed. Then maybe you can pay for those patches you're screaming for.

 

[philcelery]

Any DLC is instantly bad in his eyes because he has to pay for it. Company does extra work to try to satisfy fans, so he bitches and moans because they dare to charge money for a service.

That's not really what he said but okay.

To everyone who's against DLC, what would these games look like if they never made DLC for them? Answer: They'd look exactly the way they do when you first buy them. Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number.

How's about a number, since it's a small one and thus should be easy to count?

This is what I hear: "Remember the good old days, when you played through a game once and that was it. If you wanted more content, you had to wait 2 years for them to make a sequel. If there were any bugs, as long as they weren't game breaking, nobody patched it because no one was being paid for it. That's the way it was and we liked it!"

Why don't you guys get off your high horse, drop a little money into your favorite developer, and buy something for a game you enjoyed. Then maybe you can pay for those patches you're screaming for.

Are you kidding me? Patches didn't exist before DLC?

 

[Solid Reece]

Depends on the game and DLC. I will never buy a map pack for a shooter that is over $7, but later this month I will prolly plunk down $40 to get all the Mass Effect 2 DLC. If the game is good and shipped completely whole (what they are selling as DLC is not an integral part of the game). I have no problem buying the game and paying a little extra for DLC.

I concur. If I'm essentially paying for "unlock keys" that could've been included in the game itself via some special condition (i.e. costumes in S/SF4), then that can suck fuck all.

If the DLC is extra stuff that was thought of after the fact (Shivering Isles for Oblivion), or was made because there was literally no room left on the disc (why do you think ME2 came out on 2 discs?), and it looks intriguing enough, then sure, I'll bite.

If you don't want to pay for the unlock key you can always unlock it yourself and if you tell me its impossible you are wrong. You just have to know what you are doing

 

[NotSoNimble]

Glad i held your attention long enough for you to reach that point.

I don't understand what you mean. None of the games you've mentioned are only 'half' a game without the DLC.

Are you sure your not overreacting?

Sounds like you are just upset about the thread in general, and not about the actual discussion.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It depends on the size to price ratio of the DLC. DLC is typically cheaper than a fully fledged expansion and also contains less as well. As long as the ratio is fair to consumers, I don't see the problem.

 

[Solid Reece]

DLC is a horrible idea since its just letting game developers release under developed games and chrage you for them not finishing it.

Some stuff that is DLC should really be classed as expansion packs i.e the DLC's which add an absolute shit load of extra content such as shivering isles for oblivion to name one while others just dont deserve the light of day. For example the DLC for MW2 in which they just copy pasted the maps from MW1 and charged you £10-£15 for it. Also games that are DLC reliant for making money cut down the modding community a lot because developers naturally don't want modders just to copy their maps and put them out for free on seperate mods which is probably what would have happened in MW1 if they had tried DLC for the computer. However in MW2 they removed mod support in all forms and charged ludicrous amounts for shite DLC.

I think you are being more than a little paranoid about devs releasing unfinished games and all, sure they can but I seriously doubt it happens nearly as much as people seem to think.

And I just had to counter your CoD DLC complaint. It is not as simple as copying and pasting maps. I assume you realize that the maps use a looooooooooooooot of code, yes? And furthermore that most of the code that is used in MW1 is probably significantly different than MW2 or Black Ops? they would have to have teams of programmers running through god knows how many lines of code, changing variables that no longer exist and writing completely new code to account for different aspects of the game. Then they would have another team have to debug all the maps over again, give feedback to the programmers, etc repeat ad nauseum.

My main point is that even though you may think it is a simple operation (which it is not) even if it were, Activision would still have to pay their workers for porting the maps over. And if they have to pay to do this, you are damn sure we have to pay for it too. It just depends on how badly you want the maps. But it is not like it does not cost a thing to move maps over.

Another reason the maps are price are how many people buy them. They have to make a set amount of money for the time they spent on it

 

[caselj01]

I will boycott any DLC that is not worth the money that it costs to buy it.

 

[ScorpSt]

To everyone who's against DLC, what would these games look like if they never made DLC for them? Answer: They'd look exactly the way they do when you first buy them. Ok, yes, some developers might remove content to sell as DLC later, but it's a very small number.

How's about a number, since it's a small one and thus should be easy to count?

I don't know how many do it. Do you? Can you name any developers that you are certain do this?

This is what I hear: "Remember the good old days, when you played through a game once and that was it. If you wanted more content, you had to wait 2 years for them to make a sequel. If there were any bugs, as long as they weren't game breaking, nobody patched it because no one was being paid for it. That's the way it was and we liked it!"

Why don't you guys get off your high horse, drop a little money into your favorite developer, and buy something for a game you enjoyed. Then maybe you can pay for those patches you're screaming for.

Are you kidding me? Patches didn't exist before DLC?

Not what I said. I said that there were no patches for anything other than the most game breaking of bugs. Have you seen the sheer volume of patches that developers are putting out these days? Not to mention how long after the development cycle they're being introduced. That's all paid for by DLC.