I think it is dumb because of companies trying to sell games/systems on sometimes secret DLC. I wouldn't want to buy a game based on the promise of DLC only to find that the DLC is crap. I would rather companies spent money on securing exclusive new IP's than exclusive expansion packs. I'm not going to buy a game on one console over another based on the promise of DLC unless I know exactly what that DLC is from the beginning.
Exclusive DLC just go away.
- Thread starter Snake422
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You consider Fallout 3 or GTA4 or Halo 3 or COD4, etc etc unfinished? MAYBE Mirror's Edge is, but the rest are rather poor examples. I quite enjoyed Operation Anchorage and the various map packs for the other games and such, and was glad to see more of the content I loved at a reasonable price. And for that matter, it's almost all optional (though some map packs and such can sometimes be required for a lot of online play).sevenrings said:
Usually we get the 'DLC' free of charge, and if we dont, mod communitys make up for it.x434343 said:
Im trufully getting sick of all this DLC nonsense - back pre-2006, any additional content was given away free (unless it was substantial enough to be considered retail). Now it seems that Valve are the only ones that are allowing content to extend the longetivity of their products for free. Call me a value whore, but I don't call £10 for a few maps and new missions value for money
Pc mods are much better. Ive not been a Pc gamer for nearly 10 years but the amount of fun I had playing gloom and action quake on quake 2, even on a 56k modem, was priceless. Plus free.
The games were un recognisable as quake with loads of loving care and support from the community.
The games were un recognisable as quake with loads of loving care and support from the community.
On the other hand, game development and asset creation has ballooned in cost in the last few years (even since 2006, the amount of information required to create a game environment like a level has increased massively thanks to increased polygon counts, texture resolution, and number of objects present.social_outcast said:
It's no surprise that this stuff isn't free any more.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no problems paying for additional content if I deem it worth using at all. Anything I wouldn't be willing to pay for I probably wouldn't have bothered with anyway.
I doubt it will happen too often. Developers make more money by having their product work on the widest distribution model possible. Unless Sony or Microsoft is willing to pay them a bucket of cash up front to keep it exclusive, there's not really an incentive to do it. Besides that, I doubt any bucket of cash would make it viable to stay exclusive forever. At most, the console will just get the exclusive DLC for a few months before putting it out for other consoles.
If you dont like DLC, newsflash, dont buy it!
People who want it and see it as having value will buy it. Ive bought some content and passed up on others. It depends on the cost and what youre getting for it.
How come dont MS points shift with the exchange rate? If they dont you cant say 1 Ms point is worth x internationally and some people will be getting theirs cheaper depending on where they live.
I wonder who gets the best deal?
People who want it and see it as having value will buy it. Ive bought some content and passed up on others. It depends on the cost and what youre getting for it.
How come dont MS points shift with the exchange rate? If they dont you cant say 1 Ms point is worth x internationally and some people will be getting theirs cheaper depending on where they live.
I wonder who gets the best deal?
I have no problem with a company paying for exclusivity of DLC, that's just business.
But I do have a problem with developers secluding DLC away from a majority for no earthly reason. I'm tempted to say a patch for Fallout 3 to include play after the ending, but I don't know if that's included with the DLC that MS payed for or not.
If Microsoft want towaste spend money to have GTA4 DLC exclusive, so be it, I can't and won't complain. It's business strategy, there's nothing that anyone can do about it unless for some reason Rockstar want's to break a contract that they probably signed. I don't begrudge Rockstar for taking the offer, money is money.
But I do have a problem with developers secluding DLC away from a majority for no earthly reason. I'm tempted to say a patch for Fallout 3 to include play after the ending, but I don't know if that's included with the DLC that MS payed for or not.
If Microsoft want to
Personally, I don't like DLC. If you wanted to put something in the game, put it in the retail game. Don't take it out, then release it later for extra cash. Like, with Little Big Planet, they wanted to put in the ability to upload your own JPEG's into the game, but decided to cut it and release it later instead.
This is partly why I like Nintendo. They don't have the option of DLC, so their games arent buggy. And they're finished, too.
This is partly why I like Nintendo. They don't have the option of DLC, so their games arent buggy. And they're finished, too.
Honestly... Sony are lazy bastards. You know they were offered the Fallout DLCs don't you? They just let Microsoft have them. Why? I don't know. But considering the ammount of people that bought the first DLC, they made a big mistake from both a fan and financial standpoint.
Morons.
Morons.
