Exclusive DLC just go away.
- Thread starter Snake422
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People don't like console exclusive DLC because once you've got a game running on a system there shouldn't be a challenge with adding extra maps / missions / story arcs etc - in most cases at least.
Whilst some DLC is just frivolous extra guff which frankly shouldn't cost money (horse armour is the old classic, the extra rooftop races and stuff in Crackdown is a personal gripe) there are developers using it as an alterative to the world of episodic gaming - in particular the GTA4 and Fallout3 stuff.
I eagerly await the moment when one of the big titles dumps exclusive DLC on both sides of the console war because if you hate it now you'll really hate it when you have to own two copies of the same game.
Whilst some DLC is just frivolous extra guff which frankly shouldn't cost money (horse armour is the old classic, the extra rooftop races and stuff in Crackdown is a personal gripe) there are developers using it as an alterative to the world of episodic gaming - in particular the GTA4 and Fallout3 stuff.
I eagerly await the moment when one of the big titles dumps exclusive DLC on both sides of the console war because if you hate it now you'll really hate it when you have to own two copies of the same game.
And where's the gigabytes of downloadable add-on content on those platforms, genius boy?jdnoth said:
Oh, right, there's only Shivering Isles, and that's it. And oh look, that's $20. Which supports my position nicely, because people will not pay a regular $20 price tag for downloadable content. They whine and ***** hard enough when it's $5.
And the full price large download games that are on Steam are there for full retail price.
So, who exactly is an idiot? Is it me? Or is it the person who missed the point so damn hard they've shot their own arse?
Would you like help carrying those goalposts? The thread is about add on DLC, not demos.jdnoth said:
Also they're there as a sales tool to attempt to extract money from gamers, they do not require creation of any content beyond a few menu screens, because everything in the demo is in the game itself, so they do not have the associated costs.
Add on DLC would have a significant cost which demos do not, and since it's only available to people who have already purchased the game, would generate no extra sales and therefore no more revenue unless it carried a pricetag sufficient to cover the cost of creating it and make a profit.
Yeah, I reckon when sudios deliver dlc nowadays its just from the kindness in their hearts...GloatingSwine said:
Dlc, like demos, encourage people to buy games.
Bethesda already delivered free dlc for fallout, and Guerrilla said they would for Killzone. So I don't know why you're acting like studios won't delivers free dlc when they obviously will.
Really? Because last time I checked it started on the PC, specifically, on a Microsoft operating system.Snake422 said:
But anyway, to address your point, exclusive DLC to a non-exclusive game is absurd. It's like offering two children a packet of sweets each which are essentially the same, but then, after they've chosen, telling one of them they get an packet just because they picked the 'right' packet the first time.
Not to any significant degree, the attach rates for downloadable content packs are not massive. DLC is about making more money out of people who have already bought the game.jdnoth said:
No, they delivered DLC which you pay $10 for.
Maybe KZ's download content will be free, maybe it won't. I'd very much expect that if it is free it won't be more than a couple of multiplayer maps. Not the gigabytes of free downloadable content that appear to exist in your world. In mine the only network that has that is Bittorrent.
I doubt Sony have the same amount of money to throw into something like that.AndyFromMonday said:
Yeah, I can imagine a PS3 owner being upset because of GTA4's Lost and Damned being a 360 exclusive, but they were paid by M$ to do it, and I, for one, don't object to exclusive DLC when it's a business transaction.
Although, if a gaming company wants to make exclusive DLC WITHOUT M$ or Sony or Nintendo paying for it, so be it but that's a mistake on their part for isolating a fanbase, which they probably realize.
I sincerely doubt that any company would make exclusive DLC without being paid to do it.
Although, if a gaming company wants to make exclusive DLC WITHOUT M$ or Sony or Nintendo paying for it, so be it but that's a mistake on their part for isolating a fanbase, which they probably realize.
I sincerely doubt that any company would make exclusive DLC without being paid to do it.
Poor sentence structure is poor.
Also, DLC is what it is. Take it or leave it, stop complaining.
Also, DLC is what it is. Take it or leave it, stop complaining.
Rockstar didn't just say "Screw you" to PS3 gamers, they said "Screw you" to PS3 gamers because Microsoft was paying them several million dollars to do so. If Sony really loved its gamers it would have made a counter offer to keep the DLC for the PS3. Don't be mad at Microsoft or Rockstar, be mad at Sony.
Don't hate the game, hate the player. That's the saying, right? Good.
Don't hate the game, hate the player. That's the saying, right? Good.
Why do people always try to blame Sony?ElephantGuts said:
You can't blame them for something they could have done, but you can blame Microsoft for doing it in the first place.
That being said, it's business strategy. I may be slightly annoyed that we won't get any bones to chew on, but I can't complain.
Business is Business.
To bad for Sony then, they wasted all the cash to put all the "latest hardware" in they're console yet they somewhat forgot that they will need people to actually buy it before they can profit.new_age_reject said: