Has DLC gone too far?

[The White Hunter]

Spoiler: Snipped for length

On the particular note of CoD maps, I really don't mind paying say $10 for 5 very high quality maps. What tends to happen though is $15 for 3 mediocre to piss-poor maps and/or outright reskins of old maps.

Now this to me is possibly the worst that the gaming industry has done. The only reason I didn't mention it is because I can't stand MMSs and so this abhorrent practice has and will never affect me. You need to see this from a different point of view for a moment. Every other shooter that *isn't* CoD (or a CoD wannabe) has given their maps away for free for the most part. Not only that, but we've traditionally been able to host our own servers with our own map rotations.

In the example of every shooter that isn't CoD, we can choose what maps, when and everyone can play them. Now, by charging for these packs and further, removing entirely our ability to host our own servers, we have to play on official servers which likely have these paid maps in the rotation. So player A who has the pack gets to play but player B who does not is unable to. This has segmented the community which is a greivous crime.

Further, they are exceptionally overpriced and worse still, Activision have somehow managed to convince the CoD playing millions to rebuy the same title with an incrememnted number every November, making the previous game and its insanely priced maps obsolete. TF2 has been around for many years, Unreal Tournament, Quake 2 & 3 and Half-life 1 & 2, CS and many others have or were around for many, many years and in TF2's case, will continue to be. Years.

Every single facet of the CoD cash-cow and its related practices is vile and money-grubbing of the highest order. The removal of private servers, the segmentation of the player base, the crazy cost relative to the actual content, the removal of the tools for player-made maps (some of the best ever maps were player made), the annual rehash requiring rebuying the same game, even adding a "value added" elite subscription service on top and worse still, Activision's uncanny ability to somehow convince gamers that this is acceptable and the gamers who encourage such behaviour all adds up to the biggest rip off and money-grab in the industry's history.

If I was an Activision executive officer though, I'd love every minute of it. Most money for least work, no wonder every other publisher tries to mimic it.

I don't quite have a problem with COD, in fact I quite enjoy it for what it is. I don't even mind that one comes out every year provided it maintains quality (by which I mean it's fully functional and enjoyable, delviering what is expected and sometimes more), unlike say Ass Creed, which has hasd a distinct and notable decline in quality and technical stability since the second iteration.

My issue is in particular with Black Ops 2 and it's atrociously lazy map design, and treyarchs horrendously overpriced DLC. Not to mention the overpriced Season Pass. Modern Warfare 3 at least gave incentive to season pass holders, with exclusive bits and pieces, extra co-operative modes, extra missions for spec ops, etc, as well as a lot of new maps and new game modes. Black Ops 2 however really just keeps regurgitating the seem rubbish and it's the last time I'm touching a Treyarch title. THough I give them props for at least trying new things in the campaign, with a diverging story and such, even though it's completely stupid and mostly unenjoyable.

I do also have an issue with things copying COD. I hate how all multiplayer now has an unlock system with XP and fucking loadouts. The last bastion of big budget class based multiplayer that I'm a fan of was Killzone and thats gone with loadout crap now, though at least the new installment is skipping out on the whole unlock everything bullshit.

 

[Aris Khandr]

It's a slap in the face to hear a dev say that they have 2 years of DLC planned before the game is released.

Is it also a slap in the face for an author to tell you that their books will be a trilogy before the first one is published? Why/why not?

 

[Darkbladex96]

I think DLC is completely out of hand. I was ok with it when people would make suggestions to the devs about what to add to the game, and then the devs would add that as DLC. I am not ok with it existing as it currently does, purposely not adding content into the game so the can sell it later at an exaggerated price as DLC.

It's a slap in the face to hear a dev say that they have 2 years of DLC planned before the game is released.

Bungie allegedly has 10 years of DLC and content planned for destiny. I think that's great.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I think DLC is completely out of hand. I was ok with it when people would make suggestions to the devs about what to add to the game, and then the devs would add that as DLC. I am not ok with it existing as it currently does, purposely not adding content into the game so the can sell it later at an exaggerated price as DLC.

It's a slap in the face to hear a dev say that they have 2 years of DLC planned before the game is released.

Bungie allegedly has 10 years of DLC and content planned for destiny. I think that's great.

...and this is why DLC gets abused.

 

[Zeckt]

I think its really hard to knock gearbox for their season passes when they released a fully playable and enjoyable game. A game so enjoyable that it's worth simply continuing to make more content for it after release. These dlc's are entirely seperate from the main game and made afterwards. So in otherwords, if you like borderlands 2 so much you want more then buy them. I fail to see the problem there?

But yeah, the crap that Activision and Capcom pulls is the worst. I find EA simply annoying with their dlc, but I don't outright hate them as the game's are still fun to play and if you dont want to pay 5$ for a cosmetic upgrade then don't. The option is there, you won't suddenly die if you get them.

But yeah, activision and Capcom? I won't waste my time even explaining.