Poll: Nobody gets a complete version of LA Noir.

[GonzoGamer]

I tend to be upset about the content a company holds back from a game so they can make more money off of it later as DLC than I do about the promo deals.

But don't you see, they're getting the best of both worlds here. They got Gamestop to put in the highest bid for pre-orders with gameplay content (both a case and the obligatory collection quest). Then they?ve already admitted that that all the pre-order ?bonus? items will be sold separately soon after launch.

I do appreciate the sentiment of the rest of your post. Many ?open world? (you apparently call this game a sandbox; another red flag) games are becoming barren and featureless. This has led me to look forward to Saints Row 3 more than anything else. Maybe the popularity of gta4 and No More Heroes has led developers to say: hey, why should we bother to fill these cities with interesting stuff, they can be barren and people will still love it as long as there?s a lame gimmick.

What? A multi-platform game that has exclusive content for one platform over another? Whatever is the world coming to! [/sarcasm]

Dude, stuff like that has been happening ever since the console wars started getting really competitive. I use as my example the Soul Calibur games. On Soul Calibur 2, it had a different character for each console that was specific to that console. On PS2, it has Hihatchi Mishima (I think that's how it's spelled) from Tekken, Link from Legend of Zelda on the Gamecube version and Spawn on the Xbox version. The same sort of thing happened for 3 and 4 respectively.

Many multi-platform games are developed in that way to cater to the difference in gamers for each console.

But this generation (with R* at least) it all seems really off balance when you compare it to your Soul Caliber example: with SC, you got an exclusive no matter what you got it for.
It just seems unfair when one person who?s spending $60 on launch day get?s considerable less content (or will have to pay additional who knows how much) than someone else because they don?t have the right platform on their shelf or the right retailer in their neighborhood.
To be honest, they lost me with the retail specific exclusives but this latest (even though I own a ps3) just makes the whole title reek of desperation. Like they have to sell it on hype because word of mouth will betray it to be crap.

 

[GonzoGamer]

This stuff really annoys me, but I understand why it's done, and I don't think it's going to stop.
I do however think that developers should release the content free of charge to all customers a few months down the line.
The same thing happened with Fable 3 (albeit on a smaller scale) with the exclusive weapons, these were never made available in the UK to begin with, save for one.
Now, half a year later, would it really make any difference if they gave them away for free?

I would totally be behind it if that were the common practice but the only other game I can think of that did that was Infamous.

 

[jpoon]

It pisses me off, to the point where I'm not even gonna buy this game.

 

[GiantRaven]

Wasn't the original GTA IV DLC a 360 exclusive for some time? I'm assuming, like it was the case there, that all the content will be available for everybody in the future. I don't really see the problem myself.

 

[Savagezion]

The 360 has exclusive DLC, so it works both ways. It isn't just Sony here. Overall, it doesn't bother me much anymore. I don't think it is the best route but whatever. All I know is for a while the 360 was getting exclusive DLC and PS3 owners were getting told to quit whining and get with the times. It's funny that now that the shoe is starting to show up on the other foot, this is unacceptable.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Oh noooo, I won't be able to play the game knowing that I lack one mission because I play on the 360.

/sarcasm.

I can't wait until this whole anti-extra content thing blows over, it's getting stale. Why do we now feel the need to squeeze every little penny we can out of developers by demanding all this extra content. Now I know, it's not a dlc argument, it's a PS3 vs 360 argument; largely irrelevant. By not having that mission you lose nothing from the game, that's extra content, not part of the actual game. I get free pre-order content but you don't see all the people who will buy the game after release complaining about the same thing.

Can we get over this pathetic wall of self-entitlement?

 

[Byere]

But this generation (with R* at least) it all seems really off balance when you compare it to your Soul Caliber example: with SC, you got an exclusive no matter what you got it for.
It just seems unfair when one person who?s spending $60 on launch day get?s considerable less content (or will have to pay additional who knows how much) than someone else because they don?t have the right platform on their shelf or the right retailer in their neighborhood.
To be honest, they lost me with the retail specific exclusives but this latest (even though I own a ps3) just makes the whole title reek of desperation. Like they have to sell it on hype because word of mouth will betray it to be crap.

First off, apologies for the previous sarcasm... wasn't in the best off moods earlier and I meant nothing by it.

Yes, it's true that in this day and ages, the least they can do is make exclusive content for each platform and not just for one. To aide your statement, NetherRealm Studios are doing exactly the same with the new Mortal Kombat game in that only PS3 gamers will get to play with Kratos. To my knowledge, there's been no talk of Xbox 360 specific content.
As far as I'm concerned, the only reason for this is a case of "who will pay the developers more to promote their console". Sony probably paid more to R* and NRS to get the extra content made for the PS3. I know that sounds kind of unfair towards the developers (and if it's untrue, I apologise in advance) but that sort of stuff happens. It's no different from other commission work that artists get. Developers have to be unbiased like that to get their product to the masses and impartial to the actual consoles themselves... if that makes any sort of sense.

 

[Bat Vader]

I don't like exclusive content for different consoles. The way I see it if they want to give people extra content they should just make a Collector's Edition and include it in that.

 

[GonzoGamer]

But this generation (with R* at least) it all seems really off balance when you compare it to your Soul Caliber example: with SC, you got an exclusive no matter what you got it for.
It just seems unfair when one person who?s spending $60 on launch day get?s considerable less content (or will have to pay additional who knows how much) than someone else because they don?t have the right platform on their shelf or the right retailer in their neighborhood.
To be honest, they lost me with the retail specific exclusives but this latest (even though I own a ps3) just makes the whole title reek of desperation. Like they have to sell it on hype because word of mouth will betray it to be crap.

First off, apologies for the previous sarcasm... wasn't in the best off moods earlier and I meant nothing by it.

Yes, it's true that in this day and ages, the least they can do is make exclusive content for each platform and not just for one. To aide your statement, NetherRealm Studios are doing exactly the same with the new Mortal Kombat game in that only PS3 gamers will get to play with Kratos. To my knowledge, there's been no talk of Xbox 360 specific content.
As far as I'm concerned, the only reason for this is a case of "who will pay the developers more to promote their console". Sony probably paid more to R* and NRS to get the extra content made for the PS3. I know that sounds kind of unfair towards the developers (and if it's untrue, I apologise in advance) but that sort of stuff happens. It's no different from other commission work that artists get. Developers have to be unbiased like that to get their product to the masses and impartial to the actual consoles themselves... if that makes any sort of sense.

There?s no need to apologize for the sarcasm. No offense taken. I?m from NY, it takes a hell of a lot more than that to offend me.
What you said makes perfect sense but it also further impresses on me how the game industry is becoming more like the pharmaceutical industry: not so much taking into account what the consumers want or need but rather experimenting with the most profitable means even if it ends up being unfair (or sometimes useless) to the consumer.
R* is starting to look like real pricks: gypping us in the interest of some bidding wars between the platform makers and another for the retailers. It makes me wonder, how big was this game going to be before their greed set in and they started paring a bunch away for ?bonus? dlc. All that extra work on LA Noir is lost on someone who bought it from TRU for the 360, even though they?re paying the same $60.
And don?t get me started on MK: they lost me with the rumor of the online pass and frankly, I don?t care about playing it online so I would rather get it used now anyway. I get your point though, master chief would?ve probably fit in pretty well in MK. He looks like the androids from MK2.

And as a ps3 owner, I?m starting to get sick of Sony using it?s resources in a futile battle against hackers and securing exclusives when they could use them to give the ps3 some half decent support.

 

[GonzoGamer]

The 360 has exclusive DLC, so it works both ways. It isn't just Sony here. Overall, it doesn't bother me much anymore. I don't think it is the best route but whatever. All I know is for a while the 360 was getting exclusive DLC and PS3 owners were getting told to quit whining and get with the times. It's funny that now that the shoe is starting to show up on the other foot, this is unacceptable.

As a ps3 owner I thought it was unacceptable when the shoe was on the other foot too: mind you this was before I found out that the "exclusive" dlc was going to be overpriced $20 mission packs. I felt better after realizing I wouldn't have wanted to buy it anyway.

The big difference here is that all this content isn't being sold to everybody months after they get feedback from gamers about what the game might be missing. They're paring content away from the original game at launch because certain retailers and platform developers paid them to do so. To me it seems like they're just peeling away layers from the original game. For example: you only get the collection quest layer if you buy from gamestop.

Can we get over this pathetic wall of self-entitlement?

Once again, I love how that whenever anyone questions the value of something we?re paying a lot of money for, some bozo needs to label them as pathetic and over-entitled. Anywhere else it?s called being a savvy consumer. Either way, I?d rather be over entitled with money than a broke sucker.

 

[EllEzDee]

Score one for piracy! Do they honestly think this will make people want to buy the game?

 

[Cowabungaa]

I understand the need to use incentives to buy new games, hence why I have nothing against the DLC-at-launch technique. For once they use the carrot instead of the oh so popular stick; DRM. Can't we all be happy about that?

But platform-exclusive extra content always puzzeled me. I just don't get it. I could've sworn it was going the way of the dodo. But heej, I'm getting it for the PS3 anyway:

le snip

Just a little FYI; LA Noir isn't a sandbox game. The problem with Mafia 2 was that it was marketed as a sandbox game, but it turned out to be, as you called it, incredibly barebones. I'm glad that they aren't doing that with LA Noir.

No, it's holding back content.

It isn't unless that mission is technically in every version of the game, but somehow they installed some block on the 360 version. If that ain't the case it's extra content.

 

[zehydra]

Wasn't planning on getting it anyway so this really doesn't affect me. Although really, what's the difference between this and an expansion pack anyway? (this isn't a rhetorical question, I really don't know).

 

[PhiMed]

This stuff really annoys me, but I understand why it's done, and I don't think it's going to stop.
I do however think that developers should release the content free of charge to all customers a few months down the line.
The same thing happened with Fable 3 (albeit on a smaller scale) with the exclusive weapons, these were never made available in the UK to begin with, save for one.
Now, half a year later, would it really make any difference if they gave them away for free?

Would it really make any difference if it wasn't?

 

[PhiMed]

I tend to be upset about the content a company holds back from a game so they can make more money off of it later as DLC than I do about the promo deals.

But don't you see, they're getting the best of both worlds here. They got Gamestop to put in the highest bid for pre-orders with gameplay content (both a case and the obligatory collection quest). Then they?ve already admitted that that all the pre-order ?bonus? items will be sold separately soon after launch.

I do appreciate the sentiment of the rest of your post. Many ?open world? (you apparently call this game a sandbox; another red flag) games are becoming barren and featureless. This has led me to look forward to Saints Row 3 more than anything else. Maybe the popularity of gta4 and No More Heroes has led developers to say: hey, why should we bother to fill these cities with interesting stuff, they can be barren and people will still love it as long as there?s a lame gimmick.

What? A multi-platform game that has exclusive content for one platform over another? Whatever is the world coming to! [/sarcasm]

Dude, stuff like that has been happening ever since the console wars started getting really competitive. I use as my example the Soul Calibur games. On Soul Calibur 2, it had a different character for each console that was specific to that console. On PS2, it has Hihatchi Mishima (I think that's how it's spelled) from Tekken, Link from Legend of Zelda on the Gamecube version and Spawn on the Xbox version. The same sort of thing happened for 3 and 4 respectively.

Many multi-platform games are developed in that way to cater to the difference in gamers for each console.

But this generation (with R* at least) it all seems really off balance when you compare it to your Soul Caliber example: with SC, you got an exclusive no matter what you got it for.
It just seems unfair when one person who?s spending $60 on launch day get?s considerable less content (or will have to pay additional who knows how much) than someone else because they don?t have the right platform on their shelf or the right retailer in their neighborhood.
To be honest, they lost me with the retail specific exclusives but this latest (even though I own a ps3) just makes the whole title reek of desperation. Like they have to sell it on hype because word of mouth will betray it to be crap.

I didn't see anything in that story that suggested that considerably less content was in question. It looks like the content in question is one mission that doesn't affect the story substantially. Probably a short one. Out of.. what? Fifty? Sixty? More?

If it was one of the better missions the developers put together, or one that was integral to the story, it would've made it to the core game. This is scraping stuff off the cutting room floor and using it as bait to influence the buying habits of completionists. Complaining about it is like complaining about special edition DVD's getting more deleted scenes.

 

[Lionsfan]

I can't say I really like this. I'm not digging the whole DLC the day after release thing and having Console Exclusive stuff is just another part of the puzzle. But the title of the thread is definitely misleading, I thought you had something where they were shipping an incomplete game and you had to pay to finish the main story

 

[DustyDrB]

But the title of the thread is definitely misleading, I thought you had something where they were shipping an incomplete game and you had to pay to finish the main story

The title isn't misleading, it's true.
There are also retailer exclusive [http://www.destructoid.com/rockstar-offers-a-variety-of-l-a-noire-pre-order-bonuses-194990.phtml] story missions in addition to the PS3 exclusive one. That means that even if you preorder the jumbo-large collector's edition of the game from Gamestop, you'll still be missing story content. You can't get everything unless you preorder from multiple retailers for the PS3 version.

 

[XMark]

It's just an extra mission or two, probably not essential to the story, and probably over really quickly. And I can just watch someone play through it on youtube a few weeks later if I'm curious as to what I missed. So I don't include the little extra thing in my decision on when and where to buy the game.

 

[Lionsfan]

But the title of the thread is definitely misleading, I thought you had something where they were shipping an incomplete game and you had to pay to finish the main story

The title isn't misleading, it's true.
There are also retailer exclusive [http://www.destructoid.com/rockstar-offers-a-variety-of-l-a-noire-pre-order-bonuses-194990.phtml] story missions in addition to the PS3 exclusive one. That means that even if you preorder the jumbo-large collector's edition of the game from Gamestop, you'll still be missing story content. You can't get everything unless you preorder from multiple retailers for the PS3 version.

Maybe it was just misleading for me then. I thought that the not included content was main story missions. Like you're 80% complete with the story and then BAM! Pay up for the ending. Basically what they're excluding is The Ballad of Gay Tony, or Lair of the Shadow Broke. Stuff that isn't really essential but is cool to have. And yeah it's annoying and dumb, but (for me anyway) not rage inducing

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I understand the need to use incentives to buy new games, hence why I have nothing against the DLC-at-launch technique. For once they use the carrot instead of the oh so popular stick; DRM. Can't we all be happy about that?

But platform-exclusive extra content always puzzeled me. I just don't get it. I could've sworn it was going the way of the dodo. But heej, I'm getting it for the PS3 anyway:

le snip

Just a little FYI; LA Noir isn't a sandbox game. The problem with Mafia 2 was that it was marketed as a sandbox game, but it turned out to be, as you called it, incredibly barebones. I'm glad that they aren't doing that with LA Noir.

No, it's holding back content.

It isn't unless that mission is technically in every version of the game, but somehow they installed some block on the 360 version. If that ain't the case it's extra content.

My understanding is, they have made this content, correct? It's not like their saying "Hey, we'll have DLC in the future, you get that for free", right? It's content that has been created and is ready for use but is deliberately not being given to some purchasers of the game?

Because that sounds like holding back. It doesn't matter whether it's on the disc or not, it matters whether it's already been made or not.