Poll: Nobody gets a complete version of LA Noir.

[Savagezion]

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.

Well, if adding content to a game is going to be viewed as holding out on the original title the argument could be made that any game that comes out with an expansion pack just withheld that content from the original release. (Expansion packs have been replaced by purchasable DLC slowly. They were usually in mid production at the time of release of the original title.) I don't think this stuff is being "ripped out and sold separately" from the original content. I think it is simply additional content that was never planned to be in the game.

Saying it was pulled out of the original content is really an assumption. (As is mine) To me, it is more conceivable that Sony paid Rockstar to make up a couple more missions for their PS3 release. This is a way to fight against Microsoft with the ever increasing amount of developers who are able to release multi-platform games. I think what we are seeing here is the consoles bringing in new business strategies to combat the competition. There are pros and cons to this but overall, I think the pros may actually outweigh the cons.

L.A. Noire has about 25-30 gameplay hours excluding all of the "bonus/preorder" missions as well as some of the side quests in the game. To assume this game was suppose to be 26-31 hours is IMO bold assumption. These quests you claim as being part of the main game is like an additional 5% of content. It is too tiny to be able to say either way honestly.

Even if what you are claiming was the truth (which I don't agree), it is simply giving the consumers who will have faith in the product, dev team, and distributor 100% of the game by pre-ordering. If you don't trust the product and wait a bit before buying it, you will still get 95% of the game and will have the option to buy anything else later. More than likely though, they will add something in to make us pre-orders want to buy the DLC too. I personally know I won't be disappointed with L.A. Noire so I am pre-ordering it. The extra content for doing so is just a bonus to me. I really am not that concerned about it. I pre-ordered it because I want Rockstar to KNOW I am who they are targeting with this game and I fully support everything I have heard about the game. It is fresh, ambitious, innovative, and risky all in one. But in spite of all that, it just looks fantastic. I am letting them know I am fully behind them in this project and am not just one of the many "nay-sayer consumers" waiting for this game to fail for nothing more than an "I told you so". That is the only time I pre-order games pretty much.

By doing that, I am getting an extra mission or 2. To me that isn't a big deal either way (It is only an additional 5%) but I will say it is cool to see it. I would be pre-ordering this if I was an Xbox owner too probably because I support the project so much I want to express it.

 

[Legion]

I do not object to a decent DLC add-on pack a few months down the line, something that expands the game beyond it's borders and allows you to try something new. DLC such as Fallout 3's is exactly the kind of thing I enjoy, it takes place in a separate area, has nothing to do with the main story, and is different enough to not only be interesting, but enough that for those who don't want to deviate from the normal Fallout 3 setting, they can feel comfortable in knowing that they are not missing out on anything that they need to get the complete experience.

DLC that I cannot stand is the kind that you know for certain was deliberately held pack in order to make people feel the need to buy it. Bungie did this with Halo 3 and Reach by making their ranked game-modes unplayable by anybody who did not purchase their map packs, Prince of Persia 2008 had an Epilogue DLC that was already on the disc at launch, players just paid to unlock the bloody thing.

The problem is that gaming companies can get away with it because there are enough people interested for them to turn a profit. I myself am guilty of this when it comes to my favourite games, Mass Effect 2 I have purchased all of the DLC for, no matter how big or small simply because I like and play the game that much, even though it is giving Bioware the idea that it is okay to release pointless DLC. Obviously this makes me hypocritical, but when it comes to games that I really like then I want the complete package, and I know that if I didn't buy the DLC then it wouldn't make the slightest difference anyway as they'd still make it for everybody else who is willing to pay for it.

So unless every single gamer can be convinced to stop buying these kinds of things (which will never happen), they will always be released by companies looking to cash in.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong. This isn't gta. There are 22 cases which leads me to believe that each one is a pretty sizeable chunk of gameplay. And this isn't stuff they're scraping off the cutting room floor. This is game content that is ready to play at launch, not half finished content they can release later.
Listen: I really want to look at R* in a good light (I loved last gens gta games; even the 'stories') but they're swiftly turning into another Activision... just with less PR gaffs.

 

[Ima842]

LA noire is one of the most expensive games ever made (costing 60.000.000$)so i think the developer would need every penny of the other dlc.

 

[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.

Wrong. This isn't gta. There are 22 cases which leads me to believe that each one is a pretty sizeable chunk of gameplay. And this isn't stuff they're scraping off the cutting room floor. This is game content that is ready to play at launch, not half finished content they can release later.
Listen: I really want to look at R* in a good light (I loved last gens gta games; even the 'stories') but they're swiftly turning into another Activision... just with less PR gaffs.

22 cases, yes. But these are just scenes they're offering, each of which is probably broken up into smaller chunks with smaller goals. Think of it as individual memories in the "sequences" from the assassin's creed series. It's not a level comparable to 4-5% of the game, as you claim. I guarantee it.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Well, if adding content to a game is going to be viewed as holding out on the original title the argument could be made that any game that comes out with an expansion pack just withheld that content from the original release. (Expansion packs have been replaced by purchasable DLC slowly. They were usually in mid production at the time of release of the original title.) I don't think this stuff is being "ripped out and sold separately" from the original content. I think it is simply additional content that was never planned to be in the game.

Saying it was pulled out of the original content is really an assumption. (As is mine) To me, it is more conceivable that Sony paid Rockstar to make up a couple more missions for their PS3 release. This is a way to fight against Microsoft with the ever increasing amount of developers who are able to release multi-platform games. I think what we are seeing here is the consoles bringing in new business strategies to combat the competition. There are pros and cons to this but overall, I think the pros may actually outweigh the cons.

No. Because as I stated earlier: expansion packs used to be game content that the developers made after the title had become popular, not content that was made before the game launched.
Also, expansion packs often included features and content that the devs wanted to make but had no time for before launch and/or the fans (not the fans that swallowed the hype but fans who played and enjoyed the game) asked for.
Schemes like the pre-order bonus and ?exclusives? are just greedy bid-driven cash grabs facilitated by extracting content before the game has launched. You don?t see s difference? Because there are big ones both in relevance and intention.
Saying that R* and Sony had planned this content to be added separately is an assumption. I think you?re way to trusting. Had they waited until the game was raved about and later released a bunch of content that the fans had requested, then I would admit that my assumptions are far reaching. But this is all content that?s finished before everyone has played it, so yes I?m going with the simplest/obvious assumption... Which is usually the correct one.

 

[Savagezion]

Well, if adding content to a game is going to be viewed as holding out on the original title the argument could be made that any game that comes out with an expansion pack just withheld that content from the original release. (Expansion packs have been replaced by purchasable DLC slowly. They were usually in mid production at the time of release of the original title.) I don't think this stuff is being "ripped out and sold separately" from the original content. I think it is simply additional content that was never planned to be in the game.

Saying it was pulled out of the original content is really an assumption. (As is mine) To me, it is more conceivable that Sony paid Rockstar to make up a couple more missions for their PS3 release. This is a way to fight against Microsoft with the ever increasing amount of developers who are able to release multi-platform games. I think what we are seeing here is the consoles bringing in new business strategies to combat the competition. There are pros and cons to this but overall, I think the pros may actually outweigh the cons.

No. Because as I stated earlier: expansion packs used to be game content that the developers made after the title had become popular, not content that was made before the game launched.
Also, expansion packs often included features and content that the devs wanted to make but had no time for before launch and/or the fans (not the fans that swallowed the hype but fans who played and enjoyed the game) asked for.
Schemes like the pre-order bonus and ?exclusives? are just greedy bid-driven cash grabs facilitated by extracting content before the game has launched. You don?t see s difference? Because there are big ones both in relevance and intention.

In golden goose games like Diablo 2 or the Civilization franchise among many others, the developers have been accused of holding as much content as possible out of the original game to release an expansion a mere 6-12 months after the original has sold as an attempt to have material for an expansion and yank another 40 bucks out of people. There are games that do make me wonder about this being true. But the complaint here is miniscule in comparison. They aren't even asking for more money upfront. They are giving you the option of pre-ordering it in a specified way, OR pay money. It is up to you. I don't think it is as bad as it is being made out to be. "Pre-order our game in X manner and we'll give you free shit."
If they want to make unreleased as of yet content it is gonna happen. They could just charge everyone for it and pre-ordering wouldn't mean squat.

People have proven they will pay for this DLC so they ain't gonna just opt to release it for free. I wouldn't either. I think the consumer market are stupid at times over this crap but whatever. The masses have spoken. Saying that them giving it out for free on a pre-order is a bad thing is foolish IMO.

Saying that R* and Sony had planned this content to be added separately is an assumption. I think you?re way to trusting. Had they waited until the game was raved about and later released a bunch of content that the fans had requested, then I would admit that my assumptions are far reaching. But this is all content that?s finished before everyone has played it, so yes I?m going with the simplest/obvious assumption... Which is usually the correct one.

I admited my theory is also an assumption but it is based on more on events from the past. L.A. Noire was originally slated as a PS3 exclusive. It was even funded soley by Sony in the beginning. Which explains the exclusivity. Obviously, a deal went down somewhere that opened it up to the Xbox 360. Now IMO it stands to reason that SOny was not going to just hand over the property and now at release we are seeing exclusive content in favor of Sony. IMO Xbox owners should be happy that Sony shared at all here but instead people are complaining. Ironically, it is about non-exclusivity but on a much smaller degree and what I am seeing is that people will, in fact, complain about anything.

Your assumption is "Rockstar/Sony is just being evil and mean for the sake of greed." which I don't think is wholly true. I think that Sony Rockstar and Microsoft came to some kind of understanding where Sony comes out ahead due to the fact they were major contributors to the project. I don't know the details no, but I do think the whole thing is pretty simplististic and much more obvious than your assumption. Your assumption plays out like Lex Luther aka Bobby Kotick is behind the whole thing.

 

[katsumoto03]

You guys realize that this is just DLC that's being announced early... right?


EIDT: Also, your mom says I'm exclusive.

Ba-doosh.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

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?

Would it make a huge difference? No.
Would it be nice if they gave the little things that were clearly already in the game to everyone? I'd say yes.

 

[Zaik]

This is going to work about as well as all the exclusive pre-order weapons did in Fallout NV.

Anyone bothered enough by this is going to head over to the pirating website of their personal preference, where they can download all of them in a few hours with absolutely no negative repercussions.

 

[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?

Would it make a huge difference? No.
Would it be nice if they gave the little things that were clearly already in the game to everyone? I'd say yes.

There are lots of things that would be nice. That doesn't make them feasible or likely. Besides, if every company did that, then Bungie and Valve wouldn't appear nearly as awesome as they currently do.

Or to put it another way: I'm glad that turds exist so I can truly appreciate the smell of a rose.

 

[Furious Styles]

Don't give a shit, I'm not petty enough to quibble over a tiny amount of content in the face of what's looking like a great game. I actually quite like the idea of being able to download new cases when I've run out of stuff to do.

 

[Woodsey]

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.Mafia 2 was never marketed as a sandbox; publications just decided they would ignore the nature of the first game (or assume that was meant to be a sandbox as well), and that they would also ignore all of the developer diaries and interviews saying "this is not a sandbox - we don't want to make a GTA game."

 

[Cowabungaa]

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.Mafia 2 was never marketed as a sandbox; publications just decided they would ignore the nature of the first game (or assume that was meant to be a sandbox as well), and that they would also ignore all of the developer diaries and interviews saying "this is not a sandbox - we don't want to make a GTA game."

Silly media ruining my gaming experience. Well, not that I was that disappointed. I still had a beautiful 50's style city to cruise around in, and the best cover-based combat I ever played. Mind you, in a way they did make a GTA game. That has no sidequests either.

You know what was odd though, that relatively shortly after the release they released that DLC that did have all kinds of side-missions. So it could've been my ideal mafia game afterall, if only they put all that in the game.

Ah well, at least with LA Noir those pretences aren't around as much.

 

[BGH122]

Yup, all this nonsense is starting to really annoy me. I'm definitely not buying it.

NINJA: I can't stand the inevitable 'You're only depriving yourself!' arguments that spew forth from the same mouths that chant 'Vote with your wallet, don't whine'.

 

[Woodsey]

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.Mafia 2 was never marketed as a sandbox; publications just decided they would ignore the nature of the first game (or assume that was meant to be a sandbox as well), and that they would also ignore all of the developer diaries and interviews saying "this is not a sandbox - we don't want to make a GTA game."

Silly media ruining my gaming experience. Well, not that I was that disappointed. I still had a beautiful 50's style city to cruise around in, and the best cover-based combat I ever played. Mind you, in a way they did make a GTA game. That has no sidequests either.

You know what was odd though, that relatively shortly after the release they released that DLC that did have all kinds of side-missions. So it could've been my ideal mafia game afterall, if only they put all that in the game.

Ah well, at least with LA Noir those pretences aren't around as much.

They had originally planned to have some side-missions, that would give a "director's cut" style version of the story, but they were dropped - I noticed one that had been previewed pop up as a DLC mission, although it was neutered a little, and without any story elements.
The DLC missions themselves were arcade-y pieces of shit though, completely out of touch with the rest of the game, and absolutely not what the series is about.

Hopefully they'll make a third game, because 2 had the potential - they just need to commit to what they're doing more and, quite frankly, fuck the GTA crowd. That's the only reason they had those god-awful DLC packs. It came to light that the game had a bit of an unfortunate development though, one that stretched out across two generations of consoles, and the system they were using for building the game was highly inefficient.

 

[tlozoot]

I'm fine with publishers holding back snippets of content from people who have only bought the game used. Usually, if I care about a game enough to want that extra stuff, I'd have bought it new anyway, or wouldn't mind paying a little extra. After all, games are fucking expensive to make, and pre-owned sales really cut into a developers share. For popular titles this isn't a problem, but anything less than a blockbuster needs every penny to break even, lest the developer close their doors.

In this case though, even if you want to support the developer by buying new, you're still going to be missing content. Bonuses for buying new? Fine. But in this case you're always going to be missing a little bit of the content. I think this is just an example of retail outlets trying to one-up each other, and the publishers gladly complying because it means more cash for them. Do not like.