Poll: Nobody gets a complete version of LA Noir.

[The Rockerfly]

Ah that sucks, now I'm not going to buy it. Way to go and lose a sale

 

[Death Prophet]

This is a load of crap. I honestly can't be bothered with this game, its overhyped and all those "exclusives" will probably be available later to everyone IF they want to pay for them which is also shit. After the horrid story of GTA 4 I cbf buying from rockstar anymore. Oh also Grand theft horse (red dead redemption) bored to tears.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

It's a tiny part of the game that is not even part of the full experience.

If this might seriously stop some of you from buying the game, man up.

 

[TiefBlau]

Have you ever considered that this superfluous content could be, you know, superfluous?

I'm not buying LA Noir because they chose a shitty year to get released. A year when both Portal 2 and Deus Ex are coming out. And AssCreed BroHood. And some interesting DS games.

Besides, GTA 4 was on sale for five dollars on Steam, and I still haven't even started that.

 

[Pompey71]

They usually add DLC these days to ensure that 2nd hand games aren't as appealing or easy to sell as you always have to state "DLC code used" etc.

 

[Aphex Demon]

The 360 gets exclusive stuff all the time, time to give PS3 a chance I guess.

Also yeah, it's not like Rockstar to do such a vile thing. Oh well, couldn't give a massive fuck tbh.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It's not "holding back content" for you, it's giving a bonus for people who bought it new. It's incentive, and new games need it.

No, it's holding back content. Whether new games need it or not is debatable, but it's still denying content to paying customers.

So you're saying that iff they made this content specifically for something extra to put as an incentive for preorder, they're duty bounjd to release that for free to everyone because....what, exactly? What, are they supposed to include every single pice of work they put into this game, instead of what they think is worth full price? Dude, the game is a bargain at full price aqs it is. A small bit of extra content is a cherry on the top. And are you really saying if you don't get the Cherry, you should steal the cake?

Okay, let's say you go see a movie. This movie contains, say, 150 scenes. Google says this is the average, so we'll go with it.

However, when you see this movie, you only see 141 of these scenes. Every theater gets 140 of the same scenes, and one other. If you want to see the whole movie, you have to go to the theater ten times. Does that seem fair? These scenes aren't necessary, you don't need to see them.

And if you wait to buy the film on DVD, expecting all of them, you only get the 140, with no special scenes at all. But wait, they're selling them online, for five dollars each. Does that seem fair? After all, you still get the basic movie, this other stuff is extra. You don't need it, and if you really want it you can pay for it.

Thats a completely awful analogy. What this is actually like is paying for deleted scenes on the special edition rerelease of the movie on DVD. The difference? Whereas with the movie you need to buy everything again just for the extra content, in this game you don't need to buy LA Noire all over again.

Nope. Deleted scenes are that, deleted. They are no longer canon, and have been removed from the plot, their inclusion is a bonus. This mission is an actual mission of the game, and it is being deliberately withheld for profit. When film-makers delete a scene, they don't think "Man, if we take this out people will totally have to buy the DVD to see it! Kaching!" They take it out for various reasons.

No, thats exactly what this is - a mission that they felt wasn't quite as strong as the ones in the game but was still pretty good. The inclusion of these is obviously quite obviously a bonus, not something being witheld. It is not an "actual" mission in the game, its a bonus mission in the game.

You're saying the exact same behaviour is criminal when a game maker does it.

No, I'm not. The developers have given no indication this mission is non canon, or bonus in any way. If, in the actual game, the mission is accessible though a menu labelling it as bonus content, and it holds no bearing on the plot, I shall concede that I was wrong. Until that point in time, it is entirely reasonable of me to assume that this mission is a standard mission withheld to make a buck. And regardless, it's still not like a deleted scene. Deleted scenes are not advertised to be available at certain retailers only, deleted scenes don't require two purchases of the game and possibly a three hundred dollar system to view, and deleted scenes are not part of the movie proper.

This is a fucking sandbox game! Every mission that isn't a direct story mission (and thus one that makes the game unwinnable if it is not played) is non-canon and holds no bearing on the plot. There is no way this could be integral to the plot.

No, deleted scenes just require five seperate purchases of the same movie over a 3 year period.

No... Different games tell stories differently, and you have no clue if that's the way this game works. For all we know, one of these missions could provide back-story for a character that really brings them to life, or foreshadows a later event.

Also, you don't seem to know how canon works. Canon is anything that is officially recognized as something that happened within a fictional universe. They don't have to be a part of the main story to be canon.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It's not "holding back content" for you, it's giving a bonus for people who bought it new. It's incentive, and new games need it.

No, it's holding back content. Whether new games need it or not is debatable, but it's still denying content to paying customers.

Giving bonus to paying customers would be 20,000 in game dollars very early on, or easy access to a good weapon. One of the CoD games gave players a high level gun at level one, that sort of shit is incentive.

Nope, its incentive to paying customers.

If you designed it to be an incentive to get people to buy it on a platform, its not holding back content. If its cut from the game and sold to you, that's holding back content.

There is a difference.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw no place where they said they designed it specifically to be only given to certain paying customers. Until I see that, I have zero reason to believe otherwise. Which is more likely, the devs made a mission with the intent of only giving it to Walmart customers, or Walmart worked out a deal to get an exclusive mission? If Walmart worked out a deal like that with you, would you spend hours and hours making a new mission just for them, or just pick one you already made?

Regardless, it's colossal dickery and I'll be getting the game used solely to deny them my money. If they don't feel it's good enough to get all the missions completed at the time of release, then they don't get any of it. I don't want to have to buy a sixty dollar game twice to experience all of it, especially not when I'm barely willing to buy it once.

 

[Carlston]

It's not "holding back content" for you, it's giving a bonus for people who bought it new. It's incentive, and new games need it.

I kind see this whole thing as "If you pre-order before this game is reviewed and your told it sucks, we'll throw you a bone."I still notice, Microsoft does exclusives ALL the time, KOTOR, Fable, yet when PS3 and SOny have one, everyone screams bloody murder...

When did Fable come to the Ps3?

What are you talking about? Reading is a GOOD thing ya know.
I still notice, Microsoft does exclusives ALL the time, KOTOR, Fable, yet when PS3 and SOny have one, everyone screams bloody murder...

Now to break down the statement... I still notice,(I myself) Microsoft (Microsoft meaning xbox) does exclusives ALL the time, KOTOR, Fable,(these games as a example)

yet when PS3 and SOny have one(a exclusive game or content), everyone screams bloody murder...

Nothing in that comment even HINTED Fable was on PS3. So what were you trying to say?

 

[Carlston]

Wait this is a PS3 exclusive. Xbox 360 gets exclusives. Why are we complaining again?

As I pointed out, Microsoft does it all the time.

Sony does it, people cry to the heavens Sony is evil...

It's the same pointless rants everytime.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's not "holding back content" for you, it's giving a bonus for people who bought it new. It's incentive, and new games need it.

No, it's holding back content. Whether new games need it or not is debatable, but it's still denying content to paying customers.

So you're saying that iff they made this content specifically for something extra to put as an incentive for preorder, they're duty bounjd to release that for free to everyone because....what, exactly? What, are they supposed to include every single pice of work they put into this game, instead of what they think is worth full price? Dude, the game is a bargain at full price aqs it is. A small bit of extra content is a cherry on the top. And are you really saying if you don't get the Cherry, you should steal the cake?

Okay, let's say you go see a movie. This movie contains, say, 150 scenes. Google says this is the average, so we'll go with it.

However, when you see this movie, you only see 141 of these scenes. Every theater gets 140 of the same scenes, and one other. If you want to see the whole movie, you have to go to the theater ten times. Does that seem fair? These scenes aren't necessary, you don't need to see them.

And if you wait to buy the film on DVD, expecting all of them, you only get the 140, with no special scenes at all. But wait, they're selling them online, for five dollars each. Does that seem fair? After all, you still get the basic movie, this other stuff is extra. You don't need it, and if you really want it you can pay for it.

Thats a completely awful analogy. What this is actually like is paying for deleted scenes on the special edition rerelease of the movie on DVD. The difference? Whereas with the movie you need to buy everything again just for the extra content, in this game you don't need to buy LA Noire all over again.

Actually, it's a brilliant analogy for another reason.


If you stripped away everything not necessary to the plot from your typical movie/book (all the style, establishing shots/scenes, character development), they would average out to about 30 mins/100 pages. So even though this gameplay content isn?t integral to the story, it?s still part of the game and when 3 of 25 cases are sold separately because they aren?t essential, I start wondering what games are going to start looking like as this practice becomes accepted. And besides, how is it fair that someone who doesn?t live by the preferred retailer or own the preferred console will only get 22 of the 25 cases for the same $60 while someone who does live by the ?preferred? retailer and uses the ?preferred console? get?s 24 of the 25 cases.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Wait this is a PS3 exclusive. Xbox 360 gets exclusives. Why are we complaining again?

As I pointed out, Microsoft does it all the time.

Sony does it, people cry to the heavens Sony is evil...

It's the same pointless rants everytime.

No I'm saying they're both evil but I would be saying that even if they didn't do this exclusive crap. There are many reasons that they're both evil.

 

[Kingsnake661]

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

If enough people don't buy the game for this reason, the retail stores and the PS3 will lose it's leverage with game developers. If not, well, it'll continue. For now, it seems to be how thing are going to be for the forseeable future. As such, the only thing i can do is buy the copy of the game with perks i think are best, and if, IF the other stuff is release for DLC and seem worth it, i'll get it. If not, i won't. Its not imporetent enough for me to "take a stand" against the practice.

I'll buy what i think is worth buying and ignore the rest. At the moment i only really play a small number of "new" games a year anyways, no where near what i used to, so paying a little extra for stuff in a game i'm accually enjoying tends to save me money, cause it adds some life to a game i already own,for a few bucks, instead of me going out and looking for a new game at retail or even used prices. Mass Effect 2 springs to mind. I've played the hell out of that game. And with each DLC i get, i normally play it again a few times, to expeariment. I've gotten alot of play time out of that game, alot more then game i played in the past because every few months for about 5 bucks or so you add an expearince too it. And it's one of the last new games i've BOUGHT. (Think the last new one was Star Craft 2, a few weeks to a month or so back..)

I guess it's all in how you look at it. Hard core gamers that buy every hot new title are getting screw over here, but those of us that buy one or 2 a year and pay for DLC may not be, if it spaces out your purching of a new game.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Oh, and the "practice you hate" is giving loyal fans free content. How dare they give something nice to their fans. You keep using stupid assumptions, like you assume this content was supposed to go to everyone but was divided up, instead of created as an extra for fans, which was the actual case.

Actually.
It seems to me like they're taking away content from their loyal fans...
It's just that if you're also a loyal fan of gameslop and sony you get a little less content (and it's not free content, you will have to pay for it later, unless you buy both the ps3 version from both gamestop and walmart) withheld from your copy.

I don't see how someone who buys a version for the 360 at Target with the same amount of money is any less loyal.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's not "holding back content" for you, it's giving a bonus for people who bought it new. It's incentive, and new games need it.

No, it's holding back content. Whether new games need it or not is debatable, but it's still denying content to paying customers.

So you're saying that iff they made this content specifically for something extra to put as an incentive for preorder, they're duty bounjd to release that for free to everyone because....what, exactly? What, are they supposed to include every single pice of work they put into this game, instead of what they think is worth full price? Dude, the game is a bargain at full price aqs it is. A small bit of extra content is a cherry on the top. And are you really saying if you don't get the Cherry, you should steal the cake?

Okay, let's say you go see a movie. This movie contains, say, 150 scenes. Google says this is the average, so we'll go with it.

However, when you see this movie, you only see 141 of these scenes. Every theater gets 140 of the same scenes, and one other. If you want to see the whole movie, you have to go to the theater ten times. Does that seem fair? These scenes aren't necessary, you don't need to see them.

And if you wait to buy the film on DVD, expecting all of them, you only get the 140, with no special scenes at all. But wait, they're selling them online, for five dollars each. Does that seem fair? After all, you still get the basic movie, this other stuff is extra. You don't need it, and if you really want it you can pay for it.

Thats a completely awful analogy. What this is actually like is paying for deleted scenes on the special edition rerelease of the movie on DVD. The difference? Whereas with the movie you need to buy everything again just for the extra content, in this game you don't need to buy LA Noire all over again.

Actually, it's a brilliant analogy for another reason.


If you stripped away everything not necessary to the plot from your typical movie/book (all the style, establishing shots/scenes, character development), they would average out to about 30 mins/100 pages. So even though this gameplay content isn?t integral to the story, it?s still part of the game and when 3 of 25 cases are sold separately because they aren?t essential, I start wondering what games are going to start looking like as this practice becomes accepted. And besides, how is it fair that someone who doesn?t live by the preferred retailer or own the preferred console will only get 22 of the 25 cases for the same $60 while someone who does live by the ?preferred? retailer and uses the ?preferred console? get?s 24 of the 25 cases.

Well, since the fact is that the person who isn't using the "preferred" console as you put it should consider themselves lucky they are getting it at all considering this games history, that concept just shoots itself in the foot.

And no, your analogy is still retarded. What you're describing is taking a game like this but removing all the cutscenes and the character interactions. You know, doing the exact same thing that you said this was like doing for a movie, only this time actually doing something like it for the game. What this is actually like, like I just said, is like them removing deleted scenes and letting fans pay for them at a later date.

So they should consider themselves lucky?
I guess that they should also consider themselves lucky that MS was willing to repair each customer?s ringed 360 even though it was built with major flaws.
That?s the kind of thinking that makes these game related companies look for ways to gyp the consumer: most gamers are so damn accepting of it.

You obviously missed the point. If (as many of you are saying) it?s okay for publishers to peel away anything that?s not essential to the story/plot/goal of a $60 game, they can start selling us some really really short $60 games.

 

[Carlston]

Wait this is a PS3 exclusive. Xbox 360 gets exclusives. Why are we complaining again?

As I pointed out, Microsoft does it all the time.

Sony does it, people cry to the heavens Sony is evil...

It's the same pointless rants everytime.

No I'm saying they're both evil but I would be saying that even if they didn't do this exclusive crap. There are many reasons that they're both evil.

Agreed, I say if you pay for a full game withholding stuff as dlc is crap.
Make a expansion pack or something later but don't just make things in a game that vanish unless you pre-order or don't have the -right- console.