Really does make me wonder just who the hell the masked guy is.Sniper Team 4 said:
I mean I'm flipping happy that the REAL Madara is back from the dead, but Jesus christ, Tobi.
Could you make your ass anymore mysterious?
Poll: Your Views on DLC
- Thread starter Madara XIII
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I mean I'm flipping happy that the REAL Madara is back from the dead, but Jesus christ, Tobi.
Could you make your ass anymore mysterious?
It's one of those, DLC or On Disc Content
Question is not paying for a full game anymore. It should be paying for a full experience? Is what you have right here worth the money? If it is, great. If it's not, then pay enough money to get that full experience and move on.
Question is not paying for a full game anymore. It should be paying for a full experience? Is what you have right here worth the money? If it is, great. If it's not, then pay enough money to get that full experience and move on.
Our expectations of DLC have been raised by a very small selection of games, I'm looking at you Fallout, but the reality is that most DLC is rushed, poorly made, and tends to be a transparent grab for more money. Everyone knows about the Capcom fiasco. Why do you need DLC? back in the day we either had sequels or new games. I feel with DLC developers have gotten lazy and just make new content for a game that is already on the market. This would cut down on there costs but also on their creativity. I think this has stagnated the pool of unique games. Personally I would rather have a completely new game. I like digital distribution for indy developers but outside that I think it should remain denied to big publishers.
I have no problem with DLC, as long as it isn't abused to the absolute extreme (which in most cases it is).
Oops voted wrong, meant to say "no"
I'm mostly fine with DLC so long as they're not pulling dick moves with it like having it be nessesary to finish the game
or leaving out content and using it as day one DLC. I mean Jesus guys, you don't have to have your customers hate you.
I'm mostly fine with DLC so long as they're not pulling dick moves with it like having it be nessesary to finish the game
or leaving out content and using it as day one DLC. I mean Jesus guys, you don't have to have your customers hate you.
Mine is a more extreme form of NO. It's the NO that says "Just make a full and complete game and be done with it.". Really, if people want to add more to the game in question, MAKE SEQUELS.
I like the idea of DLC as expansion packs. Not required to beat the game, but optional content that adds more stuff to the game. I mean how many times have you beat the snot out of a great game so many times and wished there was more to it? Without making a sequel devs can use DLC to add new gameplay and story elements and even whole new characters and story arcs.
It really have to be worth it though.
Bad example: Oblivion horse armor DLC
Good example: Fallout: NV DLC (Meatier ones of course are best)
Edit:
I should also note that I don't mind cosmetic DLC like extra outfits and such. As long as it is reasonably priced I don't mind paying up to $1.50 for a cool costume or a couple bucks for a pack of costumes every once in awhile.
It really have to be worth it though.
Bad example: Oblivion horse armor DLC
Good example: Fallout: NV DLC (Meatier ones of course are best)
Edit:
I should also note that I don't mind cosmetic DLC like extra outfits and such. As long as it is reasonably priced I don't mind paying up to $1.50 for a cool costume or a couple bucks for a pack of costumes every once in awhile.
I think that forcing everything into being sequels winds up causing sequelitis. Sometimes it is good for a game to have sequels but other times devs abuse it. You wind up with stuff like the AC games where they make direct sequels that are pretty much the same game with a few new features tacked on that feel like they really could have just been a nice fat DLC pack for the original game.FalloutJack said:
I've personally never purchased a game that's DLC was required at all. Many I found out, much later, actually had DLC at all.
I find more often then not anytime DLC comes out people complain about it. No matter the cause.
I have no problem with it. I pretty much never purchase DLC not because I hate it, but because I don't really notice it exists. The biggest DLC I have ever purchased was the sequel to Dead Space extraction, or whatever the rail shooter was called, and I felt it was worth it.
Honestly I find most of the complaints surrounding DLC to be exaggerated or silly. I have a decent number of games, about 60-70 across three systems, a computer, and two handhelds and I only own DLC for games that came with it in a bundle(about 5) and the previously mentioned Dead Space DLC.
None of them feel like an incomplete experience. The idea of "all new content should be free patches" is silly as well. It costs a far bit more to make games now that games take more then five people and an amiga to build. The original Donkey Kong was ported to multiple systems by one dude with a computer and an old arcade machine for example. Compare that to the movie credits list most games have now. Even if a tenth of the original designers are involved only being paid minimum wage with no QA it's still going to be pricey.
Another thing I find interesting is when companies release content people deem "vital" to the game experience people complain, saying they should give it to them for free because its so important, regardless of how important it truly easy.
However when companies release cosmetic DLC, stuff like skins and outfits, people complain just as quickly saying it should just be handed over, even though simply not buying it will have no negative effect to your experience.
Just an observation for a guy who has never cared to bother with DLC for the grand sweeping majority of his life playing games because it never seemed important. Despite how much people keep screaming in my ear that my play experience is horrifically destroyed because of it.
I find more often then not anytime DLC comes out people complain about it. No matter the cause.
I have no problem with it. I pretty much never purchase DLC not because I hate it, but because I don't really notice it exists. The biggest DLC I have ever purchased was the sequel to Dead Space extraction, or whatever the rail shooter was called, and I felt it was worth it.
Honestly I find most of the complaints surrounding DLC to be exaggerated or silly. I have a decent number of games, about 60-70 across three systems, a computer, and two handhelds and I only own DLC for games that came with it in a bundle(about 5) and the previously mentioned Dead Space DLC.
None of them feel like an incomplete experience. The idea of "all new content should be free patches" is silly as well. It costs a far bit more to make games now that games take more then five people and an amiga to build. The original Donkey Kong was ported to multiple systems by one dude with a computer and an old arcade machine for example. Compare that to the movie credits list most games have now. Even if a tenth of the original designers are involved only being paid minimum wage with no QA it's still going to be pricey.
Another thing I find interesting is when companies release content people deem "vital" to the game experience people complain, saying they should give it to them for free because its so important, regardless of how important it truly easy.
However when companies release cosmetic DLC, stuff like skins and outfits, people complain just as quickly saying it should just be handed over, even though simply not buying it will have no negative effect to your experience.
Just an observation for a guy who has never cared to bother with DLC for the grand sweeping majority of his life playing games because it never seemed important. Despite how much people keep screaming in my ear that my play experience is horrifically destroyed because of it.
With the skyrocketing costs of development, I've begun to think that unnecessary boxed game sequels reduced to (feature length/content heavy) DLC, which is to say, new content in the same engine for like, half the price of a generic boxed sequel, might be a good idea.keideki said:
Only really works for crappy sequels though, so it's kind of a dead end.
As for me 'views', there are enough cases of the good and the bad that I'm not going to apply an 'across the board' viewpoint.
Good: Shivering Isles, Undead Nightmare, Point Lookout, WaW Nazi Zombies maps (to a lesser extent) - adds a ton of new stuff that doesn't cause a detriment to not being in the vanilla versions, it's there if you want it, and wasn't developed during the normal dev cycle; essentially, it's 'there if you want it', which is probably the most important point to make.
Bad: however, as someone mentioned previously, when we're getting into announcing the DLC before the release of the game, a la Battlefield 3, then we're on thorny territory. It's one thing to plan DLC during the development cycle - meaning planning to develop extra content - but if you're apparently that far into planning the DLC as that stage, then why not put it in the damn game anyway? it's not like a map pack is of the kind of scope of anything mentioned above.
It's not often someone says what I wanted to say word for word but here it is.krazykidd said:
I don't like DLC, i've never bought DLC and I will never buy DLC.
The only DLC I own is on a couple of GOTYE and Ultimate Edition games I got on Amazon really cheap.
Costumes, maps, unlockables, 2 hours worth of content and characters. Makes me giggle that some people throw money at this.
Take CoD ... they charge for maps ... fething maps. 5 minutes of editing and ActiVision manages to pry money from the amazingly gullible.
Skyrim is one of my recent favourites. I've got hundreds of hours clocked in and still making mods for it. There is no way in hell i'll pay £14 for a couple of hours of extra content when the modding community provides it for free.
When I pay for a game I pay once. I'll happily pay for expansions if they are the size of a full game and value for money but not a couple of hours extra.
And I also don't do digital.
You know, the funny thing is that lots of the games that still come on CDs just contain a mostly blank CD that starts the steam download process. It was that way for Red Faction Armageddon.krazykidd said:
Does this mean you also refuse to buy PSN and XBLA titles? What about minecraft? A lot of good indie and smaller titles NEVER get boxed releases.
Some DLC can be handled very well. Minervas Den (but no one bought it), Bloodmoon and Tribunal, and the Batman Beyond suit for Arkham Acity (ok maybe not so much that last one)where really cool. Things that tack on more of a story with new areas and items work well.
As someone who has an internet connection that requires third party programs to activate, I am pretty much offline console-wise. So I really hate DLCs and online-activated freebies.
I seriously have to rely on GOTY or Complete Editions of my favorite games to fully savor them. Thus I really hate DLCs. I don't like to quote Yahtzee on this bu he has a point. Anyone who thinks DLCs are a good idea needs their hand to be cut off and sewn back on for 1200 MS Points.
I seriously have to rely on GOTY or Complete Editions of my favorite games to fully savor them. Thus I really hate DLCs. I don't like to quote Yahtzee on this bu he has a point. Anyone who thinks DLCs are a good idea needs their hand to be cut off and sewn back on for 1200 MS Points.
What you say is true , and it's one of the reasons i refuse to game on a PC . Maybe i'm too old fashionned , but i rather have a physical copy of my games , and i like to be able to do what i want with them . Not that i look down on people that game on PC , but it's just a personal choice that i made , because i don't accept what they are doing .keideki said:
As for PSN and XBLA title . I don't buy those either . Like i said , i'm all about physical copies . If anything happens i know i have my disc somewhere , that i can play anywhere on anyones console . Yes i will miss some great games like minecraft and bastion . Games that if they got a box release i'd by in a heartbeat . I understand why they won't get one , and i won't hold it against the developpers , but no one gets my money unless i have a physically copy of the game .
I don't mind buying some decent new maps or a well-sized expansion, but cutting out entire story segments or missions is going WAY over the line. I also don't mind pre-order incentives, if its something like a little extra XP, some bonus game currency, or a costume or weapon. I do, however, hate it when they cut out entire missions as pre-order incentives, which is unfortunately becoming more and more common.
Where's the 'non-existent' option?
Seriously. We should have expansion packs, and nothing else. DLC should never have been invented in the first place.
Seriously. We should have expansion packs, and nothing else. DLC should never have been invented in the first place.