Whats with the one console DLC?

[Da_Schwartz]

Typical Microsoft. As for ps3 dlc being free.. some is some isn't. More so dlc for ps3 exclusive titles seem to be free of charge. But it case by case.

 

[Dominar]

Eh, I jsut don't know it seem likes a load of bullocks to allow this to happen. What happened to putting the customer first and makeing sure they were happy? Sure I know better then anyone that money is the only thing anyone worries about anymore and by making the DLC for certainy games strictly and XBOX thing they are boosting sales but at teh expense of roayle ticking their customers off.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

It's business.

They want to make money.

Rockstar agreed because they wanted to make money too. If R* thought they could make over $50 mil extra on PS3 by having it cross platform they wouldt have signed the deal w/ MS.

If you hate MS for it, you have to hate Rockstar for agreeing to it too. It's a 2 way street.

 

[Altorin]

This is big business, not a charity action.

Thats the problem. When did games become more about money then about creating something fun and original?

About the time that Nolan Bushnell was kicked out of the company that he created, Atari

 

[A Raging Emo]

Microsoft, I believe, are making the most money from consoles, games and DLC now.

I think they a mighty fine job at crushing their competetors.

 

[captaincheese]

I prefer console-exclusive DLC to console-exclusive games, seems the PS3 gets the short end of the stick a fair bit though

 

[FallenRainbows]

Its because the dev system on the PS3 hates developers. Oh and MS has boatloads of money.

 

[MasterStratus]

I don't see the problem here. Isn't it just the same as having a console-exclusive game? And another thing, it's not just Microsoft. The PS3 is getting Batman Arkham Asylum DLC exclusively. And I'm not complaining.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

actually from what i hear PS3 DLC is free (citation needed) and developers what/need the money

It's not free, well, it's free in that you don't have to pay to access the store, but most of the DLC's still cost a few bucks.

Indeed, microsoft is paying off developers to make exclusive DLC. It's not an anti-sony thing, its a "microsoft has buttloads of money and a larger install base" thing. It's is obnoxious though. I'd love to see some of that DLC for fallout 3 make its way to the ps3 but it won't.

I would say it's a smart move by microsoft, but really I just think it's kind of slimy. Surely microsoft knows that people aren't going to buy an xbox solely for DLC. If anything, I wouldn't buy an xbox out of principle in the matter. Fortunately the world of business has no room for ethics or principles.

Unfortunately true, While cross console games are a good factor in deciding what console to get it's a pain in the ass that one can push the other to the side as inferior because it threw sacks of money at the publishers to make exclusive DLC.

It's a pain but I'm not likely to buy Fallout 3 or GTAIV again just to play a few side missions. (happily have all 3 consoles here) Those I bought for the PS3, and to spend another 40 quid and THEN the cost of the download seems daft.

Like was said earlier no one will pick a console for it's DLC, if you wanna play gears or fable 2, get an XBOX. Players who want God of war 3 or InFamous will go for the PS3.

 

[Budthead]

There is no 'Real' need to ***** about this. Most people create a business to gain money. Why take the slow, arduous road when you could take the fast, successful road? Seriously. Microsoft are billing out money for US (The gamers) as WELL as themselves. We get a better gaming experience, and the developers have a smaller, precise focus. You get a better game. If they can just focus on one game. One platform. They can easily splurge out a number of big name titles, as well as strings of DLC. >_> Now yes, I do realize I am rambling here. But god damn, can't fanboy's stop biting peoples heads off? I'm a Xbox360 owner, and I was sad that I didn't get LittleBigPlanet, but hey! If WE ain't gonna give them OUR exclusive titles, why should they give us theirs? And like wise and so-on and so forth.

 

[Shycte]

They're going with the idea that fans of the game will pung out money for a new console because they have 3 hours of extra playtime.

I'd say that major DLC packs should be added to the game before it's release. I don't want to buy games that build of future potential.

 

[Soulreaverm]

Microsoft pays developers to release DLC, and Sony charges developers for releasing DLC.
Sony doesn't make it easy for people to like them. I'm glad I'm a PC gamer.

 

[Remleiz]

everyone makes a big point about say, fallout 3 for the xbox having exclusive DLC, but yet no one seems to mention Bishock on the PS3 having exclusive DLC, why is this?

 

[Elemorea]

you're right, console specific games are fine. But in the cases of GTA 4 and Fallout 3 games that are on both x box and Ps3, I was not aware that the DLC would only be available for the 360. Had I have known this I probably would have bought a 360 rather than a ps3.

 

[irishdelinquent]

People with PS3s actually use them to play games?

They do?

But seriously, it is because Microsoft has a degree of business tactics that some would call underhanded; I call them smart. Microsoft's console looks more appealing since they have more/better DLC, making it yet more tempting to buy instead of the competition.