D L C

[gavinmcinns]

graphical designers and artists then also have nothing to do, which is why many cosmetic DLC packs and microtransactions are prominent even as soon as the release date of a game.

This is a line of bullshit that the industry has fed you. Attempting to justify rushed crap's existence by saying that "Oh gee, these developers we slave drove 100 hours a week for the past 3 months had nothing to do so we made this worthless shit" is an exceedingly pathetic weak excuse. Give them a break, and then start on a year long project minimum for expansions, 3 year minimum for new ip/sequel.

Sure poor and overpriced DLC is still very prominent, and Im sure that many people will points towards Bethesda and Oblivion's Horse Armour DLC pack, but very good pieces of DLC are still out there such as Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare DLC as well as Oblivion's Shivering Isles expansion.

Day One DLC is something that is rather new in the gaming industry, but it is really only ever used as a pre-order incentive or as an incentive to buy a game new (much like EA's project $10, or online passes),
TL;DR - I think that DLC and expansion packs are good and benefit both the developer and the customer.

DAy1 is not new, bioware has been doing it ever since ea

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

Really, it's all about what they're trying to sell.
If they're selling you extra skins, weapons, cheat codes (God forbid), vehicles, or anything else that should be an unlockable for completing the game, then it's just scummy to me. That's stuff we used to get for beating the game, why should we pay for that now?

I don't like DLC in general myself. I do like the idea of a game being supported post-release, but not by putting out as little content as possible at more expensive prices. It's also kind of ridiculous at this point. $60 season passes? Seriously? For a game you're already paying $60 for? I'll pass, thanks.

While it is unfortunate that there are companies that often charge for all the little things that really shouldn't have a price tag on them, I find it unfair to group all DLC in with that bunch (unless of course that wasn't your intention, then disregard the previous statement). There is plenty of DLC that is worth its listed price, and for those I am most certainly happy to pay for.

And $60 season passes? The only season passes I've seen go for $20, and considering the content included in those, I have not regretted buying the ones that I have.

I'm curious what you consider to be good DLC.

There's the Borderlands Season Pass DLC, Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare DLC, both Tales From Liberty City DLC, Far Cry 3's Blood Dragon, and hell, even the Black Ops 2 map packs are good if only for the Zombies. Can't forgettheBorderlands 2 Season Pass DLC. There's also the Skyrim DLC (Hearthfire, Dawnguard, Dragonborn) along with Fallout 3 and New Vegas' DLC.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

graphical designers and artists then also have nothing to do, which is why many cosmetic DLC packs and microtransactions are prominent even as soon as the release date of a game.

This is a line of bullshit that the industry has fed you. Attempting to justify rushed crap's existence by saying that "Oh gee, these developers we slave drove 100 hours a week for the past 3 months had nothing to do so we made this worthless shit" is an exceedingly pathetic weak excuse. Give them a break, and then start on a year long project minimum for expansions, 3 year minimum for new ip/sequel.

April 29, 2008 GTA IV release date
Sept. 17, 2013 GTA V release date

Pretty sure that's 5 years between Sequels.... So R* fits your timeframe. And I'd like to know how you know the industry is lying to us about how when a game goes gold it happens months before the game is released and that version of the game isn't necessarily the best version but the most stable, and they work on patching the issues that crop up after gold. Everything is a conspiracy to get you to pay more right? Its not a conspiracy... THATS how the free market works. You make a product people will pay for, then you make something else to go along with that product to get more money. Bills gotta be paid, and there's no one saying you have to buy any of the extra stuff for said product. DLC and Expansions, no requirement to have either to enjoy the game.

 

[gavinmcinns]

graphical designers and artists then also have nothing to do, which is why many cosmetic DLC packs and microtransactions are prominent even as soon as the release date of a game.

This is a line of bullshit that the industry has fed you. Attempting to justify rushed crap's existence by saying that "Oh gee, these developers we slave drove 100 hours a week for the past 3 months had nothing to do so we made this worthless shit" is an exceedingly pathetic weak excuse. Give them a break, and then start on a year long project minimum for expansions, 3 year minimum for new ip/sequel.

April 29, 2008 GTA IV release date
Sept. 17, 2013 GTA V release date

Pretty sure that's 5 years between Sequels.... So R* fits your timeframe. And I'd like to know how you know the industry is lying to us about how when a game goes gold it happens months before the game is released and that version of the game isn't necessarily the best version but the most stable, and they work on patching the issues that crop up after gold. Everything is a conspiracy to get you to pay more right? Its not a conspiracy... THATS how the free market works. You make a product people will pay for, then you make something else to go along with that product to get more money. Bills gotta be paid, and there's no one saying you have to buy any of the extra stuff for said product. DLC and Expansions, no requirement to have either to enjoy the game.

Which is why Rockstar is thriving, and the rest of the industry (for the triple a most part) is falling apart. If you have the same kind of influence that a Rockstar does, then you have a responsibility to adhere to certain objectives: lifting the industry, not taking advantage of the unwashed masses. Rockstar accomplishes this superbly, as do Atlus for the most part. Any idiot with a market cap of 40 billion dollars can knock out an FPS and make a gajillion dollars, but making a game that people will go back and play 10 years later (deus ex, system shock), consistently, that company is a pearl among pearls. Unfortunately the vast majority of those companies are dead but tbh I'm not too worried, life is all boom and bust and sooner or later the forces of evil will abate and we will once again occupy a golden age of creativity and pure execution.

 

[Qvar]

To be short, my point of view:

Rather big DLC, created for the sake of adding interesting/demanded content to the game (such as Skyrim ones) = Good

Purely cosmetic DLC's, or that add many little things for the sake of it (such as The Sims) = Ok

Day 1 DLC with content that SHOULD have been in the game, and there's no damn reason for it to not be (I'm loooking at you, spartans of Rome Total War II) = Terrible. Awful. I won't buy ever again from such a company.