Dark Souls II Rejects DLC, Delivers "A Full Game"

[major_chaos]

I'm probably in an extreme minority (at least on this site) but this gets no respect from me, in fact it makes my a bit less exited for the game. Still gonna buy it mind you, but now I'm thinking it goes on the "wait for a good sale" list instead of the "OMGdayonepurchase" list. If I enjoy a game I want more of it and DLC does that. Granted DLC can be done wrong but From already proved themselves with the amazing DLC for the original Dark Souls.

 

[james.sponge]

yay for them I guess. Now, can we get a proper PC port this time around? You can even pay the guy who fixed your resolution problem last time, if you are incapable of fixing it yourself.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This is great news. I avoid games with a lot of DLC like a plague. And I'd wager that a lot of gamers are starting to do the same thing. It turned into a really shitty business practice over the last few years. So now I just wait for the full version on Steam a year later. It doesn't matter to me. I'm getting the full experience for less money.

 

[Yopaz]

Wasn't expecting this news, but I'm glad that it won't have any dlc and cut content from the game.

On a related note, does someone know if the PC version will be delayed or it's coming out in the same time as the console ones ?

Thanks.

It will be a little delayed, but as far as I am able to make out it will be released in March so if things go according to plan it will be about 2 weeks later than its console brethren. You probably shouldn't take my word for it though...

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Hm...a refreshing attitude to be certain, but I like DLC when it's done well. It's nice to have a reason to go back a play the game again a few months later when something new comes out. Diablo II, Dragon Age II (yes, I loved those expansions), ME2 Lair of the Shadow Broker, Skyrim (but oh man, did it take forever for us PS3 players to get it)...I can name a few more games that were vastly improved with DLC.
Dark Souls is such an open world game that I think it could really benefit from DLC at a later date. Not like right after launch, but maybe five or six months down the road.
I'll keep an eye on this one and hopefully do better at it than I did in Dark Souls.

 

[thetoddo]

No DLC is both good and bad. I like that they're not holding anything back from the launch version of the game, that's an example that should be emulated. But keeping the door closed on releasing an expansion a good amount of time down the road is disappointing.

I wonder what keeps companies from just producing a game and then rather than releasing "sequels" periodically releasing expansions that provide the same amount of content as a sequel at a slightly lower price point than a true sequel would cost? It's got to be cheaper to produce DLC for a finished game since most of your assets and infrastructure already exist and since it's not a "sequel" the customers don't have the expectation that you'll have all new textures/mechanics for each expansion and if you DO provide that with the xpac customers would probably view it more favorably. Just seems like it'd be smarter/cheaper for the developers to go this way than releasing a yearly sequel with all of the associated new development costs.

*ahem* So anyway, I'm glad I'll get to play the full game they envisioned on day one.

 

[malestrithe]

I maybe in the minority here, but I would not mind DLC packs for the game. Artorias of the Abyss for the Previous Dark Souls was a pleasant surprise and it added about 6 hours to my game time.

Also, I would not mind weapon packs. I do not mean unique things that can't be obtained anyway else, but sets of armor that already exist in the game. Nothing too game breaking. I would not want to see the Equivalent of Paladin Leeroy's Armor Set available at the beginning, but I can easily see paying 2.00 for a set of Balder Armor, Shadow Garb, or similar for Sorcerers, Wizards, and Barbarians. I can say that because this is Dark Souls. It's not like having slightly better than starting armor is going to make the game any easier.

I would not want to see them pay for extra souls. That would be an unfair advantage in early game.

 

[JagermanXcell]

I have found the diamond underneath the pile of crap.
And its name is From!

If this game is jam packed with content, I still wouldn't mind something similar to Dark Souls 1's Artorias of the Abyss DLC and how much that added on to the experience.
DLC or not, fire away A FULL GAME guys! A. FULL. GAME! HOW OFTEN CAN YOU SAY THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE?!
March is coming closer and i'm already hyped to go beyond death.

 

[weirdee]

Yeah, I can't really imagine paying additional money to have the game kill me more, but hey.

 

[klaynexas3]

Well, the thing about Free-to-play games is, well, you need the game to be free first. Now, that seems to be what trips up most developers, as it is a little bit of a jump to think free-to-play games would be games that have the base be free, I know that is a confusing thing to say, but that's how it is supposed to be.

Now, I think it's silly for them to say they aren't planning on doing any DLC. I think DLC as an idea is a perfectly good thing to have. Now, if they had simply said "we aren't currently making the DLC while we make the game also, so the vanilla game is perfectly damn fine on its own," I'd like that, because it means chances for later updates to the game without it affecting how good the base game is.