DLC abuse
- Thread starter Theo Rob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find the problem with DLC is that developers and publishers are not treating it as a addition to the core game, but as a kind of "get rich quick" scheme. Take out minor content and release it as bonus and/or make small DLC packs that maybe add a new map or weapon, and than release it for $10-15. I think the real issue though with DLC is not the actual content but the price, I dont think people would care for if a DLC was just five map pack for COD if it didnt cost $15 to buy each time.
I fully concur with your statement about it all being a double edges sword and I'm actually only replying in order to say that I can't take my eyes off your avatar. Please change it, as it is possibly life-ruining on a global scale.MercurySteam said:
I look at DLC this way. When a publisher gives a developer money to make a game, my money pays for all the content that comes out of that investment. Content that is developed during that time period and out of the publishers investment should be included in the game. Thats what our money buys.
Content developed after release is free game to charge extra for because it doesnt come from the initial investment made by the publisher and thus isnt part of what we pay for when we buy a full game.
Now I dont know what the story is behind the Deus Ex DLC that was mentioned but if it was developed before release then it should be part of the game from the get go. If this was an after thought where a developer said "Hey lets make a level out of that time Adam was out of contact" then I think thats ok to charge for.
Sometimes traveling gets cut because the developers see it as nothing but a fade to black moment, skipping a long wait to get back to the gameplay. However later on they might get a cool idea like adding in a stealth section or even side quests. If that happens then Im fine with it being DLC
Right now I do feel like some companies abuse DLC. Especially when its day one DLC
Also to add some humor you should check out DLC quest. Its a nice satire with where DLC is going
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_36SSx0inBE
Content developed after release is free game to charge extra for because it doesnt come from the initial investment made by the publisher and thus isnt part of what we pay for when we buy a full game.
Now I dont know what the story is behind the Deus Ex DLC that was mentioned but if it was developed before release then it should be part of the game from the get go. If this was an after thought where a developer said "Hey lets make a level out of that time Adam was out of contact" then I think thats ok to charge for.
Sometimes traveling gets cut because the developers see it as nothing but a fade to black moment, skipping a long wait to get back to the gameplay. However later on they might get a cool idea like adding in a stealth section or even side quests. If that happens then Im fine with it being DLC
Right now I do feel like some companies abuse DLC. Especially when its day one DLC
Also to add some humor you should check out DLC quest. Its a nice satire with where DLC is going
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_36SSx0inBE
It's not satire when it beats you over the head with the message. This game is straight up farce.Windcaler said:
Sorry dude, no dice. I know that some people have their issues with Jessica Chobot after ME3 but as far as I know, she was an excellent reporter before that. I couldn't really find anything better to use as my avatar this month so you're just gonna have to bear with me.Skoldpadda said:
I'm extremely surprised you haven't been quoted to death for this post. Get ready for a shitstorm.Draech said:
But I agree. With the resources available to the average person today, there is absolutely no excuse for not knowing exactly what you're buying.
And I don't know where people get the idea that things are being intentionally left out of games for the purpose of making it DLC. Gaming is bigger than it's ever been, and there has never been more information about how the industry works readily available to those outside the development process. There are many, many reasons something on a disk is half-finished, and therefore unavailable, and not once have I seen a DLC that is required to get the full experience of the game.
As much as I hate to use it, the "entitlement" cliche is pretty spot on. People think that they're entitled to every little bit of extra content for free. They don't seem to understand that what they pay for is what the publisher/developer is offering. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn't matter if the model is on the disk, and the textures, animations, sounds, weapons, whatever, come later at a price. You're not paying for those things because they're not currently for sale.
It's high time people start taking a look at exactly what they're purchasing.
[small]Made an edit. I forgot to finish a thought :/[/small]
I'll show you: http://store.steampowered.com/app/24010nikki191 said:
$1824.05 worth of DLC and the game isn't even free. That's what these Free to Play micro transaction games are trying to accomplish. If you buy even 10% of the total DLC for that Train Game, you've spent as much as 3 AAA games.
I'm all for DLC and companies exploring and figuring out the best way to use it to eventually reach a point where we can buy and play games modularity. I'm against people who respond to this process by whining like a two year old who is teething. It's going to suck, most learning processes do. Killing something new because its not perfect yet is an idiotic idea that is the true enemy of gaming (and probably most other industries).
My problem with DLC is not the price, it's the inconvenience. I don't mind having the option to pay a bit more for cheese on my burger, but if the cheese has to be served separately, cold and wrapped by itself, than it's not worth bothering with at any price and the burger as a whole is less for it.
All things considered, I'd say the Fallout series has consistently had really great DLCs. They were never just content that was "unlocked" by buying the code you needed, they were their own self contained stories that lasted a very respectable amount of time. They always added new weapons, perks, and quest lines into an already amazing world. I'd say a lot of developers could take a few notes from The Pitt, Broken Steel, Old World Blues, or Lonesome Road.
great thing about consumers trying to avoid things they disapprove of, chances are you're too late to prevent your purchase if the thing you disapprove of is buried far enough into the game that you can't turn back by that point, and then frontload preorder content to lure you in far enough to commit to it
this is planned more and more these days
there's pretty much no way to avoid it unless you're psychic, or enough people play the game to the point where it becomes public knowledge, which tends to also be the point where companies sell enough copies to succeed
this is planned more and more these days
there's pretty much no way to avoid it unless you're psychic, or enough people play the game to the point where it becomes public knowledge, which tends to also be the point where companies sell enough copies to succeed
You dislike the very idea of content created months after a game has been released? You would rather the game developers not bother rather than have them create the content and provide you with the option purchasing it?isometry said:
I like it myself. Any content that can enrich my gaming experience in an aging game is great in my book. If that content gives a bunch of developers sitting around twiddling their thumbs after the game has been released a chance develop more content for the game and earn a buck or two while doing it, then great.
Day one DLC is a lie in it's very nature and something we need to squash under our heels.
Yes because developers starting content after the base game is done and in final testing phase and working on it for the 5 or so weeks between when the the game is done and sent off for certification, and when it finally comes out in stores is a "lie"?TorqueConverter said:
You would rather have them twiddling their thumbs for over a month waiting for the game to before they start making new content when they could be making new content they could possibly get out for us day 1 or within a week after the game comes out?
No, I don't feel that way about all post-release content. I like full-sized proper expansions, which used to be more common (on PC) before the DLC era. The difference is that expansions make an old game feel new, it's not just tacked on "more", it's another retouching pass over everything to make it "better", in addition to adding "more."TorqueConverter said:
The best of DLCs do some of these things: raise the level cap, add new skills and items throughout the game, polish things like AI and bug fixing to a high degree. But the bar is set much lower for DLC in general, so tacked on missions are a lot more common than the kind of fundamental game improvements that I miss from full expansions.
Yeah, it is. What's a "base game"? Are we going to allow the game devs and pubs such a thing? A base game. What's "final testing phase"? Where are the other testing phases and why can't DLC be developed during those times too? Certification time? It sounds plausible on the surface, but its' only a few weeks long. How do we know content was indeed created in the certification time? Take their word for it?SajuukKhar said:
How many arbitrary excuses will we let them conjure up get away with until we draw the line in the sand? Wait until the worst case scenario becomes a reality and give a shit then?