DLC, Again
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
you use the term "game" in a very broad sense.The_root_of_all_evil said:
all of the zynga stuff should be named "skinners boxvile"
Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't see what the big deal is. Don't want it? Don't buy it!
The fact that Shamus is spending this much time and energy on this topic boggles my mind. It's kind of like having an 11-part documentary series presenting the fact that The Sky is Blue. WTF?
The fact that Shamus is spending this much time and energy on this topic boggles my mind. It's kind of like having an 11-part documentary series presenting the fact that The Sky is Blue. WTF?
Basically, Metal Brother, check my initial post. The critical mass of people buying this stuff, in order to get companies to continue and expand this behavior, is very low. Thus, it only takes a relative few in order to screw the rest of us that don't want an unfinished game speckled with moneygrabs as our only option.
One key issue with the mod argument is that fewer and fewer games ship with modding tools, even if they're based on the Unreal Engine and would only need one switch flipped to enable modding. This is seen as a result of companies wanting to prevent competition when it comes to DLC, it's much easier to charge 15$ for three and a half maps if there are no fan sites offering dozens of maps for free.
Still a stupid idea to charge more for a cosmetic trinket than a game costs on Apple's app store.
Still a stupid idea to charge more for a cosmetic trinket than a game costs on Apple's app store.
Would it have been better if they had released the last ME2 DLC as Mass Effect 3, and released ME3 as Mass Effect 4 then? That way it wouldn't be a DLC. They could also have called it an expansion if they would have made you feel better.AndyFromMonday said:
See my point?
Complaining that you need to buy the ME2 DLC to make sense of what is going on in ME3 is like complaining that you can't make out the entire Star Wars universe from the 6 movies made, and have to go buy all the books/games/comics to make sense of it all. It's CONTENT, and content typically costs money. The last Mass Effect 2 DLC isn't just some piece of armor, it's actual gameplay content that extends the length of the game, and therefore gives you more gameplay and entertainment.
If it was Day 1 DLC then i could understand your complaint of feeling cheated out of content, but given that it wasn't and it was created later to give you MORE content after the release of the game i sadly cannot symphatize.
You're right to an extent, but the problem with this particular backlash is that Valve is possibly the one major developer that still sticks to the old-school philosophy you're describing. Bugfixes, tons of free content updates, whole new campaigns, extra games, all of this is still free, and they do it because they recognise that their customers are gamers, not mindless automatons. They might have included a cash shop for tacky merchandise, but the real Portal 2 DLC is going to be free. Valve still do exactly what it is you're being so nostalgic about. The only thing they'v ever charged separately for is merchandise, albeit in-game merchandise - and even then, the TF2 shop system came about because of the trading system, which came about because a lot of people said "giving out new items for hitting achievements is cool and all, but I don't want to do all of those, so give me a way to trade stuff with my friends instead." I personally choose to pretend the Robot Enrichment button does not exist, and as such my copy of Portal 2 does not come with any merchandising. This situation does not bother me.RanceJustice said:
The allegation that Kotick wants cutscenes to be sold separately implies that they wouldn't be in the actual game unless bought. This is not at all what he said. He simply wants to sell them as a contiguous movie to enthusiasts in addition to having them in the game.
No, it's more like saying, Hey, we're making a sequel to ammovie you really like, but many of the eventd of the film will revolve around the events of a short film that we made that you can only see if you go out and buy the special edition DVD.Athinira said:
Indeed, but then what are hats apart from Skinner's Fashion Accessory?restoshammyman said:
And crates are almost purely Skinner's Box...in fact, I can't really think of a way to differentiate them.
I'm not criticising Valve for going in a different direction; if anything I'm criticising the consumer for jumping on this bandwagon so that it'd be mad of Valve NOT to carry on with such a profitable enterprise.
Translation: People enjoy different things than i do, and are willing to pay for them, therefore they are stupid.ionveau said:
I'm with you Shamus. I've nothing against this kind of DLC. It doesn't affect the finished product itself, it's only a little flavour item that most players will hardly notice. If you like it, buy it. The portal gun works the same, the game plays the same. You don't even see your own hat (unless you make a portal line and stare at yourself span over infinity.) It's just an item to show off to other people. So screw it. Let them charge whatever they like for that kind of stuff. I haven't heard such a bad response to the TF2 hats, and what's the difference? Just that they launched on the first day? OH, and for the people saying there's content on their computer that they have to pay AGAIN for, here's a thought: how about you go and pay for every bit of spy-ware, cookies, viruses, trojans and so on you have on your computer. You haven't payed for them, but they are there. It's only fair, right?
I think you misunderstand the point. The fact we didn't know about the shop actually HELPS the point.Dexter111 said:
Every preview, review, tidbit, tech demo, whatever we heard about the game was about the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.
Every pre order, first day buy, rental, whatever was done based on the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.
Every penny spent on the game by the consumers was done in order to get the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.
Every consumer GOT the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.
That's as much truth in advertisement as you will ever get.
The pizza analogy is brilliant. There's so much you can do with that (like saying the Shale DLC in DA:O is like writing an add for additional toppings in sauce on the pizza you already paid for). I may steal, I mean borrow, that for later.
SNOW LEOPARD!AngryMongoose said:
And yeah, I'm pretty certain I've heard that term been used for a couple years now, at least.
I don't really have a big problem with DLC, as long as they don't do what Kotick is talking about (create a full game, chop it up into pieces, give them only parts of the game with the purchase, sell the rest).
If they complete everything they reasonably want for the game on time and have had the resources to add a few extra, non-essential things on? I'm all for it. Go ahead, developers.
This is also a fine point. If you don't know about the DLC in the first place, why do you think it should be included in the cost? The quick answer is, it shouldn't. If they gave you EVERYTHING they advertised and it does work out to be a full game, then they've done it right.The Deadpool said: