DLC, or why isn't my game finished in the first place?

The Robotman

New member
Nov 18, 2010
49
0
0
Downloadable content. Patches. Mmm. Doesn't that smell fresh, that clean burn that says, "Hey, we're big shot developers, so let's just ship this game out half constructed and FIX it all up LATER when the rush for the game is gone and the complaints mosey on in."

It's been happening for a long time, ever since the console wars between the PS3, 360, and the Wii (Barely competition but let's give SOME respect to the faithful fanboys,) started up. Games have been shoved out of the factories, put on the shelves, and raked the money in, the developers knowing FULL WELL that problems, glitches, bugs, and persistent errors within the game's code render it slow, broken, or even unplayable in certain aspects. What kind of crap is that? Modern Warfare 2 had tons of problems that we're later patched, slowly and rather inefficiently, and then, even after all the complaints, harassment, pissed off letters from fans?

BLACK OPS comes out, and the problems are even WORSE then MW2. The hit detection was even off for christsakes! (And still is, have you tried sniping in the game, let alone aiming? Yeah, bullets go fucking everywhere. Lag galore as well.) How do you get that wrong? The trend of allowing games to be put on shelves without being truly analyzed for in game code errors and glitches is becoming a fact of gaming culture rather then what it once was, a once in a blue moon kind of thing, a, "Sorry, we are deeply embarrassed by this mishap, let us fix this immediately," deal. Where once developers took pride in putting out a game they considered perfect is now being replaced with what I consider close minded greed, a want for money rather then a concern for what really matters, the PLAYER'S experience within their (The developers) created gaming realm.

I feel like we, the gamers, are being spit upon by how shitty some of the big name games that have come out are proving to be. Take the Fallout series. Wonderful games, 3 and New Vegas, but the amount of glitches, script errors, disappearing textures, characters, items, weapons, etc, etc, etc...Is ludicrous. I don't care about the argument that it's, "Such a big game world that it's tough to keep glitches from occuring."
Well OK, take a little more damn time to fix the game so I don't lay down 60 bucks for something that's going to crash on me!
Some things in the game even leave it unplayable at times, leaving the player to start over at a past save, or even worse, completely wipe one's game. Absolutely unacceptable, and there comes a time when developers aren't going to simply just, wave it off, patch it later, like we're going to spend our hard earned money either way, broken game or not.

No, we as gamers should demand the respect we deserve for funding such bullshit, and I for one am fed up with the poor polish recent games have been given, from what I've SEEN.

And I'm no blind man.

Your thoughts, spill 'em.
 

Just_A_Glitch

New member
Dec 10, 2009
1,603
0
0
Personally, I'm a fan of DLC, so long as it isn't day one DLC (unless its a special for a collectors edition, and then only if it doesn't actually effect the game't plot. Just extra side-missions or whatever). If the price is reasonable and looks fun enough, and the developers have more ideas for a game after release, then I don't see why not release more.

And patches are a double-edged sword. On one side, its great that we're able to fix glitches and errors in games that were missed by play-testers. It can really save some games from being only "meh" due to a number of faults. On the other side, it allows developers to ship shoddy quality games to reach a deadline, knowing full well that they can fix them later on down the road.
 

Julianking93

New member
May 16, 2009
14,715
0
0
Well, that's my stance pretty much on DLC and the like. I don't particularly like DLC unless it's just some add ons or things like that that don't really count towards story. Things like Map packs aren't really... that big a deal to me, but it just shows developers are trying to milk every cent they can out of games.

But it's worse when they hold out on both story DLC and patches. Why the fuck would they release a game that isn't finished? Just look at New Vegas. When that first came out, it was a buggy mess. I even refused to acknowledge that it came out in 2010 until they released a patch making it at least somewhat playable. Then you have DLC for quests that count towards story. Why must I pay even more to have a complete game?

This is especially ridiculous considering games already are too goddamn expensive. 60 USD is bullshit for a game and Australia's 100 dollars is just fucking bullshit.
 

tricky_tree

New member
Jan 10, 2010
329
0
0
My thoughts are that untill people actually take action, nothing will change. Bitching on an internet forum about glitches or horse armour is one thing, but why not show how angry you are? I don't mean write a letter or e-mail because it will never be read, only way to show the developers that gamers aren't happy is a boycott. Be it a certain developer, certain franchise, whatever, if you don't buy any new games for a year they will get the message. If you still need to have a different game to play every week then go out and look for a classic gem in a 2nd hand shop. Plenty of them out there.
But, it won't happen.
 

SturmDolch

This Title is Ironic
May 17, 2009
2,346
0
0
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about!

First, don't blame the developers for bad releases, blame the publishers. They're the ones that set the deadlines. They're the ones that make developers push their games out before they're finished, or do rush jobs on features. They're the ones that usually say, "No beta. That will ruin the hype!" Publishers want to push games out at certain release dates to gather the most sales, and they also have a budget. If you're making a gigantic game with a huge world, or a deep combat system, you won't have enough left over in the budget to test the game.

Be glad you're even getting patches. Some games that come out remain buggy messes and company lets them die.

Yeah, it does suck that games can get buggy releases. But it doesn't hurt to be a bit more informed before you start pointing fingers.

Second, I wouldn't complain about DLC too much if I was you. See, about 10-20 years ago, games cost *gasp* $49.99 - $59.99. Just like now! If they had increased with inflation, you would be paying around $59.99 - $69.99 or more. Check this out, or just do what I did and Google game price inflation. [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.ars] So that DLC? That's gaming companies' response to price inflation. And hey, you get a choice whether you want it or not. So don't complain.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
I dont really have access to DLC though Ive never really encounted it where you can tell that they are ripping you off,

its not always a bad thing, it definetly fixed fallout 3 for me (GOTY!!)
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Cause they know you'll pay, which means more MONEY!

Which all game BUSINESSES (cause thats what they are) are geared and formed to do. make money.

Its all rather very simple in the economic view of it.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
Right on! Why should I pay 60 dollars for something that's broken? You don't pay for a wrecked car do you? The fact is that consoles being connected to the internet is absolutely no excuse to rush the game out before testing and fixing. I shouldn't have to patch that shit in the first place, even if it is a minor inconvenience. You don't see that kind of shit with PS2 games, do you? That's because with the ps2, you can't patch up glitches like you can with a ps3 or 360, so the developers have to work extra hard to make sure the game is as glitch-free as possible. Now they don't give a shit if you buy a glitch ridden game, they'll just patch it up about a month down the line. Developers, STOP BEING SO DAMN LAZY! If you take the time to write a good story and craft a large open world, then take the damn time to make sure IT'S NOT FUCKING BROKEN!
 

KEM10

New member
Oct 22, 2008
725
0
0
I think that people harass the Wii too much. I can't remember the last game I played on there that had major glitches. For being such a "kiddy system" it sure knows how to treat the customers correctly.
But enough flame bait.

I think once people stop buying the games before they're complete and wait for the slew of patches to come out (and indecently a price drop too), you might see what you're hoping for. However, if you do preorder everything and get the newest installment as quickly as you can, you are sending the message to the game manufacturers that you want them to continue to jerk you around and you will gladly take it because you can't live without their scraps. I believe they have a term for that: voting with your wallet.
 

ParadiseOnceLost

New member
Jan 26, 2010
207
0
0
I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand it is lazy development to release a game with flaws and is horrible by the game makers to do because we are paying them for an unfinished product.


On the other hand games are getting much bigger and more complex which means that it is next to impossible for a developer to release a 100% bug free game. With games that have maps that span several cities, locations that are unlocked in variable order, numerous side quests, and multiple stats, weapons, abilities, weapons and attributes, It is nowhere near feasible for a developer to test out an action in any given situation. Rpgs and CoD style FPS multiplayer are very hard to test for because of all the unknowns involved.

I say we should try to be understanding toward the developer and give them the benefit of the doubt. Really all it takes is a little patience and you can get a good, working game if you show the dev team some support.
 

AnonymousTipster

New member
Jun 10, 2010
160
0
0
DLC and patches aren't the same thing.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to DLC so long as it is released well after the game has hit store shelves and so long as it is reasonably priced. Otherwise it kind of feels like extortion.

And the patches thing...yeah, it's a shame when clearly unfinished games are released and then gradually patched up over ensuing weeks. Thankfully, not many developers let that happen. At the same time, it's not 100% realistic to expect developers to catch every single tiny glitch before release.
 

Cpu46

Gloria ex machina
Sep 21, 2009
1,604
0
41
DLC expansions and add ons are great, often times it enhances or extends gameplay by a surprising amount. Day one DLC is fine too as long as it is like the cerberus network and free for those who purchased the game. However game changing DLC generally shouldn't be released until the game has been out for a bit.

Now, locking us out of data that is already on the disk and offering to unlock it day one for 10 dollars? Putting out a thousand individually packaged skins, trinkets, ect? No, that does not fly.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
The reason why DLC is separate is because the game has usually gone gold a month before launch. During that time, the team either prepares a patch, or works on the DLC. The main game is finished, and the DLC is on the disk, but there hasn't been enough time to implement it fully.

And I would much prefer working DLC than a rushed product.
 

DarthFennec

New member
May 27, 2010
1,154
0
0
When it's something with a high replay value like CoD, why shouldn't it be released before it's ready? Notch released Minecraft when it was still in ALPHA, and if he waited until everything was finished, that game _still_ wouldn't be out. I like DLC. I like seeing games in their early stages of development. I like watching them evolve, it's just another layer of interaction that I really enjoy. I agree the game should at least work, but that's more the fault of Activision and the devs than it is of DLC within itself. If you're so against it, why do you fund it? Don't buy the game if you don't like it ...
 

Imat

New member
Feb 21, 2009
519
0
0
Not a fan of DLC, unless it is like the Just Cause 2 DLC (Fun additions to the game which aren't in any way necessary for completion and enjoyment), but patches I'm okay with. As games become more modern (And, for the most part, more complicated), there are bound to be new bugs/glitches/errors which simply cannot be expected to be caught by play-testers. Patches are a way of fixing these problems in a systematical matter. Am I angry that I'm being forced into the role of a play-tester, a role I have to pay for? No, because the games I play will get to the point where the occasional bugs don't even bother me. If the developers care about the customers AT ALL, they patch the game as soon as they can fix the problem. I'm okay with this.

Also, the Wii (Noted above as "hardly competition") is the number 1 selling console worldwide, comprising nearly 50% of current-gen console sales. The DS is doing even better in the handheld market, making up nearly 70% of the handheld platform sales. This is the consoles themselves, no games included. So next time you generalize a situation based on your own experience, Google it first please.
 

The Robotman

New member
Nov 18, 2010
49
0
0
Exactly! And the fact that game developers and publishers ASSUME that most gamers have the internet is ridiculous as well. I know many gamers without connection to the internet, and it's crazy that one HAS to be connected to even get the DLC's they paid for. An example is the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion GOTY edition. Even after buying it, with the add-ons on the disk, you cannot get to them until you go online for some reason..
Madness.
 

SturmDolch

This Title is Ironic
May 17, 2009
2,346
0
0
The Robotman said:
Being a dick on a topic I created is ridiculous. I know exactly what I'm talking about so STFU.
Apparently not, if you read my post. Sorry if I came across as condescending, but misinformed opinions and customers' false sense of entitlement are both big pet peeves of mine.

The Robotman said:
Bugger off somewhere else with your shoddy attitude, obviously they're are other people here who wish to discuss this in a clearer and more positive manner.
Gladly! See you around.
 

Frankleton

New member
Jan 12, 2011
14
0
0
SturmDolch said:
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about!

First, don't blame the developers for bad releases, blame the publishers. They're the ones that set the deadlines. They're the ones that make developers push their games out before they're finished, or do rush jobs on features. They're the ones that usually say, "No beta. That will ruin the hype!" Publishers want to push games out at certain release dates to gather the most sales, and they also have a budget. If you're making a gigantic game with a huge world, or a deep combat system, you won't have enough left over in the budget to test the game.

Be glad you're even getting patches. Some games that come out remain buggy messes and company lets them die.

Yeah, it does suck that games can get buggy releases. But it doesn't hurt to be a bit more informed before you start pointing fingers.
Basically this

And in response to DLC, I'm all for it. Less than half the $60 you pay for a new retail game goes to the developer. A lot of that money is publishing, packaging, advertising, and royalty fees to consoles. DLC is a good way to support a developer and show that you still like a game and want more like it. Also, I prefer DLC on big RPGs like Fallout or Dragon Age, because there aren't many games like it and anything that allows me to have more of an amazing game is okay in my book.

If you want to do something about, people who are mad about buggy games at launch need to stop purchasing them as soon as they launch. CoD BlOps selling 7 million copies tells Activision that its okay to keep churning out a new CoD every year because it will make an embarrasing amount of money. Wait for the patches and make sure the game is worth it before you dive in, just like you should wait to hear whether a new album is actually good or if the new Michael Bay movie is the most atrocious piece of cinema-ass ever, before you run out to get/see it the day it releases.
 

The Robotman

New member
Nov 18, 2010
49
0
0
Minecraft isn't on the same level of development as something such as Black Ops. The price differences, style of developing, and time constraints completely plateau it several levels LOWER then any MW game.

And it's not like I PLAN on buying a game that's incomplete, funding something I'd rather not have bought until...BAM, I have it already. You have fun watching games develop, I'll be busy wondering why the damn thing isn't complete in the first place.
 

Nova Helix

New member
Mar 17, 2010
212
0
0
If a DLC is on the disc it pisses me off to no end. I bought the disc and now they expect me to buy a key to use the whole disc.