Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all the Sim City DLC free anyway? Also, it's all just advertisements.Steven Bogos said:
EA CEO: People Need DLC To Tide Them Over Between Releases
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
You know what's better than a game filled with DLC to tie you over to a new release?
A game without DLC that's good enough, and has enough content, to tie you over to a new release.
Amazing how a game franchise like Zelda, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Mario, Resident Evil, Mega Man, and so many others THRIVED for years without a hint of DLC... and many continue to do so (still playing Pokemon Y... no DLC... will last me MONTHS).
A game without DLC that's good enough, and has enough content, to tie you over to a new release.
Amazing how a game franchise like Zelda, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Mario, Resident Evil, Mega Man, and so many others THRIVED for years without a hint of DLC... and many continue to do so (still playing Pokemon Y... no DLC... will last me MONTHS).
I stand corrected ^.^ I've only ever heard of the crappy Progressive and Nissan pieces.MinionJoe said:
If a game is good, THAT will drive people to want to buy the next in the line, not some extra bit of (usually) half assed content. I'd love another good Parasite Eve, or Metriod, >.> I mean they pretty much owe us good games after their last showing. Hell I'd love a real Breath of Fire game to while we're wishing for things.
Of course. It all makes sense now. This is why we haven't seen a Pokemon game since Gold and Silver flopped due to lack of interest, or a Mario game since the SNES days. It really is too bad people completely forget things exist if they go a month without buying minor cosmetic additions to them.
Oh man, I loved SimTower. Been playing Tiny Tower and the like because it's free, but I'd love to get something a little more complicated... just so long as it isn't related to the current Sim City AT ALL.MinionJoe said:
Again Nintendo are master's of this. Very rarely if ever they have DLC. Hell they still just use in game unlocks and achievements and haven't adopted a trophy system. Kirby Air Ride kept me and my brother busy in just a single mode of the game for months on end. True DLC like expansion packs are good. They can add to the story or content in general. I understand and totally value the logic of his statement. The problem is that fewer and fewer devs make worthwhile expansion packs or DLC packs. Still people pay for them. I'm tempted to buy all the skin sets for Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 3 just because its something that appeal to me for a game I enjoy. It however doesn't add anything substantial to the game itself. If I wasn't so broke right now I'd already have them. Sadly though people speak with the dollar and there are too many of us who are blind to the larger game industry to do any real damage with our dollar. Not that we'd want to crash the industry as I saw someone here say we should do, but rather nudge in the direction they should be going.Terminate421 said:
The pretty much applies to everyone but Nintendo and I only say that because since the Wii they've been waving giant middle fingers to the rest of the devs and doing their own thing.
Hey, you know what turned me off from being a guy that enjoys buying a bunch of games in a year and playing them all for months or years until the next one comes out? DLC and yearly releases. I don't want to be burned out with no content every other month until the next sequel comes out in a year. I also don't like the fact companies sell games with stuff they could have included put off as DLC (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). It burns me and others out on the titles. You know who does DLC right IMO? Rockstar and Bethesda. It'll come out waaaaayy down the road and adds to the game. It isn't just a few gimmicky extras to "tide us over"
Well yeah since you greedy bastards are making games with less content at release or are even gutting content out to sell people later or even on the SAME FUCKING DAY as the game launches, of course gamers are running out of content. The whole idea of DLC was to get content expansions to the customer faster than waiting months for one big expansion. Guess fucking what? The advent of DLC didn't change a fucking thing for gamers except to further deflate their wallet and devalue the quality of the games they purchase. You assholes decided to use DLC as your personal piggybank and instead of creating meaningful content you instead nickle and dimed players for pointless bits of unneeded fluff, or worse for parts of the game that would have originally been included in the initial purchase. All the while creating the same or even less amount of actual new and worthwhile content in a few expansions.
It's funny EA, the more you change the more you stay the same.
It's funny EA, the more you change the more you stay the same.
The worst thing about this is that with this guy being fairly new to the public eye, I can't tell if he's lying to justify excessive DLC, or actually genuinely that stupid.
Either way, I'm really starting to think gaming company CEOs (in the US at least) are people who technically passed business school but couldn't get a job in other industries.
Either way, I'm really starting to think gaming company CEOs (in the US at least) are people who technically passed business school but couldn't get a job in other industries.
I see that Andrew Wilson is already lining himself up to be EA's next punching bag.
Thanks for telling us what we need, btw. I love it when people make decisions for me.
Thanks for telling us what we need, btw. I love it when people make decisions for me.
If the DLC is implemented right, then it is OK. By right I mean it is merely a supplement to the game that is not needed for full enjoyment of the original product. An example is with Borderlands 2. You can get a complete and thorough playthrough without any DLC, but the ones they released are fun and great for people that just can't get enough. However, the problem is that many developers make incomplete games, then use DLC to bilk people out of more money. I think it ends up costing players AND the developer, since the main game does not get as good of reviews and has lower sales. An example of an absolutely horrendous DLC scheme is Forza 5. While a very good game, it is clearly incomplete. I will most definitely not buy Forza 6. If you charge $60 for a full game, you should not have microtransactions. EA says that it keeps people interested in the game. I disagree. It makes me less interested and likely to never buy future games in that franchise. Another example: I would have paid $10 for Plants vs. Zombies 2 if it did not rely on microtransactions. They gave it away for free with microtransactions. I will not pay for one addition, so they have lost out on my revenue. Of course, this all assumes people behave rationally, and folks will gobble these little transactions up.
Wow. It is Riccitiello 2.0
I can already see a new Jimquisition chomping at the bit about this.
Seriously though this is just sad: it basically says that gamers are considered as some sort of brainless ADD bunch that cannot live unless they have a new shiny per week. For me the sight of a massive load of available/upcoming DLC just turns me off, that is the reason I don't play The Sims.
IMO DLC shoul exist if it is a) warranted and b) meaningful, i.e. only if the game has already proven to be a success and the extra content allows to expand on a well made experience, as opposed to something that was planned in advance on release to squeeze some extra cash on top of the base 60.
This goes double if the "extra" content has been clearly cut out from the base game just so that it could be sold separately (the "one game for the price of two" model).
I can already see a new Jimquisition chomping at the bit about this.
Seriously though this is just sad: it basically says that gamers are considered as some sort of brainless ADD bunch that cannot live unless they have a new shiny per week. For me the sight of a massive load of available/upcoming DLC just turns me off, that is the reason I don't play The Sims.
IMO DLC shoul exist if it is a) warranted and b) meaningful, i.e. only if the game has already proven to be a success and the extra content allows to expand on a well made experience, as opposed to something that was planned in advance on release to squeeze some extra cash on top of the base 60.
This goes double if the "extra" content has been clearly cut out from the base game just so that it could be sold separately (the "one game for the price of two" model).
I just get exhausted with DLC. I will frequently just wait for a games 'complete' release with all DLC before buying it in this day and age.
Also, I'm pretty sure most people just play other games. I'm sure EA doesn't want to hear that, but that's the case.
Also, I'm pretty sure most people just play other games. I'm sure EA doesn't want to hear that, but that's the case.
Also... has he heard of Diablo?JenSeven said:
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction came out in 2001. Diablo III came out in 2012. That's 11 years. It still sold well.