Erradicate DLC ?

[JJMUG]

The Mass Effect situation pisses me off. DLC is fine. But when you release DLC that significantly affects the plot of a trilogy then I call foul. I paid 64$ for ME2, and I damn well expect a self-contained story. If you have to have DLC that bridges 2 to 3 then you failed as writers. How about spending more time developing a game? Oh no, we have nonsensical deadlines to meet.

Kinda like how Starcraft: Brood War significantly expanded on the plot of Starcraft, yet wasn't included in the original Starcraft game?

I seriously don't get this. If you include everything in a giant package, charge gamers the same price they paid for the game minus 10 bucks and call it an expansion pack, no one whines. But if you chop that content up into little chunks and sell it for 10 bucks, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.

ME was announced as a trilogy. Despite being able to plan around that, BW still has to use DLC to fill in gaps in the main story. That is a failure on their part.

Nope. If you don't buy the DLC then you miss side stories on the overarching storyline. Lair of the Shadow Broker, Arrival are all completely optional. As in You don't have to do it at all, in fact if you played Lair of the Shadow Broker you would know its all about Liara and her thing she mentions when you meet her. So your idea of lazy writing becomes the fleshing out of a story of a former compatriot, on of which you had very little interaction with in Mass Effect 2 and is OPTIONAL. You can keep making things up and pretending your right.

 

[Smooth Operator]

DLC would be great if there wasn't such blatant money making bullshit, even when it does have some decent content you haveto wonder if they didn't just cut off parts of the game so they can sell it to you for extra cash... and when it comes to money there is always someone who wants to pull your pants down and try some forced anal.

It would be nice if people did boycot DLC and force companies into proper expansion packs, but let's be honest 80% of gamers are pure consumers that just want something shinny and new, 5 maps for CoD wouldn't cost $15 if they didn't sell like hotcakes.

 

[ChupathingyX]

For me DLC have both pros and cons. One thing I hate is day 1 DLC that could've easily just been put into the game. DLC should only be reserved for things that can't be completed before the game ships out.

One thing I love about DLC is Fallout: New Vegas in particular and how Obsidian are pretty much using it to create Van Buren, which to those unaware, is what Fallout 3 should have been.

 

[Something Amyss]

Should you boycott nearly every single company out there?

Go for it, you won't get very far though. Not that internet boycotts ever do.

well, when they start realizing they're getting a bad reputation, i assume they'll change their approach on it.

assuming they get to that point.

Bad reputations seem to mean little, so unless there's a real sales dip, I don't see it making a difference.

Beyond that, they'll probably just blame piracy, and come up with a new way to milk remaining customers. Prject 30 dollar or something.

 

[Nimcha]

I strongly dislike day 1 DLC and usually don't buy it. But stuff like Arrival for ME2 that comes out more than a year after the game's release I'll gladly pay for. It made me play through the whole game again and I had a blast.

 

[SageRuffin]

Depends on the game and DLC. I will never buy a map pack for a shooter that is over $7, but later this month I will prolly plunk down $40 to get all the Mass Effect 2 DLC. If the game is good and shipped completely whole (what they are selling as DLC is not an integral part of the game). I have no problem buying the game and paying a little extra for DLC.

I concur. If I'm essentially paying for "unlock keys" that could've been included in the game itself via some special condition (i.e. costumes in S/SF4), then that can suck fuck all.

If the DLC is extra stuff that was thought of after the fact (Shivering Isles for Oblivion), or was made because there was literally no room left on the disc (why do you think ME2 came out on 2 discs?), and it looks intriguing enough, then sure, I'll bite.

 

[EllEzDee]

snip

Oh, another thing, please don't use "lolz" in a sentence again. I understand your mental capacity is far lower than that of the average user, but that's no excuse for using such words.
As for the thread, my point was that the OP put no thought whatsoever into it.
"HUH I SAW THIS COMMENT, I'LL MAKE CONTROVERSIAL THREAD".
His questions to the readers were just as well thought out as his topic. "SHOULD WE GO BACK TO HOW IT WAS????" and "SHOULD WE BOYCOTT DLC HUUUURRR???". The perfect example of trying to make a thread for the sheer hope of it being popular.

Your reply was good up until this last part. Then it becomes difficult to take you seriously.

Oh well. Sorry I bothered you.

Glad i held your attention long enough for you to reach that point.

 

[Rayne870]

Games should never be expanded upon ever! No expansions, no sequels just because I don't want to pay for it.

 

[StBishop]

No the world can be ALOT better than the 80's and 90's if they'd put the effort into it. Companies that release DLC land themselves on my automatic NO BUY list. Ya I'm pretty damn bored these days. But I'm not wasting my money on crap.

Don't just boycott, one sale makes little difference as they don't know it's gone. If you send them emails and letters every single time they bring out a game that you're not buying they're more likely to take notice. Especially companies like Bioware and Valve that actually pay attention to their fans.

 

[Antari]

No the world can be ALOT better than the 80's and 90's if they'd put the effort into it. Companies that release DLC land themselves on my automatic NO BUY list. Ya I'm pretty damn bored these days. But I'm not wasting my money on crap.

Don't just boycott, one sale makes little difference as they don't know it's gone. If you send them emails and letters every single time they bring out a game that you're not buying they're more likely to take notice. Especially companies like Bioware and Valve that actually pay attention to their fans.

Then I'd be wasting my time. I just don't buy from them. Its that simple. If other people start thinking like me, cool, the industry will likely change. If not, then I'll probably stick with the games I have, and start in on another hobby.

 

[Blondi3]

DLC is at love/hate status for me. There are those pieces of DLC that are literally just money grabs. They add almost nothing and are such crap. There are those that add something that should have been in the game from the beginning which pisses me off even more. Once in a while though, there comes the DLC that expands on the game and delves deeper into the story/world. The FO3 DLCs are like that imo. Some of the ME2 longer DLC's are awesome. (I'm ignoring the bullshit weapon/armor ones.)

So basically, DLC CAN be good, but it seldom is.

 

[GeekFury]

If I buy a game like, say Dragon Age: Origin or Fallout 3, I know there will be future DLC so instead of buying it, I wait till the Ultimate Edition or GotYE comes out, get that with all the DLC, problem solved.

 

[hawkeye52]

DLC is a horrible idea since its just letting game developers release under developed games and chrage you for them not finishing it.

Some stuff that is DLC should really be classed as expansion packs i.e the DLC's which add an absolute shit load of extra content such as shivering isles for oblivion to name one while others just dont deserve the light of day. For example the DLC for MW2 in which they just copy pasted the maps from MW1 and charged you £10-£15 for it. Also games that are DLC reliant for making money cut down the modding community a lot because developers naturally don't want modders just to copy their maps and put them out for free on seperate mods which is probably what would have happened in MW1 if they had tried DLC for the computer. However in MW2 they removed mod support in all forms and charged ludicrous amounts for shite DLC.

Also on this matter DLC that is intrusive on people for not having it like for example joining a server or lobby then being promptly kicked out of it because you don't have the right DLC is crap as well. It is essentially just inconveniencing you on purpose to wear people down so they buy the DLC

Also something thats been annoying me recently is the TF2 shop and i consider it to be the only completely shite thing that valve has ever done. They used to just release weapons for free and the hats also would have no effect on the game whereas now there are just some weapons which are just OP like i think one of the scouts pistols does extra damage and has knockback or a slow if i remember correctly. I also think i have seen some hats where its just a straight health buff with no detriments meaning that the people who pay for said hat or are just extremely lucky get an advantage of silly proportions over other players

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The Mass Effect situation pisses me off. DLC is fine. But when you release DLC that significantly affects the plot of a trilogy then I call foul. I paid 64$ for ME2, and I damn well expect a self-contained story. If you have to have DLC that bridges 2 to 3 then you failed as writers. How about spending more time developing a game? Oh no, we have nonsensical deadlines to meet.

Kinda like how Starcraft: Brood War significantly expanded on the plot of Starcraft, yet wasn't included in the original Starcraft game?

I seriously don't get this. If you include everything in a giant package, charge gamers the same price they paid for the game minus 10 bucks and call it an expansion pack, no one whines. But if you chop that content up into little chunks and sell it for 10 bucks, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.

ME was announced as a trilogy. Despite being able to plan around that, BW still has to use DLC to fill in gaps in the main story. That is a failure on their part.

Nope. If you don't buy the DLC then you miss side stories on the overarching storyline. Lair of the Shadow Broker, Arrival are all completely optional. As in You don't have to do it at all, in fact if you played Lair of the Shadow Broker you would know its all about Liara and her thing she mentions when you meet her. So your idea of lazy writing becomes the fleshing out of a story of a former compatriot, on of which you had very little interaction with in Mass Effect 2 and is OPTIONAL. You can keep making things up and pretending your right.

One thing, ME3 opens up with Shepard on trial for the events that took place during Arrival. I never mentioned LotSB. I don't see where you got that from. People who haven't played Arrival are going to be very confused.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

if the DLC looks good I get it two examples of great DLC are red dead redemptions undead nightmare and borderland's secret armoury of knoxx.

oh ya borderlands definatly impresses me with there dlc

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Can the world be like the 80's & 90's without that invention again ?

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

 

[Hyper-space]

Can the world be like the 80's & 90's without that invention again ?

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

Your thinking of EXPANSIONS, not mission packs like DLC's where back then. Companies would often release the same game with just a few sprite changes and different skins, because they couldn't release it as a DLC like now, i suggest you watch the video.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Can the world be like the 80's & 90's without that invention again ?

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/gaming-in-the-90s-really-sucked/

and why they (DLC) existed in the 90's.

well at that time it wasn't really DLC, when games sold very well, and had a good bunch of followers, they used to make those "Expansions" that actually added much much more content to the original game, and not just a horse for some bucks if you get my meaning.

at least it wasn't a marketing thing like nowadays.

Your thinking of EXPANSIONS, not mission packs like DLC's where back then. Companies would often release the same game with just a few sprite changes and different skins, because they couldn't release it as a DLC like now, i suggest you watch the video.

Yeah you got a point in that one, which enhance the subject that DLC is then overused (and outdated?). I loled at "the DLC Bullsh¡t content". But it's interesting that, even the minimum new content that devs release, for a fee, are in reality worse when compared with what modders would do, for free, if they had the tools. which adds another question: did they planned on purpose to overuse the DLC's in consoles, since those who owns consoles can't do anything about it? while on the PC, tools & mods give an infinite amount of replayability and creativity to the original game.

Maybe that's why most of the developers released their games on console/s only, since it's more profitable...

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Apparently the Bethesda boss was qouted in an article here that there are still people buying horse armour for Oblivion, even 5 years after it was released.

This is the equivalent of a pimp selling to his girls drugs to keep the feeling that their alive, while still having control over their dependency...

 

[Finebrew]

Depends on the game if its good or bad. Some DLC you can tell they are just being greedy bastards other DLC is totally worth the purchase price.