*Glances at job ads.* Could someone tell my industry that?Don Reba said:? The economic downturn has long ended.
That is why it too me a while. to notice. They are in browser popups. like when the extra adds around the outside of the video appear. That is what I mean.vxicepickxv said:I never noticed any popups, because the player was the only tab for the only window I had up at the time.mcnally86 said:Sometimes that stutter is when two copies of the movie open at once. It happens to me a lot when they have the movie play as the popup. Just try closing the top popup, you close the top copy of the movie but the second that was underneath still plays.vxicepickxv said:I had a bit of a stutter myself when listening to it, but other than that, it was pretty damn funny.
So, how long until you guys decide to pick a random escapist and Skype them in for a bit?
How do you folks feel about locked DLC on a disc that you get?
Maybe in your country, but sure as hell not in the United States.Don Reba said:Some random comments:
? I wonder if yuplay.ru will sue Ubisoft's Uplay for name infringement ?probably not.
? I've been blaming Doom 3 since before it even came out.
? The economic downturn has long ended.
? The podcast is not too long. I listen to it while catching up with my RSS feeds for the end of the week.
? Backgrounds are a huge part of many games. For all their wonderful storytelling, Mass Effect would not be the outstanding games they are without the art. Also, I disagree that graphics are already good enough. Engine and graphics card demos still look mesmerizing. Graphics have a very long way to go. For example: global illumination and raytracing are only being done in very limited ways and accomplished with tons of hacks.
Formica Archonis said:*Glances at job ads.* Could someone tell my industry that?Don Reba said:? The economic downturn has long ended.
There are multiple opinions about it, but the banks have repaid the bailout, the auto industry is growing, high-tech is doing great, the gaming industry is booming. The country is not in a boom phase overall, but the bust phase bottomed out in 2009 and mostly ended in 2010.Eri said:Maybe in your country, but sure as hell not in the United States.
Wanted to ask this too, because I feel like you missed the point about people arguing against Day 1 DLC a bit.vxicepickxv said:How do you folks feel about locked DLC on a disc that you get?
Exactly, because if they weren't wasting resources making that DLC during the games development cycle then they would of had those same resources availiable to just put the content into the full game anyway... So what is day 1 DLC other than a cynical money grab?Rayansaki said:Wanted to ask this too, because I feel like you missed the point about people arguing against Day 1 DLC a bit.vxicepickxv said:How do you folks feel about locked DLC on a disc that you get?
Day 1 DLC is always annoying, but what is blatant money grabbing, and what makes people bring out the torches is content that was completed when the game went to print, and is actually in the disc. Then you buy the DLC and its only a 50kb file that unlocks the content that was in the disc already.
That's what I think is wrong about dlc nowadays.
We thought of that. Name's already taken.Stuntkid said:You guys should call this "The Escape Pod" LOL
I'm actually waiting for that for Dragon Age 2. Yeah, I've heard about all the boring environment copy pasting, but I'm still eager to experience the characters. And if it doesn't have the DLC all lumped into one, the savvy consumer in me will turn it down.StriderShinryu said:Always nice to hear someone else calling out far too many gamers for being whiny entitled brats.
DLC is a bit of an interesting topic, and I think we're seeing a bit of a backlash to the sort of regularly released downloadable content that I actually consider to be the best sort. There seem to be a lot of people, at least here on the Escapist, who claim they will be waiting for the inevitable "GOTY" version of a game knowing it will not only be cheaper but will also include the entire DLC roster in a complete package.
Yea.Blazingdragoon04 said:Eh, I don't really agree with a lot of what you were saying regarding DLC. I find it hard to see your comparison between the bonus editions of movies/DVD's and the DLC of games, as these are two different medium and two entirely different scenarios. Yes, bonus editions of movies do cost more, but it's usually just a bit more, here in America the standard is for a 20 dollar movie the bonus edition is 25-30, meaning a 25-50 percent markup. For DLC, if you buy the game at the full price of 60 dollars, buying the DLC can mark up upwards of 50%, around 30 dollars for maybe a few DLC or some 15 dollar map packs, or it can be upwards of 100% or more, like with games such as Dragon Age Origins. Paying an extra 10 dollars is not seen as a huge deal, the amount seems worth the extras. However, the amount of 30-60 dollars for more content, resulting in a game costing, for the 100% experience, being upwards of 90 dollars to 120 dollars, is quite a lot of money, thus the amount of griping you get about DLC exists. 90 dollars for a game is far too much money, I get that they are a luxury, but during this economic downturn and people being far more selective with their disposable income spending that much money on a game is just becoming less and less feasible.
I also don't get your argument about people being entitled to things supporting one argument yet disregarding it for another. For example, you said that it was not okay for gamers to expect content to be on the game, especially when it came to DLC, since it was considered extra content that didn't take away from the main storyline and gameplay experience (most of the time). However, at the same time, you used gamers expectations about multiplayer to reinforce your argument against the Ubisoft pay to play online experience.
It makes no sense to use people's expectations about games to support your argument in one instance and then use it to defame your opponents in another argument. For day 1 DLC, people EXPECT that the content that is being released on day 1 for extra money should be on the disc due to it not making any sense, in the minds of people, to pay full price for a game and then to have to pay more in order to get 100% of the game. Likewise, some people DONT expect multiplayer to be in a game, and Ubisoft could certainly use that as an incentive to charge for online access for a game and some people would see it as a nice bonus. Not to attack you personally, but it doesn't look good when you put yourself in a situation like this, both railing against and supporting an aspect of an argument depending on whether or not it fits your argument at the time.
Man, I forgot all about San Andreas and the HUGE amount of content that it had. I don't think I've ever gone back and played the game and compared it to the amount of gaming experience included in other games, such as Oblivion, Fallout 3, or even GTA 4, but I think the point still remains. Maybe we were spoiled in the PS2 era, maybe for 60 dollars we SHOULD be getting upwards of 20 hours of gameplay with single player alone, but the point is that huge games were what was expected at the end of the PS2 era. Huge, complete games that came with a one time 50-60 dollar fee and nothing else.GonzoGamer said:Yea.Blazingdragoon04 said:Eh, I don't really agree with a lot of what you were saying regarding DLC. I find it hard to see your comparison between the bonus editions of movies/DVD's and the DLC of games, as these are two different medium and two entirely different scenarios. Yes, bonus editions of movies do cost more, but it's usually just a bit more, here in America the standard is for a 20 dollar movie the bonus edition is 25-30, meaning a 25-50 percent markup. For DLC, if you buy the game at the full price of 60 dollars, buying the DLC can mark up upwards of 50%, around 30 dollars for maybe a few DLC or some 15 dollar map packs, or it can be upwards of 100% or more, like with games such as Dragon Age Origins. Paying an extra 10 dollars is not seen as a huge deal, the amount seems worth the extras. However, the amount of 30-60 dollars for more content, resulting in a game costing, for the 100% experience, being upwards of 90 dollars to 120 dollars, is quite a lot of money, thus the amount of griping you get about DLC exists. 90 dollars for a game is far too much money, I get that they are a luxury, but during this economic downturn and people being far more selective with their disposable income spending that much money on a game is just becoming less and less feasible.
I also don't get your argument about people being entitled to things supporting one argument yet disregarding it for another. For example, you said that it was not okay for gamers to expect content to be on the game, especially when it came to DLC, since it was considered extra content that didn't take away from the main storyline and gameplay experience (most of the time). However, at the same time, you used gamers expectations about multiplayer to reinforce your argument against the Ubisoft pay to play online experience.
It makes no sense to use people's expectations about games to support your argument in one instance and then use it to defame your opponents in another argument. For day 1 DLC, people EXPECT that the content that is being released on day 1 for extra money should be on the disc due to it not making any sense, in the minds of people, to pay full price for a game and then to have to pay more in order to get 100% of the game. Likewise, some people DONT expect multiplayer to be in a game, and Ubisoft could certainly use that as an incentive to charge for online access for a game and some people would see it as a nice bonus. Not to attack you personally, but it doesn't look good when you put yourself in a situation like this, both railing against and supporting an aspect of an argument depending on whether or not it fits your argument at the time.
It seems that lately many gamers like to just say that those they disagree with have an overinflated sense of entitlement and that alone wins their argument. It doesn't work like that.
I personally don't have anything against dlc as a concept but it's usually overpriced and only meagerly expands a game that didn't have $60 worth of content to begin with.
The fact is that the game industry has been pulling out a lot of predatory practices and seem more inclined to try and hype/trick gamers out of their money rather than earning that money with great products and/or services. This has hurt the industry overall: most of the ps2 owners I know never moved on to the 360 or ps3.
Also if we were still seeing more games with that San Andreas amount of content on the launch disc, I think we would also hear fewer arguments against dlc. However, the amount of content seems to be shrinking.
There?s a lot of reasons Gamestop does well: like the fact that they?ve somehow convinced gamers that they have to hand over at least a $5 deposit for a game that isn?t coming out for months or else they wont be able to buy it.Blazingdragoon04 said:Man, I forgot all about San Andreas and the HUGE amount of content that it had. I don't think I've ever gone back and played the game and compared it to the amount of gaming experience included in other games, such as Oblivion, Fallout 3, or even GTA 4, but I think the point still remains. Maybe we were spoiled in the PS2 era, maybe for 60 dollars we SHOULD be getting upwards of 20 hours of gameplay with single player alone, but the point is that huge games were what was expected at the end of the PS2 era. Huge, complete games that came with a one time 50-60 dollar fee and nothing else.GonzoGamer said:Yea.Blazingdragoon04 said:Eh, I don't really agree with a lot of what you were saying regarding DLC. I find it hard to see your comparison between the bonus editions of movies/DVD's and the DLC of games, as these are two different medium and two entirely different scenarios. Yes, bonus editions of movies do cost more, but it's usually just a bit more, here in America the standard is for a 20 dollar movie the bonus edition is 25-30, meaning a 25-50 percent markup. For DLC, if you buy the game at the full price of 60 dollars, buying the DLC can mark up upwards of 50%, around 30 dollars for maybe a few DLC or some 15 dollar map packs, or it can be upwards of 100% or more, like with games such as Dragon Age Origins. Paying an extra 10 dollars is not seen as a huge deal, the amount seems worth the extras. However, the amount of 30-60 dollars for more content, resulting in a game costing, for the 100% experience, being upwards of 90 dollars to 120 dollars, is quite a lot of money, thus the amount of griping you get about DLC exists. 90 dollars for a game is far too much money, I get that they are a luxury, but during this economic downturn and people being far more selective with their disposable income spending that much money on a game is just becoming less and less feasible.
I also don't get your argument about people being entitled to things supporting one argument yet disregarding it for another. For example, you said that it was not okay for gamers to expect content to be on the game, especially when it came to DLC, since it was considered extra content that didn't take away from the main storyline and gameplay experience (most of the time). However, at the same time, you used gamers expectations about multiplayer to reinforce your argument against the Ubisoft pay to play online experience.
It makes no sense to use people's expectations about games to support your argument in one instance and then use it to defame your opponents in another argument. For day 1 DLC, people EXPECT that the content that is being released on day 1 for extra money should be on the disc due to it not making any sense, in the minds of people, to pay full price for a game and then to have to pay more in order to get 100% of the game. Likewise, some people DONT expect multiplayer to be in a game, and Ubisoft could certainly use that as an incentive to charge for online access for a game and some people would see it as a nice bonus. Not to attack you personally, but it doesn't look good when you put yourself in a situation like this, both railing against and supporting an aspect of an argument depending on whether or not it fits your argument at the time.
It seems that lately many gamers like to just say that those they disagree with have an overinflated sense of entitlement and that alone wins their argument. It doesn't work like that.
I personally don't have anything against dlc as a concept but it's usually overpriced and only meagerly expands a game that didn't have $60 worth of content to begin with.
The fact is that the game industry has been pulling out a lot of predatory practices and seem more inclined to try and hype/trick gamers out of their money rather than earning that money with great products and/or services. This has hurt the industry overall: most of the ps2 owners I know never moved on to the 360 or ps3.
Also if we were still seeing more games with that San Andreas amount of content on the launch disc, I think we would also hear fewer arguments against dlc. However, the amount of content seems to be shrinking.
As an argument that I didn't bring up before, I'd also like to add that I believe that DLC, in its current form, is leading to a rise in the second hand game market, buying used from Gamestop and Amazon and what not. Why pay 60 dollars and then have to pay more for DLC, when I can buy a game for 20 dollars and then buy the DLC later with the money I saved. Makes sense to me, and I bet it makes sense to a LOT of other people, hence Gamestop's record profits DURING A RECESSION.
I kinda feel like Jim Sterling at the moment; I really wish people in power actually read these comments from time to time to get good ideas and hear what the public has to say...