Man, I just won't grow tired of Yahtzee. Dunno why, I feel uncomfortable as a fanboy.
Maybe you could repeat this constellation, I could feel more interesting conflict in opinion than in Extra Consideration, which could've made for a more interesting discussion. But I also felt like you two were holding back so you're not too mean to the other guy. We know it's a show, guys, you're not really ripping the other's head off.
Suggested topic:
After the End: Sequels, Expansions, DLCs and Microtransactions.
That's a broad topic, so my main interest are the last two points since they're recent developments, focus on that, move to the other topics when it's appropriate or the episode needs padding. I'm suggesting it because I expect a few community responses after Portal 2's release.
There's this [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22370734/QSrwy.jpg] interesting picture floating around the internet. I think it's already food for thought and debate on its own, but in case you need to get into the mood or topic a bit more:
Questions that could make for conflicting opinions to keep the talk fluid:
Maybe you could repeat this constellation, I could feel more interesting conflict in opinion than in Extra Consideration, which could've made for a more interesting discussion. But I also felt like you two were holding back so you're not too mean to the other guy. We know it's a show, guys, you're not really ripping the other's head off.
Suggested topic:
After the End: Sequels, Expansions, DLCs and Microtransactions.
That's a broad topic, so my main interest are the last two points since they're recent developments, focus on that, move to the other topics when it's appropriate or the episode needs padding. I'm suggesting it because I expect a few community responses after Portal 2's release.
There's this [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22370734/QSrwy.jpg] interesting picture floating around the internet. I think it's already food for thought and debate on its own, but in case you need to get into the mood or topic a bit more:
to games can be a two-edged sword: It can mean stuff improves, it can mean stuff gets worse and the game doesn't have to be bad to be perceived as such because it's competing against its big brother - it definitely means the developer team will be too busy working on a different title.
or Add-Ons were usually less expensive than the main game and took a side route that let the player view the world from a different perspective and let the developer make a sequel without paying too much attention to the canon since the storyline of the Expansion is usually either happening in the background of the main game's storyline or filling a gap. Because they were just Expansion Packs and not full games, the expectations weren't as high either and it also gave the devs the chance to respond to feedback and polish.
is usually much shorter than an Expansion, usually just a single puzzle piece like one single bonus mission. They can be categorized in "free DLC" like Valve's support for L4D and TF2 and "charged DLC" like what Bioware does for their games or what certain infamous mappacks were all about (and I don't even play that damn game). You could also sort DLC by how much of an "extra" it is: Does it actually contribute to the canon and ties ends that the main story line forgot, does it make the game feel incomplete without downloading it? Or is it just extra for people that are sad the game ended too soon after 300 hours?
DLC also lets devs adapt quicker to community responses, kinda what Valve *tried* with the episodic content. The only way faster to adapt is...
DLC also lets devs adapt quicker to community responses, kinda what Valve *tried* with the episodic content. The only way faster to adapt is...
are something we all probably know from those "free" cheap flashgames or browsergames that often take a simple game archetype, like the adventure in Tolkien's garden or streetfighting or pewpewing in 2D space or racing, and then they actually charge for all the good stuff and benefits in the item store. Valve has also implemented in TF2 and Portal 2, which probably indicates HL3 will also feature it. Again you can differentiate between content that feels like not possessing it takes away a chunk of the experience you think you should have had or it outright gives buyers a straight advantage (especially nasty in multiplayer, but that's the part of content that "generates itself" through player interaction - or so some devs think) and there's the little extras which you can touch if you're a dedicated fan without feeling like you're not cool without it. So you could watch a movie and enjoy it just like everyone else, and then get extras like stickers and a "making-of" for a few bucks extra.
Questions that could make for conflicting opinions to keep the talk fluid:
- Is it justified to bring out "Day 1 DLC" or should you pay for everything the developers have developed till the release date and then be charged by the rule of "extra working time = extra money"?
- Could/Should DLC stay free to prolong a game's lifetime and can it do that?
- (Sequels) Nintendo is releasing the same successful titles every year again and some game franchises grow so big one might fear that will be eventually true for the whole market: You settle two hands full of games and milk the franchise to death, competition won't have space for breathing. Is that fear justified in any way or are we just scared of shadows?
- This is more of a personal thing than a real question, but I'll add it anyway: Are you comfortable with a "splintered" game of which you buy the main piece (hopefully) and then you have to download all kinds of DLC in addition to the usual patches to get to the "real" game? Personally, I feel much more comfortable with the easy way: Pay once, get the full content, download one or two quick patches (or use autopatch functions), play through the game - beginning, middle part, climax, end, one round story - be happy you bought the game, brush your teeth and be eager to play whatever game the developer will surprise you with next.
Sadly in reality it seems AAA games are only worth considering if they boot a whole franchise, making it a definite the story won't be fully concluded in the first title and always leaving room for making the sequel inferior by comparison.
- (Microtransactions) Obvious question everyone will blurt out: Are microtransactions the future?
- Could/Should DLC stay free to prolong a game's lifetime and can it do that?
Valve examples: TF2 is having a good run despite some veterans not recognizing the game they once loved anymore, L4D is regarded as dead outside of LAN parties or games among friends - despite all free DLC, CSS is still surprisingly popular and is regarded a classic that doesn't need to be changed to be played forever. Starcraft would be another example of these "classics" that can survive for a crazy time without much extra content. WoW on the other hand gets its lifetime because of all the new content and overall care and polishing, both free updates for everyone playing and in the shape of expansion packs. There's also DLC in that one, but I didn't put much research behind it.
- This is more of a personal thing than a real question, but I'll add it anyway: Are you comfortable with a "splintered" game of which you buy the main piece (hopefully) and then you have to download all kinds of DLC in addition to the usual patches to get to the "real" game? Personally, I feel much more comfortable with the easy way: Pay once, get the full content, download one or two quick patches (or use autopatch functions), play through the game - beginning, middle part, climax, end, one round story - be happy you bought the game, brush your teeth and be eager to play whatever game the developer will surprise you with next.
Sadly in reality it seems AAA games are only worth considering if they boot a whole franchise, making it a definite the story won't be fully concluded in the first title and always leaving room for making the sequel inferior by comparison.
- (Microtransactions) Obvious question everyone will blurt out: Are microtransactions the future?
