Jimquisition: Downloadable Discontent
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Five bucks for one skin? Jim, you are right. Dx That IS a load of bullcrap!
If it was for something(or more understandably somethings) that actually did something for you in the game, sure maybe. But for something that is really just a change of clothes? NO.
If it was for something(or more understandably somethings) that actually did something for you in the game, sure maybe. But for something that is really just a change of clothes? NO.
x( Well that's just adding insult to the injury of your wallet. If they want to rip people off, they could at least not waste their time while doing it.Lvl 64 Klutz said:
Bioware are the best and the worst at the same time in my opinion, which is pretty damn weird. You've got DA:O, where NPC's literally link you to the DLC store, and if you just want to play the vanilla game, you have NO ITEMS STASH (someone should have gone to jail for that shit, seriously). Then they made things like Shadow Broker, Overlord, and Leviathan, which may have been short, but were undoubtedly awesome. I don't know what to think anymore.
That was some straight up, non-intrusive promotion at the end. I wouldn't mind DLC if it was presented in that way.
DLC is optional, and if you don't like it don't buy it...
Well I wish the marketing was optional, and the nagging, and the effect on gameplay, and the loss of immersion. I hate it when I get a ton of DLC that I don't even want and never asked for. Trying to figure out where the real game is, what items are part of the real game, and whether this here doodad was intended for the game or is a cleverly disguised cheat mode.
And if it turns out the game was less than I hoped for, I can't shake the suspicion that maybe it was designed like that, to make me buy some DLC.
DLC is optional, and if you don't like it don't buy it...
Well I wish the marketing was optional, and the nagging, and the effect on gameplay, and the loss of immersion. I hate it when I get a ton of DLC that I don't even want and never asked for. Trying to figure out where the real game is, what items are part of the real game, and whether this here doodad was intended for the game or is a cleverly disguised cheat mode.
And if it turns out the game was less than I hoped for, I can't shake the suspicion that maybe it was designed like that, to make me buy some DLC.
$5 for a skin? ... That's what, less than .5% of the total game assets? With a purchase price of $60, those skins should go for a few cents given how much they're actually supplying you in relation to what you've already paid for, never mind a full fledged dollar, never mind fucking five of them.
See, this is why we need more Skyrims - games that are configured so enthusiasts can provide this crap for the price of warm fuzzies and adulation rather than greedy, scum sucking artless companies for a price so damn inflated it makes Weimar Republic's 1923 100 Trillion Mark Bank Note look fiscally sound.
It also forces the developer to actually do some goddamn work when it comes to adding new, pay for it content that actually justifies the expense. This not only validates the concept of DLC, but the reputation of the developer as a whole. Whether or not you like Dragonborn, Dawngaurd, or Hearthfire, at least you have to admit that Skyrim's DLC is head and shoulders above Dead Space's.
See, this is why we need more Skyrims - games that are configured so enthusiasts can provide this crap for the price of warm fuzzies and adulation rather than greedy, scum sucking artless companies for a price so damn inflated it makes Weimar Republic's 1923 100 Trillion Mark Bank Note look fiscally sound.
It also forces the developer to actually do some goddamn work when it comes to adding new, pay for it content that actually justifies the expense. This not only validates the concept of DLC, but the reputation of the developer as a whole. Whether or not you like Dragonborn, Dawngaurd, or Hearthfire, at least you have to admit that Skyrim's DLC is head and shoulders above Dead Space's.
Good idea: Skyrim
ragonborn, CIV V Brave New World. Purchased both.
Bad idea: Virtually every other dlc by major companies out there.
Here is a recent example: I was all set to buy the new Rome (I am a huge fan of the original as well as Shogun) but now they have a "pre-order bonus" on-disc dlc for the Greek faction which by all rights should be part of the game. They basically ripped out that content to boost their pre-order sales. Nooooooooooooooope! Not buying it at full price. Sorry. I will wait for a steam sale and pick it up cheap since I already have tons of games in my backlog.
ragonborn, CIV V Brave New World. Purchased both.Bad idea: Virtually every other dlc by major companies out there.
Here is a recent example: I was all set to buy the new Rome (I am a huge fan of the original as well as Shogun) but now they have a "pre-order bonus" on-disc dlc for the Greek faction which by all rights should be part of the game. They basically ripped out that content to boost their pre-order sales. Nooooooooooooooope! Not buying it at full price. Sorry. I will wait for a steam sale and pick it up cheap since I already have tons of games in my backlog.
One of the few games where I absolutely love it's DLC is Magicka. That game doesn't shove down your throat that a new DLC is out and if one of your buddies has it, you can play it with him without buying it! (as long as you play with him), it's one of the very few games (along with Skyrim and Civ V) I've seen that has DLC done right.
Also The Secret World, that game ditched out subscriptions and instead, if you want new content, you need to plunk down $10 every 2 months for it and they call it "DLC". IMO, I'm more willing to pay that for an MMO than the typical $15 a month and the DLC is not even obligatory to keep playing.
Also The Secret World, that game ditched out subscriptions and instead, if you want new content, you need to plunk down $10 every 2 months for it and they call it "DLC". IMO, I'm more willing to pay that for an MMO than the typical $15 a month and the DLC is not even obligatory to keep playing.
Actually, I only watched the first sixty seconds of it, because I knew what it was going to be in it's entirety: as soon as Jim said the words"people threatened the lives of jennifer hepler's children," I knew the video was going to be rambling, knee jerk, half cocked, condemnation of gamers from a position of perceived moral supirority that all journalists are required to have by law. And pardon my french, but I'm goddamn fucking sick of it.Zachary Amaranth said:
Your argument that it used to be better is pretty weak. Although there is a lot of companies that try to squeeze all the money out of your pocket, there is a lot more games coming out these days.
Some of them are actually giving away their content for free, like Klei Entertainment (Don't starve) and Unknown Worlds (Natural Selection 2). These are the companies I want to support so that is where I put my money. Hell, I even buy extra copies of their games, just to support them (if anyone wants a copy of NS2, add me on steam).
EA and other big publishers are very greedy, I think we all know that by now.
Thank god for Jim
Some of them are actually giving away their content for free, like Klei Entertainment (Don't starve) and Unknown Worlds (Natural Selection 2). These are the companies I want to support so that is where I put my money. Hell, I even buy extra copies of their games, just to support them (if anyone wants a copy of NS2, add me on steam).
EA and other big publishers are very greedy, I think we all know that by now.
Thank god for Jim
Even better, you didn't bother watching it but cast judgment on the contents.Machine Man 1992 said:
I like the fact that you're condemning echo chamber mentality from within an echo chamber. I'd call it irony, but that's become bog standard since Fox News went big in the 90s.
Even if there are more companies, this is the standard practice now. Pointing out exceptions and outliers doesn't change the fact that previously, they couldn't even get away with this. If some of the practices from the end of this console cycle had been attempted even at the beginning of this same cycle, there would have been pandemonium on the interwebs.LosButcher said:Your argument that it used to be better is pretty weak. Although there is a lot of companies that try to squeeze all the money out of your pocket, there is a lot more games coming out these days.
Some of them are actually giving away their content for free, like Klei Entertainment (Don't starve) and Unknown Worlds (Natural Selection 2). These are the companies I want to support so that is where I put my money. Hell, I even buy extra copies of their games, just to support them (if anyone wants a copy of NS2, add me on steam).
EA and other big publishers are very greedy, I think we all know that by now.
Thank god for Jim
I mean, more power to you if you only support indies and the handful of other companies along those lines, but that doesn't make it a "weak" argument.
Valve are some of the biggest pioneers of anti-consumer policies in gaming. Of course, they have cheap games and Gabe is a dreamboat or something, so they get away with it. But still, hats are the least of our concerns when they made DRM practically a standard in the industry.BigTuk said:
I continue to advocate the notion that on disc DLC can be used for good, if the publishers would just let it. For example, if Call of Duty came out with an RRP of £20, but the online stuff was pay-gated. This way, people who just want to play through the game, maybe play a bit of offline co-op or deathmatch, can do so, and will probably be more inclined to purchase it (I know I would). Then for an additional £10, Activision unlocks access to the servers, and lets you play online. Ultimately, the "full game" costs the same as it did before (here I am, living in a fantasy universe where CoD costs £30 on release), but the consumer has more options, and support the parts of the game they want.
There's an extreme here, where games are free, and it's entirely unlocking what you want from it, but I'm not convinced this wouldn't just be reduced to the worst kind of abuse, where every level, every weapon, every cutscene, every texture pack, is DLC. Where all games are low quality textures as standard, and you buy points to unlock up to ultra. I'm cynical enough about this industry to believe they would.
But yeah, I think on disc DLC definitely has a place.
On the topic of pay to access cheats, I remember thinking, a few years ago, this new direction games were taking with cheats, when they were unambiguous and just simply opaque unlockables, was a bit shit. One of my favourite game series of all time, Ratchet and Clank, being an offender, where big head mode was unlocked by completing in game challenges that weren't remotely "secret". What I'd give for this way of doing things back.
I'll pay for skins, when, and only when, every penny of it goes toward charity. I'll throw $10 on a weapon pack, when every cent of that is in the pocket of a children's hospital or a homeless shelter. That's the only way I can see it being remotely justifiable. Else it's just a flagrant lack of respect from the industry, for their consumers.
There's an extreme here, where games are free, and it's entirely unlocking what you want from it, but I'm not convinced this wouldn't just be reduced to the worst kind of abuse, where every level, every weapon, every cutscene, every texture pack, is DLC. Where all games are low quality textures as standard, and you buy points to unlock up to ultra. I'm cynical enough about this industry to believe they would.
But yeah, I think on disc DLC definitely has a place.
On the topic of pay to access cheats, I remember thinking, a few years ago, this new direction games were taking with cheats, when they were unambiguous and just simply opaque unlockables, was a bit shit. One of my favourite game series of all time, Ratchet and Clank, being an offender, where big head mode was unlocked by completing in game challenges that weren't remotely "secret". What I'd give for this way of doing things back.
I'll pay for skins, when, and only when, every penny of it goes toward charity. I'll throw $10 on a weapon pack, when every cent of that is in the pocket of a children's hospital or a homeless shelter. That's the only way I can see it being remotely justifiable. Else it's just a flagrant lack of respect from the industry, for their consumers.