GonzoGamer said:
Savagezion said:
In golden goose games like Diablo 2 or the Civilization franchise among many others, the developers have been accused of holding as much content as possible out of the original game to release an expansion a mere 6-12 months after the original has sold as an attempt to have material for an expansion and yank another 40 bucks out of people. There are games that do make me wonder about this being true. But the complaint here is miniscule in comparison. They aren't even asking for more money upfront. They are giving you the option of pre-ordering it in a specified way, OR pay money. It is up to you. I don't think it is as bad as it is being made out to be. "Pre-order our game in X manner and we'll give you free shit."
If they want to make unreleased as of yet content it is gonna happen. They could just charge everyone for it and pre-ordering wouldn't mean squat.
People have proven they will pay for this DLC so they ain't gonna just opt to release it for free. I wouldn't either. I think the consumer market are stupid at times over this crap but whatever. The masses have spoken. Saying that them giving it out for free on a pre-order is a bad thing is foolish IMO.
That I can?t argue with.
Gamers need to start making a statement with their wallets. Check the poll and you?ll see that (in these forums at least) about 20% think this kind of thing is stupid and annoying but will buy the game anyway.
I?ve noticed that gamers spending habits have built up a reputation that we?re all suckers who are willing to unload all our money on something if we?re big enough fans of it and gamers can be talked/bullied into being fanboys for anything, even retailers apparently. I?m sure that?s why these ?pre-order? schemes keep getting more and more absurd and annoying.
Yeah, I was one of the 5 voters for "No, it's retarded but I am getting used to it". It isn't too annoying honestly because I am just used to it. Growing up each system had more and more console exclusives as the years passed. Now, that is declining and once in a while I see exclusive DLC. But I am so happy the game is on my system that I don't care about a minor update to the other system.
The 20% you mentioned I think is actually a larger number. The Civilization community was in an uproar over Civ 4's release tactics and quite a lot of people were saying that Civ 5 would probably practice terrible release strategies too but they would probably buy it on release anyways. Civ 4's was so bad for me Civ 5 was the first time I didn't pre-order a Civilization title on release. (I even pre-ordered Civ 1 on SNES) I won't buy Civ 5 until the complete pack comes out. By the looks of it, I guessed right and dodged another headache inducing "bullet". But Civilization is one of many games I have seen people accuse this of and one of the ones I think the fans might be right on. I am a little shocked that Civ 5 doesn't have an expansion pack yet. Some people's "brand loyalty" overrides their logic as a consumer. I don't get it either.
I couldn?t imagine another industry with consumers patient enough to put up with stuff like this: a book publisher saying that chapter 19 will only go to people buying the book from B&N and chapter 22 will only go to people buying from Borders. Or how about a movie where you get some deleted scenes and a commentary if you buy from Target and that there are other deleted scenes you can only watch on a Panasonic dvd player. I didn?t mind it when people were just getting simple in-game items or swag but when someone lays down $60 for a game they should get all of the gameplay content developed for that game just like someone buying a novel should get all of the narrative content written for the book.
Well, the book example seems like a stretch as those are needed chapters unless they just fill them with unneeded fluff. Maybe it includes a character prologue or epilogue. But the deleted scenes things is a great example and, sadly, I think that people would eat that stuff up. It is like it makes them feel special being able to watch those scenes because Bob down the street probably doesn't have it (despite that it was no secret and available to everyone)
More than likely these cases are not part of the main story and that is something to keep in mind while discussing this.
Also, I just happen to think that it takes a bigger stretch of the imagination to assume that a publisher sat on content to release it 6-12 months later. That?s not to say it didn?t happen, but generally, even if that is the case, I prefer those sort of ultimatums presented after I?ve had a chance to purchase and play a game anyway rather than trying to decide if it?s worth it before anyone has played it. The problem with pre-order content is that it bribes the consumer by saying ?you can?t tell if this will be great or if it will bomb but if it?s great and you don?t commit to buying now, you?ll miss all this content which might also be really great.?
I get where you are coming from but understand that even if LA Noire comes out and does poorly in sales, I know I will be pleased with it. I am not just supporting "a game that looks pretty cool". I am supporting this endeavor. The research done to make the game, the innovative technology, the idea of a noir game, the large investment in the project of the "sink or swim" mindset. I mean here we have a game that is truly trying to push the bar on game making. Here we have a AAA game being risky trying to bring a "genre" to the gaming audience. I am supporting that and no matter what the game is like, I will feel justified in my purchase. It is the same reason I bought Minecraft for myself and my mother. I am voting with my wallet. The cool stuff behind L.A. Noire far outshine a typical business move concerning pre-order. I want them to know they have 1 more guy out here that will back them on this project. Especially, when I see all these nay-sayer comments about how the game will fail when they have NO game like it to base it on. It's just pure pessimism is all it is. People whine that there is no innovation in the industry but when something comes out that is innovative they can't wait to tear it to shreds and say how "they knew all along". No one knows what we are getting with L.A. Noire. There is nothing to compare it to out there.
But look at the ambition in Red Dead Redemption. Western games are out there and they all sucked and couldn't get the 'tone' right. I know that was Rockstar San Diego but still. They are under the Rockstar umbrella. Rockstar is one of the few "risky devs" out there that make me scoff when I hear a Minecraft fan or the game community in general say that there aren't any. Plus, 'cops and robbers' is what they are good at. (GTA) Red Dead Redemption was also cops and robbers. It looks like they are getting tired of the robber's tale and are now looking at the law side of things. Look at RDR, a robber that is now working for the law. It's damn near foreshadowing the companies shifting interest. To me, that means this game will probably be at least as good as GTA or RDR. Both of which have tremendous story and gameplay. It will be interesting to see either way.
Basically, my pre-order has more to do with communication than a free mission. I knew I would buy Dragon Age 2 on release but didn't pre-order as I didn't see a need to and didn't feel like messing with it for a few piddly things in-game. Bonus crap be damned. I know this is how I would feel if I just thought L.A. Noire looked neat.
However, there is also more to this that IMO secures it as a good game. Rockstar has a very different paradigm than other developers. That's why so many games try to mimic their work and why so many people reference their work when speaking about sandbox games.
