Poll: One use Downloadable content codes: Does anyone else hate these?

[moretimethansense]

While I absolutly hate one use DLC for a number of reasons, achivrments are a bloody petty reason to do so.
Honestly, why do sa many people care about a little pop up that interupts your game annoyingly and does absofuckinglutly nothing to benifit you in any way?

For the same reason people care about their armor in Halo: Reach. To show off.

To who?!
Who honestly cares?
Achievements are one of the bioggest things I hate about the way the industry is going at the minuite, they are a lazy way to pad out the leangth of a game, an annoying interuption, they are a blatent use of skinner box technology and they literaly add nothing to the game nor do they do anything to benefit the gamer.

Note that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here (I always do).

People do notice the armor in Halo Reach. If somebody has the lightening effect on their armor, people notice. Besides that, armor (though not achievements) are a way to represent yourself over the internet, which some games won't allow.

Achievements are only an irritation if you allow them to be, btw. The notifications can be turned off in "preferences". And thought they can be a lazy way to pad out the length of a game, so can many [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty][footnote]Sorry for robbing you of the rest of your day.[/footnote] things. A hard mode could be interpreted as padding the length of a game, if you really wanted to. Also, sometimes achievements can add further gameplay to a game you wouldn't otherwise continue playing, if done right. For example, an achievement for getting both endings in a game may be the motivation to replay it, and then the player may find they enjoyed the story more when they knew what happened. Or an achievement for leveling up every gun online may cause a player to realize that the reason they disliked a game is because they weren't using a weapon they liked.

I don't know what skinner box technology is, so I can't comment on that.

The thing is if Im not interested in the story enough to play it for the multiple endings alone I'm certainly not going to do it for the achievements.
If somebody is playing a game they don't enjoy for a meaningless number they should take a long hard look at their life.
The only game I've ever got full achievements on (barring games where simply completing it will do so) is Oblivion, and that was incedental.
You can't turn trophy notifications off on the PS3 unfortunatley.
As for Skinner box tech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber
In short, give a rat a butten they can press to get food they'll press it when hungry.
Give a rat a butten to press that dispenses food after a random number of presses, they'll never stop presing it.
Finally don't worry about wasting my day, I've basically read everthing on that site by now.

 

[Lukeje]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

Why should they feel entitled to be paid twice for the same product? That'd be like Chevy wanting me to pay them because I wanted to buy a second-hand Corvette. It's derp for both industries and I don't get why people will defend game companies doing something they'd vilify car companies for doing.

No, it's more like buying a second-hand Corvette and then going back to Chevy and asking it to be refitted with leather upholstery. Something which it makes perfect sense to pay Chevy for.

No. Asking a dealer to fit leather upholstery would be like buying Dead Money. What OP is ranting about is something that you get when you buy the game new, but is taken away from anyone who buys it used. When this happens devs are trying to be paid twice for the same exact thing, hence my analogy. Buy a used 2009 Corvette and Chevy wants royalties because you didn't buy an otherwise identical but much more expensive 2011 'Vette.

It's derp and you know it.

I disagree. To take the analogy further: just because the '11 Corvette happens to come with such upholstery as standard and the '09 doesn't, this doesn't mean that you should be entitled to get the upholstery upgraded for free.

That is incorrect. My analogy assumes identical except one's used and one isn't. The sole difference between the two cars is a couple thousand miles and the owner count. They even have the same CD in the radio. We're talking "Whoa I'm seeing double" identical here. You're trying to fit differences in to twist thing to fit your analogy, and this needs to stop.

The difference is that one is used and one is not. Thus they are not identical.

Stating the obvious, are you?

Edit: to be clear, the analogy I gave corresponds to the actual situation and puts it into a reasonable context given the analogy. Yours presents what you wish were true of games.

No, it doesn't. Your analogy corresponds to DLC that adds content to the game, DLC everyone has to buy, and DLC that I have nothing against. My analogy refers to those bullshit codes that publishers are using to attempt to curb used game sales. It's content that was already there, content they've been paid for once, but they want to be paid again for it.

IF you fail to grasp this then we have nothing further to discuss, because I can't put it any simpler than that without literally handing you an example, pointing to it and saying "THIS".

No. If you paid the premium, you got all the extras. If you paid for the preowned, you didn't. It's not hard to understand.

 

[Trolldor]

I pre-ordered the day before release, got the Signature edition.

Know what?
Sebastian didn't add anything to the game. Whiney preachy **** of a character.
The game runs just fine without ever using him as a character. Such things are almost always true of 'day-one DLC'.
The core game runs perfectly fine without those extras and in no way feels incomplete.

 

[almostgold]

Is getting a single achievement really THAT big of an issue? Or... one at all?

 

[mitchell271]

i actually don't mind them because it can (hopefully) reduce piracy and it means that the developer gets money when someone buys a used game

 

[Jack Hughes]

I can never get my 1000 points

Wrong, You CAN get all 1000 default points, the DLC adds another 150.

Wait, so I CAN get all 1000 points even though theres an achievement (I scrolled through the achivements that I didn't have yet) that says I need to be friends with a character I can't access?

No, because thats part of the exiled prince achievements, which add the extra 150 points. The games original 1000 are all unlockable. The exiled prince achievements ARE there but if you check the total score it'll say X/1150 not X/1000

 

[Lukeje]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

Why should they feel entitled to be paid twice for the same product? That'd be like Chevy wanting me to pay them because I wanted to buy a second-hand Corvette. It's derp for both industries and I don't get why people will defend game companies doing something they'd vilify car companies for doing.

No, it's more like buying a second-hand Corvette and then going back to Chevy and asking it to be refitted with leather upholstery. Something which it makes perfect sense to pay Chevy for.

No. Asking a dealer to fit leather upholstery would be like buying Dead Money. What OP is ranting about is something that you get when you buy the game new, but is taken away from anyone who buys it used. When this happens devs are trying to be paid twice for the same exact thing, hence my analogy. Buy a used 2009 Corvette and Chevy wants royalties because you didn't buy an otherwise identical but much more expensive 2011 'Vette.

It's derp and you know it.

I disagree. To take the analogy further: just because the '11 Corvette happens to come with such upholstery as standard and the '09 doesn't, this doesn't mean that you should be entitled to get the upholstery upgraded for free.

That is incorrect. My analogy assumes identical except one's used and one isn't. The sole difference between the two cars is a couple thousand miles and the owner count. They even have the same CD in the radio. We're talking "Whoa I'm seeing double" identical here. You're trying to fit differences in to twist thing to fit your analogy, and this needs to stop.

The difference is that one is used and one is not. Thus they are not identical.

Stating the obvious, are you?

Edit: to be clear, the analogy I gave corresponds to the actual situation and puts it into a reasonable context given the analogy. Yours presents what you wish were true of games.

No, it doesn't. Your analogy corresponds to DLC that adds content to the game, DLC everyone has to buy, and DLC that I have nothing against. My analogy refers to those bullshit codes that publishers are using to attempt to curb used game sales. It's content that was already there, content they've been paid for once, but they want to be paid again for it.

IF you fail to grasp this then we have nothing further to discuss, because I can't put it any simpler than that without literally handing you an example, pointing to it and saying "THIS".

No. If you paid the premium, you got all the extras. If you paid for the preowned, you didn't. It's not hard to understand.

Then I guess we have nothing further to discuss. It is clear to me that you cannot possibly understand what I'm posting, which given my habit of wording things badly isn't surprising.

It seems a little hypocritical to call someone out on not understanding their viewpoint when you don't appear (or are unwilling) to consider their viewpoint. It's like two identical Chevys that crash into each other in a way such that neither is more to blame than the other for the crash. Your argument is that the other person must be at fault (i.e. only your viewpoint is correct) whereas mine is that both are correct in different ways (i.e. we were each equally to blame for the crash).

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

I just finished Dragon Age 2 the other day, and I'm not going to comment on the game itself here since there are a million other posts about it, but I was looking though the achievements on my Xbox 360 to see what I missed and there were a couple to do with a character whom I had no meet yet. I thought that maybe I missed him somewhere so I looked online to see where he was. Turns out he was on a one use only code which came free with the preorder but you had to buy it otherwise.

Which brings me to this: They put an achievement on my game that I could NEVER get without forking out extra cash. I can never get my 1000 points (100$ completion basically) without either pre-ordering the game or by buying it online. I personally feel that this is a major rip-off. They should IMO add the achievement with the purchase and not have it already there but not be usuable. I feel this is just another insult to the whole "One use DLC stuff" thats been going on making people buy new games over preowned ones.

I hate it, and I hate the companies engaging in it. bastards.

(1) I agree, they should just have added the achievements with the DLC. It seems like lazy design to leave them in.

(2) I don't agree that this is really a big deal. At all. Or even any sort of "rip-off". It's like you ordered food and you're unhappy with the restaurant because your waiter was carrying someone else's appetizer (that you already decided not to buy) on the same platter as your food. It's a silly thing to get worked up about.

(3) I really, really doubt that this has anything to do with the "One use DLC stuff". It seems more like it's just lazy design: they just didn't bother to put in a flag to hide those achievements without the DLC installed.

(4) Being up in arms about the "One use DLC stuff" in general is silly. When you get a used game without this DLC stuff involved, you benefit from the development of the game essentially as much as the first person who owned it, but the publisher gets nothing while the reseller gets to effectively reduce the price they pay for games by reselling them. Trying to recoup a fraction of this cost seems fine to me so long as the game is equally playable without the DLC (you obviously don't need that DA2 character, since you completed it without knowing he existed) and the locked content is clearly spelled out to consumers (locking something like multiplayer is fine with me because the publisher typically needs money to run matchmaking services and you can still enjoy singleplayer for cheaper if you don't want to buy new or buy the DLC, but the case better tell you that the multiplayer is locked before you buy a used copy). Basically, I'm fine with them involving themselves in used game sales, but they have to realize that it means they have responsibilities for labelling and such even in the used game sales.

 

[Lukeje]

And I said we have nothing further to discuss. It is obvious to me that neither of us are going to get anywhere, so why are you still pratting on about it? Drop the subject already.

Why do you keep replying if you feel that there's nothing to discuss?

 

[HapexIndustries]

The only DLC I buy for games are the mini-expansions that come out for the Fallout games. I would never pay extra money for a suit of armor or a special gun, but it does bother me that I don't have the full game when I pay for, especially if there is DLC at launch.

Oh wait, I bought the character pack for Castle Crashers also... and the card expansions for MtGlaneswalkers... Man I'm stupid with my money sometimes.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

He's bought the game, he deserves all the characters. To me, this just seems like removing Alyx or Barney from Half Life 2 if you didn't pre order, or pay extra.

Was he a worthwhile character though? I'm on my third play through and am managing just fine with my current companions. You can't really compare the removal of an arguably useless side character to the removal of a character like alyx who is integral to the advancement of a games story. Besides all the comments I've heard about the dlc character have been about how bland he is.

He is an archer and not that bad, I only used him for his mission quests. You aren't missing much, really.

 

[Littlee300]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

A person being annoyed because when they realized that when they bought the game they would have to pay more to have proof of fully completing it. If it is included in the achievements then it is like they sold him 95% of the game rather than giving him 100% and making the DLC feel like adding 5% to get 105%.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it? If the 100% completion matters that much to you then you would pay for the DLC.

A person being annoyed because when they realized that when they bought the game they would have to pay more to have proof of fully completing. If it is included in the achievements then it is like that sold him 95% of the game rather than adding 5% to get 105$.

They did get the 100% the day 1 dlc was for pre-orders it was a bonus. It's included on the disc because it's a pre-order bonus. And you got it for free if you pre-ordered. If they gave it to everyone for free it wouldn't be a dlc bonus.

The multiplayer 1 off codes cost about $10, if you're buying used chances are it's less than $10 off the new. You still save money, if it's not go back to the store and return it for full price. While there please think real hard on why you bought a used game that wasn't even at a good discount. (This is of course unless Gamestop is so evil that it's the only one to offer full refunds on used games.)

I can never get my 1000 points (100$ completion basically) without either pre-ordering the game or by buying it online. I personally feel that this is a major rip-off.

You gonna edit this? As many have pointed out, you do get 1000 points without the DLC. 130 more with the DLC.

 

[RevRaptor]

I was mighty pissed off when I got my copy of forza 3 to see a whole bunch of cars in the lists but no way to buy them. turns out only the people that bought the limited edition release could get them. So If I could not buy the cars why could I see the damn things in the shop and back then you couldn't even buy the vip pack dlc to get them. It's not cool to have a bunch of cars you can see but not drive in a racing game.

 

[Lukeje]

And I said we have nothing further to discuss. It is obvious to me that neither of us are going to get anywhere, so why are you still pratting on about it? Drop the subject already.

Why do you keep replying if you feel that there's nothing to discuss?

Ask yourself that. The proper thing to have happened was you stop replying when I first said we had nothing further to discuss, yet you brought it back up anyways, so I had to remind you of that.


Now do kindly take heed. There is nothing further to discuss between us.

I know full well why I'm replying. It's you that seems unwilling to give up the discussion you started (despite protestations to the contrary).

 

[Pearwood]

As soon as achievements start having a practical use then I'll consider it immoral to have DLC-only ones

 

[Something Amyss]

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it?

Yes, it's paying for the game he has a problem with.

 

[Lukeje]

And I said we have nothing further to discuss. It is obvious to me that neither of us are going to get anywhere, so why are you still pratting on about it? Drop the subject already.

Why do you keep replying if you feel that there's nothing to discuss?

Ask yourself that. The proper thing to have happened was you stop replying when I first said we had nothing further to discuss, yet you brought it back up anyways, so I had to remind you of that.


Now do kindly take heed. There is nothing further to discuss between us.

I know full well why I'm replying. It's you that seems unwilling to give up the discussion you started (despite protestations to the contrary).

You're just trying to get the last word in. If you'll notice I haven't said a damn thing about the discussion we were having since I said we had nothing further to discuss, and this will continue to be the case.

Put simply, if you stop quoting me you'll notice I'll stop posting, and the only reason I'm replying to these posts is to annoy you and deny you the last word.

So you keep right on keeping on. I've got nothing but time and boredom.

So you admit that you're trying to troll me? Why is it important that you get in the last word?

So... you're annoyed that the developers of a game want you to pay them for it?

Yes, it's paying for the game he has a problem with.

I'm trying to tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

 

[jpoon]

To me the day one DLC is complete lazy bullshit, I really hate that devs do this shit, and more than that I hate the fact that so many people are just fine with it. It's stopped me from buying a few games already, so yeah, shit is annoying.

 

[Lukeje]

And I said we have nothing further to discuss. It is obvious to me that neither of us are going to get anywhere, so why are you still pratting on about it? Drop the subject already.

Why do you keep replying if you feel that there's nothing to discuss?

Ask yourself that. The proper thing to have happened was you stop replying when I first said we had nothing further to discuss, yet you brought it back up anyways, so I had to remind you of that.


Now do kindly take heed. There is nothing further to discuss between us.

I know full well why I'm replying. It's you that seems unwilling to give up the discussion you started (despite protestations to the contrary).

You're just trying to get the last word in. If you'll notice I haven't said a damn thing about the discussion we were having since I said we had nothing further to discuss, and this will continue to be the case.

Put simply, if you stop quoting me you'll notice I'll stop posting, and the only reason I'm replying to these posts is to annoy you and deny you the last word.

So you keep right on keeping on. I've got nothing but time and boredom.

So you admit that you're trying to troll me?

Nah. Trust me if I was trying to troll you you'd recognize it. Most common sign when I do is a PM box full of trollface.jpg. But no, I'm not trolling you. If you were simply to not reply this post I'd never post in this thread again.

It's a different form of trolling. Do you really believe that trolling has to be that blatant? The whole point is that it goes unrecognised.

Why is it important that you get in the last word?

It isn't. But if it annoys you then I'll shoot for it.

I'm really surprised we haven't been suspended / probationed / banned for this yet. Oh well.