Ubisoft: "DLC is Pretty Much Accepted Now"

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,157
0
0
Of course DLC is pretty much accepted. Everyone who'se sick of the shit gaming has been pulling the last 3 years is gone. My old gaming crew has pretty much dissolved to other hobbies, and I'm mostly playing indies on steam. I'm sure Ubisoft has it's diehard fans who will buy every AC game regardless of DRM or DLC, but everyone who'se neutral about their games knows to avoid them by now.

As far as the speedup DLC's go... Cheat Engine.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
On ubisoft's bed, there was one last small patch of whiteness that had not been covered in brown.

Guess who had chipotle tonight!
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Yeah, I just stopped buying Ubisoft games, I didn't accept their shitty DLC practices.
And since sales have been down in the AC line, I think it's stupid to assume we just all took it.

That being said, I've been fine with time saver packs since the beginning of last gen. I don't care, I'm not going to use them, but whatever. There are bigger issues with DLC that I care about far more than whether someone is grinding X number of Y in game Z.
 

JET1971

New member
Apr 7, 2011
836
0
0
Bethesda DLC after Horse Armor for the Fallout games and Elder Scrolls I do not mind buying at all because they expand upon the game and add allot to it, even Horse Armor wasn't a bad deal as far as DLC because it wasn't $20, it was a very reasonable amount for what you got compared to some games these days charging more for even less.

Season pass, 5 maps packs, cheats, and $20 weapon skins are not quality DLC and shouldn't be acceptable and any publisher crony that says they should be can go fuck themselves with a railroad tie after banging a box full of nails halfway into it.
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
As long as devs understand that DLC stands for Downloadable Content and not Disc-Locked Content, then we're good.

I don't even care anymore if its outrageously priced, since I can just ignore it in that case. But if I buy the disc, I deserve ownership of everything that's on the disc.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
if you are getting faceslapped every time you come hope from work, after 5 years you stop crying out in pain - not going to change it now is it. this is what happened with DLCs, gamers have accepted that its just another unstoppable thievery. Sadly, some of us still remmeber when things they call DLCs now used to be patches that were free. And yes, patches would add extra content, because back then developers actually cared about audience opinion.

As far as Ubisoft in particular, havent bought Ubisoft game since AC2, Always online DRM = i take my business elsewhere.
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
This is the motivation for a lot of shady practices in general, not just in the games industry.

The idea is to create new "facts on the ground" which are politically favorable to the force creating, pushing, and benefiting from the fact. DLC helps stabilize revenue over time for the game publisher and developer at the expense of artistic integrity - consider if the Mona Lisa was halfway done, copies were sold, and then more of the painting was doled out for additional fees. This makes it extremely difficult on the artist to produce a great work - if musicians had to create half a song and then do bits and pieces more over the next year or two there would be no way to have a coherent artistic vision. It's also extremely difficult to determine just what the identity of the game IS. Is it the game with all the DLC? What about if planned DLC is cancelled? In every other artform the work is settled on, produced, and that's it. With DLC games have a myriad of versions, all of which claim to be the "same" game.

DLC is part of a philosophy that games are a product, like peanut butter, not an artform. They are the only artform in history to do anything like this, and it's not treated seriously by many gamers.

How should game historians treat this? Should they have to catalogue every DLC for every game? Should they consider only the "final" version of the game, complete with all DLC, despite many players not playing this "true" version of the game?

What about game reviewers? The vast majority of reviews come out around the same time the first version of the game is released. The reviewer is only reviewing the first "finished" version of the game, minus ALL of the DLC. So as the industry moves towards more and more DLC for each game, the relevance of reviewing the first "finished" version of the game becomes less and less, just as the relevance of reviewing a half-finished Mona Lisa is lacking.

Is this nonsense, harm, and chaos really worth it - largely so that corporations can show a steady income stream to their investors?
 

MisterColeman

New member
Mar 19, 2009
162
0
0
I suppose if you are the type to put up with uplay you are the type to pay for DLC so I'm pretty sure Ubisoft's demographic fits everything they are saying so of course their own numbers would back things up. They live in their own little pocket universe oblivious to all the potential sales they throw away by continuing with their nonsense.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
Strazdas said:
if you are getting faceslapped every time you come hope from work, after 5 years you stop crying out in pain - not going to change it now is it. this is what happened with DLCs, gamers have accepted that its just another unstoppable thievery. Sadly, some of us still remmeber when things they call DLCs now used to be patches that were free. And yes, patches would add extra content, because back then developers actually cared about audience opinion.

As far as Ubisoft in particular, havent bought Ubisoft game since AC2, Always online DRM = i take my business elsewhere.
this always online has been changed years ago. you dont have to be online to play the game. to many people have complained. now you can play, lose your connection, and still keep on playing. i know it since i happened to me few times. you just get a message that it lost connection but you still can play.

@DLC.
the sad thing is that people do accept it now since its an unstoppable marketing from the companies. i still dont have a problem with DLCs as long i get something for it but if its new skins, etc, then i see it as a waste of time. we even complained about tomb raider that the costumes have to be bought when the same company made these skins all unlockable by achieving things in the game.

i got my self child of light during the summer sales and i also got my self few DLCs, since they were on special as well. 1 was an extra character and thats something that does pay off, wile the rest were some skills you can unlock in the game anyway.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I do wish theses people would keep their mouths shut because every time they open them I'm overcome by the desire to work them over with a two-by-four. Sure I can live with DLC, but not your Pay-to-Win "DLC."
 

BanicRhys

New member
May 31, 2011
1,006
0
0
Look out, EA, Ubisoft is coming for your worst publisher title.

I, for one, hope they take it after what they did to Butt Creed.
 
Jun 23, 2008
613
0
0
Here's my take on DLC:

For a long series of games now, I'd see the game released, then a ton of DLC, and eventually they'd release a complete version.

Examples:
~ Borderlands 2 Game of the Year edition
~ Civilization V Complete Edition
~ Batman: Arkham City, Game of the Year Edition
~ Skyrim Legendary Edition
~ Saints Row IV National Treasure Edition (Coming in July 2014!)

So now, when I see a new AAA title released, I expect it is the Incomplete edition

I'll wait.

238U
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Maybe the gamers who give a damn about DLC are also the ones who aren't buying your games on principle anymore, Chris. Just food for thought.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Yeah a lot of gamers have stopped complaining. There's a term for this. It's called Stockholm syndrome.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Metalrocks said:
this always online has been changed years ago. you dont have to be online to play the game. to many people have complained. now you can play, lose your connection, and still keep on playing. i know it since i happened to me few times. you just get a message that it lost connection but you still can play.
I bought AC2 day 1. I could not play because servers were down. My friend who pirated the game could play because it didnt need online. I boycotted Ubisoft. I do not forgive easily. Even altrough Ubisoft have changed things somewhat, they still run their malware called UPlay. and the way they act while doing this is alone not worth buying from them.

"thank you for choosing UPlay". makes it sound like "Thank you for choosing slavery". Not really a choice whne your shackled and being lashed at now is it. So i chose not to buy from them.

I planned to lift that siege if Watch_Dogs were good, but since it does not seem that way, ill wait for something else.
Its not like they have much to offer to begin with. AC1 i liked, AC2 - not that much. Far cry 2 was so terrible it turned me off the franchise (though i hear 3 is very different so perhaps....). Never cared about Prince of Persia. Settlers franchise was good when it was settlers 2, Ubisoft ruined it long ago already.

Anno 2070 is something i would like to see but not worth it alone.

Im not saying im never going to buy anything from them. I may someday, maybe if they come through with what they said about DRM lately its enough. as it is though, i have plenty of other games to play besode buying games from company i dislike.
 

Kotoriii

New member
May 9, 2014
36
0
0
Please Jim! This statement is outrageous, please voice our deepest anger about this retarded statement. We beg you.
Ubisoft seems to be trying REALLY hard to take EA as worst gaming company this year. Keep it up guys!!!
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Might as well take my shots.

Chris Early said:
"There was no resistance...Maybe there were 12 guys somewhere who said something, but whatever. As a whole, there wasn't a problem."
I seriously doubt that. Some actual numbers like DLC sales proportional to games sold would give this statement meaning. As it stands, it sounds like Ubisoft is just here to thumb their noses back at the dissenters who rightly reject these sickening "convenience tax" DLC schemes.

It goes to show how much the industry has changed in recent years. Early acknowledged the change in player attitudes of late, and chalked it up (in part) to the increasing amount of communication on and discussion of monetization in the industry.
Discussion and communication? Between WHO? And what discussion is driving DLC sales? It sure isn't among the actual gamers discussing your DLC policies; most of what I see on the subject isn't as rosy as you want us to think.

"I think there are some models that are accepted now. DLC is pretty much accepted," Early said. "Season pass is pretty much accepted. Now it's interesting when you start to think of Season Pass as a Service Pass. For our Season Pass holders, I know we hold events for them specifically, so it's little bit more than just DLC content. So there's an evolution going on there."
Events? Fine. Season pass? It can be done well (Borderlands 2's season pass was an excellent deal) though in concept it is a still quite risky since nothing definitively offered. Just "We promise some DLC in the future. Pay us." about it.

"Service Pass"? Now I'm getting concerned, because that is pushing the line further towards service-centric gaming; aka, the envisioned future Hell where games are always online eternal rentals. A Hell I've already had a taste of, and even that was more than I could stomach.

They should feel like their purchases enhance the game rather than fill in the gaps for an incomplete experience.
Quite true...in principle.

In practice, this would have meaning if AAA didn't regularly withhold content for Day 1 DLC or "On Disc Content". Y'know, the exact situation where a company deliberately creates a situation where the player must buy DLC to fill in the gaps for the complete experience.

"I know people who've spent five digits or more of money in Clash of Clans, spending in the tens of thousands of dollars," Early said. "Who would think of that? But nobody's really angry about that. That's how that guy chooses to play, and he's playing against other people of the same calibre, whether they got there through spending hundreds of hours playing the game or tens of thousands of dollars. Good design, that's what it comes down to."
Seriously?!
No, that isn't "good design", and it's definitely not just a matter of "how that guy chooses to play".
Spending five figures on one game is not "good design" because it's NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR.
That's behavior akin to gambling addiction.

Frankly, it's disgusting and I do hate it because it promotes the worst possible behavior in gaming and game design; where your wallet and/or wasted time dictates who wins, not who has the best skill. Not that you would care, I mean, from your perspective that's strong revenue. Why is it the deeper this business goes, the more it "evolves", the more it resembles drug dealers peddling to their stable of addicts?

"We can bring a bigger breadth of games to players, a creative breath of fresh air to our designers, and we approach all of it the same way. We look at all of these as opportunities to bring entertainment and at the same time provide a good return to our shareholders."
Yes, a creative breath of fresh air...as long as it resides in one of your three milkable franchises and conforms to the safe, predictable, market-proven specifications of design.

Just like Henry Ford: "You can have any colour as long as it's black."
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
Expecting this kind of bullshit from the games industry is NOT the same as accepting it. Pull your head out of your arse and smell the shit coming out of your own mouth, Ubisoft.
 

mirage202

New member
Mar 13, 2012
334
0
0
My answer to all this has become fairly simple. I no longer pre-order anything. I no longer buy anything day one at full price. I wait for the 75% off sales and only then will I buy a game. I don't support the nickle and dime bullshit so instead I exercise a little patience and get the whole lot for the same price as the season pass alone.

Makes far more sense this way IMO. So yes Mr Ubi dude you are right, I am more accepting of DLC but you only get pennies from me for it now instead of dollars.