Ubisoft: "DLC is Pretty Much Accepted Now"
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
I don't mind DLC. Think Skyrim. Dawnguard and Dragonborn added, quite literally, hours to play time while giving you whole new areas to explore. Kingdom of Amalur and Sleeping Dogs added fighting tournaments and new weapons. I don't much care for weapon skins or character skins, especially when the skins don't have any added benefit or abilities.
Yeah... That's basically my stance on DLC in a nutshell for the past year or so...Uriel-238 said:
OT: Also, I don't accept DLC in the slightest... especially when they're more or less super frivolous add-ons that just make the whole thing look like it's secretly trying to be a F2P right when you start the game in question... It's even worse when there isn't a pending Complete Edition or Game of the Year Edition release of a game that does do DLC in general, for better or for worse, in it's future... Granted, I have let certain games slide mainly on the grounds of them being from Japan, for example, but that still doesn't mean I "accept" DLC the same way this Chris Early guy is claiming everyone to feel right now...
iirc Bethesda were one of the first to do DLC as we now know it. Arguably they did have mis-steps with Oblivion but, it could be said, this was very much an experiment.JET1971 said:
I will agree that, post-Oblivion, Bethesda have been spot on with their DLC, even more so with FO:NV, Skyrim and Dishonored where the DLC was published through Steam, making it easy to purchase and download (unlike say Dragon Age 2 and messing about with Bioware points).
I think DLC, when done right, is a good thing for consumers and publishers/developers. When done badly it is poor-value, confusing for the consumer and, ultimately, diminish the brand.
I don?t think its acceptance, everybody who doesn?t like your dlc practices has either jumped ship ubisoft or simply doesn?t buy your dlc, those people have already voiced their complaints a thousand times, and since ubisoft is not run by goldfish(hopefully) they assume you got the message.
I could make an analogy to something pretty inappropriate, but I'll just say this: when you're in a position to keep doing whatever you want for years because the entire industry culture has been cultivated to treat customer abuse as the only option, you can basically justify anything you want and you don't have to ever apologize for it because you can be confident that they have nowhere else to go.
"don't worry, it'll be over soon"
as for not complaining about every specific game where people pay too much money
there isn't nearly enough time for me to cover them all and not enough anger in my head to properly express the rage that deserves, so overall it's difficult to actually represent the amount of dissent that is apparently something quantifiable in terms of something a person with their ass up their head would actually think they were making a poor decision as opposed to outright dismissing it unless it started actually hurting them instead of somebody else
"don't worry, it'll be over soon"
as for not complaining about every specific game where people pay too much money
there isn't nearly enough time for me to cover them all and not enough anger in my head to properly express the rage that deserves, so overall it's difficult to actually represent the amount of dissent that is apparently something quantifiable in terms of something a person with their ass up their head would actually think they were making a poor decision as opposed to outright dismissing it unless it started actually hurting them instead of somebody else
Since when are expansions dead? All the franchises you cited there had expansions for their next releases - Diablo 3 got an expansion in March this year, and Dawn of War 2 and Age of Empires 3 got two each. Civilization 5 has had two major ones, each of which introduced things that made the game feel fundamentally different and added new civilizations to learn and master, but it also introduced a lot of minor single-Civ DLC as well.ObsidianJones said:
Expansions aren't all that common in console games (although X-COM still did one! Really hoping they bring that to iPad) but they never have been.
All that's really changed in the last twelve years is that non-strategy games are getting additional story content too.
I was going to type my own comment but this is pretty much EXACTLY what I wanted to say.Sniper Team 4 said:
Only time expansion dlc pisses me off is when it was clearly part of the main game but got locked off behind a paywall (To ashes dlc for mass effect 3)
Well that cetianly explains why Ubisoft came out with so many "edtions" of Watch Dogs that I just gave up and played the waiting game, which as history has taught me I shall be rewarded for with "complete" editions for half the price.
Im pretty sure people accept DLC like a bunch of non Nazi Germans in the area accepted Auschwitz.
If Ubisoft were American they'd be really taking home that worst company award this year.
Im pretty sure people accept DLC like a bunch of non Nazi Germans in the area accepted Auschwitz.
If Ubisoft were American they'd be really taking home that worst company award this year.
Fixed that for you.Steven Bogos said:
Yes, DLC has become the standard model, sadly. But I see no less bitching about bullshit DLC, which is what about 95% of the DLC content is right now. Even actual content DLC (as opposed to map packs, online shortcuts, skins and similar bullshit) is rarely worth the money. Expansion packs delivered in downloadable format are few and far in between and those are the ones that people actually enjoy.
Ubisoft is the new EA when it comes to bad PR, calling it here.
Not wanting to make any strong statements of your own, eh? Doesn't seem that they actually have much faith in the model if they're using the term 'resist'.
Not wanting to make any strong statements of your own, eh? Doesn't seem that they actually have much faith in the model if they're using the term 'resist'.
That's why I never bought DLC that wasn't an expansion pack worth of content. I remember when getting a patch included 5-6 maps and a few weapons that were not finished on release and the dev's finished them after. Now I see stripped down games with DLC coming on day 1 that could have been a part of the release and more coming after that could have been a part of a patch because 1 dev couldn't get time to do it to make it ready for release day. Then the publishers claim that they were made after the game and make you pay for dev labor twice. and yes pay twice for the dev's to make the content is my stand for many DLC especially On disk. they were already paid to do it and if they still had a small amount to do to finish the bulk of it was paid for already.Strazdas said:
An expansion pack that adds whole new elements that could even change the main game and comes out in 2 months says it wasn't already paid for completely except maybe concept art and a small amount of models. This style of DLC is expansion packs and are worth buying if the dev's actually made any money from them.
Last ubi game I bought was FC2. Effing DRM was made me say fuck off ubi and not buy/play another. the DLC... Fortunes pack.. FffFFfffFFFfffffffffffffuuck You!! a few maps when we have a map editor, a new vehicle and some weapons. Nope never bought it.
ITT: People taking comments out of context to rant about DLC
Have to agree with pretty much everything he's said.
Can't see anything wrong with offering time saving micro-transactions for those that want them, it's a win-win situation.
Being forced to buy DLC to get a complete game is definitely a bad thing.
Someone wanting to spend $10k+ on a game is at least an indication that they enjoy the game, highly debatable whether or not that's good game design though.
It's certainly a good thing that they're giving the devs freedom to make smaller scale and more niche games like Child of Light and Valiant Hearts.
Can't see games becoming purely digital any time soon either because, as he says, not everyone has access to or can afford the kind of internet speeds that it requires.
Have to agree with pretty much everything he's said.
Can't see anything wrong with offering time saving micro-transactions for those that want them, it's a win-win situation.
Being forced to buy DLC to get a complete game is definitely a bad thing.
Someone wanting to spend $10k+ on a game is at least an indication that they enjoy the game, highly debatable whether or not that's good game design though.
It's certainly a good thing that they're giving the devs freedom to make smaller scale and more niche games like Child of Light and Valiant Hearts.
Can't see games becoming purely digital any time soon either because, as he says, not everyone has access to or can afford the kind of internet speeds that it requires.
Because both Child of Light and Valiant Hearts (two of the three games being referred to) belong to "milkable franchises" and conform to "safe, predictable, market-proven design".Atmos Duality said:
Accepted..are you kidding me? The fact that you cut content from your main game to get extra money out of it via DLC and getting gullible people that don't know any better that buy it doesn't really make it "accepted by the people".
Ubisoft really think we're idiots don't they?
Ubisoft really think we're idiots don't they?
The first part of your post are part of DLC "Expansions" AKA the best kind. They add a few hours to a game and don't effect the main game in a major way, but they do add to the experience. The second part of your post describes "Fluff" DLC. Skins, maps, blood pacs, more realistic physics, armor, etc. They are just their to decorate the game in pretty paper and they really don't matter that much however if you want them they will only set you back by about three bucks, so go for it.Sniper Team 4 said:
The THIRD DLC type is the one almost everyone hates but it's the only type companies do these days because it brings them the most money. I call this type "Bullshit" DLC. Micro transactions that can majorly impede your progress. Pay-to-win models. Parts of the MAIN story that can completely affect your experience. Chunks they already finished but held it back from launch or locked it on disc just to get more money. That is the worst type.
Well, I guess. I've accepted that if I wait for the definitive edition I don't have to pay twice as much for the game and its content. I've also accepted that there's no point in buying online shooters if you're not going to get the season pass because the player base gets splintered and the game can feel dead, so I just gave up on buying those at all.
This sort of attitude (Ubisoft's, not yours. You and I agree) and all of their dumbfuckery around DLC are exactly why I have not bought a Ubisoft game in 6 years. I know they don't care, but it is my little way of saying "Fucky you Ubisoft!"RealRT said:
I'll continue not buying Ubisoft games. Now if only other people would get on board - it wouldn't take Ubisoft long to understand that people aren't okay with this stuff, we just don't have any other options.
