Ubisoft: "DLC is Pretty Much Accepted Now"
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
I personally have no problem buying a "story based DLC" and never really have for I look at it as an expansion that has been cut up to be released quicker containing ideas and stories that were cut from the game to make the release schedule just like expansions used to do.
I almost never buy a "weapon pack" or "horse armor" DLC for I don't find I use them so why bother wasting my money, the DLC practice that will lead to major bad will from me is the "unlock key" for all you download is a 64kb file to unlock what is on the disk and Capcom is the worst for that.
I almost never buy a "weapon pack" or "horse armor" DLC for I don't find I use them so why bother wasting my money, the DLC practice that will lead to major bad will from me is the "unlock key" for all you download is a 64kb file to unlock what is on the disk and Capcom is the worst for that.
Time saving DLC is fine eh ? Not really because that merely encourages game mechanics that waste time which makes such DLC a worthwhile proposition.
I used to complain about DLC but inevitably you would get someone come in and tell you that you dont have to buy the DLC, completely ignoring the way that a lot of DLC is often cut from the main game.
I mean you dont really believe that the artist and designers make ONE texture during the development of the main game, and then develop extra textures later ?
Its much more likely that the rejected textures and concepts are simply put to one side as alternative costumes for later DLC.
I think this is also a 'iconic cap' moment where Ubi simple state something, and hope it becomes a fact... like the Watch_Dog cap, or the DRM that was effective against pirates.
... simply shows Ubi is way out of touch with the market popularity wise, but I must admit they do have a good grasp on how to squeeze the sheep for cash.
I used to complain about DLC but inevitably you would get someone come in and tell you that you dont have to buy the DLC, completely ignoring the way that a lot of DLC is often cut from the main game.
I mean you dont really believe that the artist and designers make ONE texture during the development of the main game, and then develop extra textures later ?
Its much more likely that the rejected textures and concepts are simply put to one side as alternative costumes for later DLC.
I think this is also a 'iconic cap' moment where Ubi simple state something, and hope it becomes a fact... like the Watch_Dog cap, or the DRM that was effective against pirates.
... simply shows Ubi is way out of touch with the market popularity wise, but I must admit they do have a good grasp on how to squeeze the sheep for cash.
Ubisoft is just creeping ahead to being worse than EA.
It was pretty easy to spot Ubisoft's shitty DLC practices early on. In Assassin's Creed 2, they skipped over sequences 12 and 13 claiming that they were "corrupted", as well as cutting off half of the city of Florence, then Ubisoft announced that both of those sequences would be released as paid DLC, one of which will unlock the other half of Florence. It boggles my mind that they would cut off 2 whole sequences of the story (of a story based game, mind you) just to flog off later down the line for a little extra money.
Also, UPlay sucks ass. "Thank you for choosing UPlay", it claims when you play a game on it. No, Ubisoft, I didn't "choose" UPlay, you forced it on me when I payed for your game on steam, yet it insists that I use your service, notorious for making the games that it runs with slower, and seems incapable to download all of the updates at once, as well as insisting that I keep UPlay tabbed in, otherwise my games will tick down to 0b/s.
It was pretty easy to spot Ubisoft's shitty DLC practices early on. In Assassin's Creed 2, they skipped over sequences 12 and 13 claiming that they were "corrupted", as well as cutting off half of the city of Florence, then Ubisoft announced that both of those sequences would be released as paid DLC, one of which will unlock the other half of Florence. It boggles my mind that they would cut off 2 whole sequences of the story (of a story based game, mind you) just to flog off later down the line for a little extra money.
Also, UPlay sucks ass. "Thank you for choosing UPlay", it claims when you play a game on it. No, Ubisoft, I didn't "choose" UPlay, you forced it on me when I payed for your game on steam, yet it insists that I use your service, notorious for making the games that it runs with slower, and seems incapable to download all of the updates at once, as well as insisting that I keep UPlay tabbed in, otherwise my games will tick down to 0b/s.
To be fair, some of that dlc is made in the period between release and finished development. Which developers really should communicate better.dragongit said:
OT: Good DLC is accepted, yes.. Because it is good. Skins and pay-to-win is not nearly as, if at all, accepted. Guess which Ubisoft has the most of?
yeah, it's accepted that you're not very good at it. It seems to me that a lot of DLC is just made to try and keep profit margins up due to studios not having any idea at how a budget is supposed to work.
The existence of DLC is one of the things that keeps me from ever buying a game at launch. I know if I just wait a year or two I can get the game and all the cut content for 1/3rd of the price or less on a sale. I imagine a lot of people think along these lines as well.
Besides seeing half-finished content on disks how many examples are there of content that was cut to become DLC? I know Capcom has a lot of on disk DLC, but most of the other examples I have seen people using for the argument of "content cut for DLC" generally is based on content that is about half finished with aspects that are complete, but the entire work is not near completion.
unless that DLC is what in my days was considered an "expansion pack", no, people still hate DLC
Oh Yeah, Evolution baby. Though I believe it's that your DLC seems accepted because everyone that hated it became sick of your shit and decided not to bother with you anymore. I've seen many just give up on you Ubi, like I did awhile ago.
I first liked the idea of DLC as it was just cheaper smaller expanion packs. But these days its just fucking skins and weapons i never use and ultimatly leaves me feeling like i paid for bullshit or buying the rest of my dam game. So i pretty much stopped altogether and only buy expanions when ever they do come out for make sure my DLC is worth it. Perhaps the next gen have just grown up with it and are used to it so its normal to pay almost double to get your completed game.
pretty simple you would think, but i guess its not greedy enough and thats what it all boils down to.TelHybrid said:
i also got AC2 since day 1 and then of course always online was required. sure had no hassle installing uplay but it was aggravating when the connection got lost and you get kicked out of the game. my connection back then was not the most stable one but good enough for online games regardless. i think it was a year later or so when they have made this change that you dont have to be always online to play the AC series. if im not mistaken it happened with brotherhood.Strazdas said:
I generally ignore DLC, unless it's free. But paid DLC? Unless it's like "Dragonborn" for Skyrim (for example), I won't buy it. Last time I bought DLC was Arrival for Mass Effect 2, then ME3 came out and I realised I wasted my money on the ME franchise. I think with DLC; You get burned once and that's pretty much it.
Are Ubisoft trying to get out all their daft statements in one big "stupidity burst"? Giving Jim plenty to talk about at least, which is nice of them. Not that the games industry doesn't give him enough already.
Its kind of like pre ordering. There's no guarantee of quality, so you're taking a risk. If you hav faith in the developer, however, like I do in telltale, then the deal can be good. You just have to be careful. DLC isn't evil, it's just exploitable.Elijin said: