So essentially his argument is "Pay for price for a game and then smile and pay more to actually play the full game and if you don't then your a whiny ***** and don't deserve the limited content your given." Goes on to call all free to play trash and then proceeds to immediately dismiss the largest hole in his argument ie. TF2 and does all of this while defending EA?
Why gamers should embrace on-disc DLC
- Thread starter Mr. Fister
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/038/a/c/troll_threads_by_deventh-d4oz460.jpg
yep, the pic speaks for itself here.
yep, the pic speaks for itself here.
Major flaw I can see in your logic: More money does not equal better games.
Example:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 - Absurd amounts of cash invested, absurd amounts made from previous games in series - is a recycled hunk of shit that just repeats the series formula without trying anything original
Eternal Darkness - Moderate budget at best, which shows in it's pretty poor for the time graphics (don't blame the cube, it was actually stronger than the Xbox if I recall right, however due to it's storage medium it often couldn't work up the same quality of textures), no previous games and the few the studio had put out (I think just the one), while doing okay, weren't exactly summer blockbusters - Widely considered one of the best games of all time.
I imagine there are thousands of other examples like this.
Sir, don't be a tool of the publishers. It's cool to respect and even love the developers of your favorite game to the point where you want to give them money, but don't mistake the publisher of the game (who had nothing to do with production other than giving money and likely fucking it up by demanding shit) gouging you for alternate costumes for the developers politely asking for more to put towards other games.
Example:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 - Absurd amounts of cash invested, absurd amounts made from previous games in series - is a recycled hunk of shit that just repeats the series formula without trying anything original
Eternal Darkness - Moderate budget at best, which shows in it's pretty poor for the time graphics (don't blame the cube, it was actually stronger than the Xbox if I recall right, however due to it's storage medium it often couldn't work up the same quality of textures), no previous games and the few the studio had put out (I think just the one), while doing okay, weren't exactly summer blockbusters - Widely considered one of the best games of all time.
I imagine there are thousands of other examples like this.
Sir, don't be a tool of the publishers. It's cool to respect and even love the developers of your favorite game to the point where you want to give them money, but don't mistake the publisher of the game (who had nothing to do with production other than giving money and likely fucking it up by demanding shit) gouging you for alternate costumes for the developers politely asking for more to put towards other games.
If you have money to throw around then be my guest, but if you don't earn a lot of money then supporting anti consumer practices isn't really a good idea. I'll support whoever I deem worthy thanks.
First of all, we the customers are entitled to whatever standards we deem acceptable. We should both make it clear to the publishers/developers on official forums and by voting with our wallet.
Second, if they actually need more money than the ridiculously high $60 price provides, it means they spent too much money on making the game. Next time, they should use a lower budget. Steam sales show that you can vastly increase profits by putting your game on a 75% sale.
Second, if they actually need more money than the ridiculously high $60 price provides, it means they spent too much money on making the game. Next time, they should use a lower budget. Steam sales show that you can vastly increase profits by putting your game on a 75% sale.
Throwing more money at things doesn't make them better....
That tries to boil down games to simply a matter of resources... what about the idea? The game design? The artistry?
If things with a lot of money were super amazing, then explain transformers ~_~
Yea, money can get you giant resources to make stuff look REALLY cool. Buy people to paint individual pimples on every enemy in the game. But... that isn't what makes games great ~_~
That tries to boil down games to simply a matter of resources... what about the idea? The game design? The artistry?
If things with a lot of money were super amazing, then explain transformers ~_~
Yea, money can get you giant resources to make stuff look REALLY cool. Buy people to paint individual pimples on every enemy in the game. But... that isn't what makes games great ~_~
I totally agree with you but you would still think publishers could wait 1-2 weeks before releasing this dlc to avoid the whole stigma of money grabbing. Just seems like common sense to me.tippy2k2 said:
So he's saying we should allow gaming companies to scam us? Pardon me, but if a game company wants to remain relevant, they should produce QUALITY games, and QUALITY DLC. I wouldn't pay for on-disc DLC, no matter how awesome it is, but I would pay for an additional map pack if it is WORTH IT. Perhaps he should remember that. -.-'
I don't think I've seen this much flak since that poor fellow put up the video on YouTube entitles 'Steam for Mac sucks'.
I haven't seen this much flak since watching 'Steam for Mac sucks'.DugMachine said: