Will the Idea of a "complete" game be a thing of the past?

[Vault101]

im not here to say yes or no...spcualtion is just that...speculation

and with all the controversy over DLC and such its gotten me thinking

for better or worse mabye the Idea fo a complete game will instead be where you get the first "part" and then just get DLC as it comes

ot perhaps an episodic model...except personally I dont know...(because of a certain episode of somthing...)

I mean not only as a more benifical buisness model but also as some kind of way to combat Piracy?

It got me thinking after reading a big long article on piracy and PC gaming,

anyway personally I really dont like the Idea...

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I don't like the idea of DLC but the Extra Credits episode helped explain to me why publishers do it. So as long as I think the content is worth the money I'll buy it. I do wish they'd make the game you buy off the shelf cheaper to compensate for it though.

 

[Vault101]

Oh FFS, I wish this issue would die. No one is being underhanded or selling you an incomplete game by offering DLC. For the love of god, no one owes you anything.

[HEADING=2]If you don't want the DLC...DO NOT BUY IT![/HEADING]

And for Christ's sake, stop expecting something for nothing.

Im not a pirate...I pay for my games and I damn well want to get what I paid for

its not that I hate DLC, I mean "usually" its not taking too much out of the game, its just annoying that some of us cant access it...and when somthing "plot critical" comes along....but thats beside the point

anyway I mean do you think the traditional "buy the game, play the game" buisness model could change? due to many factors...cost or piracey

like wasnt there some motorcross game that got realeased at like $40 then they would just add a crapload of DLC?

 

[MajorDolphin]

Oh FFS, I wish this issue would die. No one is being underhanded or selling you an incomplete game by offering DLC. For the love of god, no one owes you anything.

[HEADING=2]If you don't want the DLC...DO NOT BUY IT![/HEADING]

And for Christ's sake, stop expecting something for nothing.

Thats your opinion. What would you call DLC thats on the disc the day the game comes out but locked? What would you call it when a games online community is split up over various map macks? What about games like Socom4 that was launched without a party or lobby system and wont get one until June? That certainly seems incomplete and they're not going to charge for that.

It doesn't have to be DLC for a game to be incomplete. Companies are relying far more on patching and games are getting released before they're done.

 

[GiantRaven]

Oh FFS, I wish this issue would die. No one is being underhanded or selling you an incomplete game by offering DLC. For the love of god, no one owes you anything.

I don't know. On the one hand, I agree with games like Fallout, Oblivion or Mass Effect where all the content takes place outside the main quest (unless I'm missing something). But looking at a game like Assassin's Creed 2, for example, it seems a little suspect that two sections of story right in the middle of the game are completely missing. Not that it hampered my enjoyment of the game in any way, mind you. It just seems like something that should be in the initial release.

 

[Vault101]

Not to be a dick, but we haven't been getting complete games for a while.

It used to be:
1) Purchase Game
2) Install Game
3) Enjoy Game (And maybe patch)

Then it became:
1) Purchase Game
2) Install Game
3) Patch Game with things that were fixed but weren't fixed in time for the discs.
4) Enjoy Game
5) Patch Game a month later.

(Just noticed the first three steps above are Pie. Cake can go F itself.)

*for teresed*

at least they dont charge you for the patch...dont wanna give somone the wrong Idea

 

[Hive Mind]

We find people's inability to understand the nature of DLC disturbing.

 

[Vault101]

Oh FFS, I wish this issue would die. No one is being underhanded or selling you an incomplete game by offering DLC. For the love of god, no one owes you anything.

[HEADING=2]If you don't want the DLC...DO NOT BUY IT![/HEADING]

And for Christ's sake, stop expecting something for nothing.

Im not a pirate...I pay for my games and I damn well want to get what I paid for

its not that I hate DLC, I mean "usually" its not taking too much out of the game, its just annoying that some of us cant access it...and when somthing "plot critical" comes along....but thats beside the point

anyway I mean do you think the traditional "buy the game, play the game" buisness model could change? due to many factors...cost or piracey

like wasnt there some motorcross game that got realeased at like $40 then they would just add a crapload of DLC?

You have a falsified idea of what DLC is and it's intent. I never called you a pirate, so I don't know where that came from. But honestly, this site is plagued with a stupid virus when it comes to DLC. As they all think that parts are removed from a finished game and then released as seperate DLC, which never happens.

I don't really understand what you mean by "Buy the game, play the game". You might want to clarify.

I know you didnt call me a pirate...I guess I was using that as an example of people who expect somthing for nothing (like going to tech suport my stolen version of the game doesnt work!)

because Im paying for somthing I expect to not be ripped off, anyway the thign with DLC is its shady, there is a line between DLC thats an extra and DLC that with common sense really SHOULD have been included (especially if its important to the story), its somwhat subjective, somtimes DLC isn t bad and can patch up things they intended to add but couldnt due to time, but somtimes....its painfully obvious

what I mean is "buy the game" "play the game" without having to buy DLC to make the thing feel complete

 

[GiantRaven]

Unless you can prove that was the case, I'm going to dismiss this is as "content cut due to time restraints that was provided later as DLC". Which is not a crime as I see it.

Oh, I'm sure you're more likely right than I am and the game's story doesn't suffer for it anyway. It was just an example of DLC which takes place right in the middle of a game, which isn't really seen with most DLC.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

As long as the core game stays intact and there are no penalties for not having DLC, I really don't give a shit about it.

 

[Katana314]

I certainly agree that DLC and smaller payments are on the rise and that's not a bad thing. What IS a bad thing is that publishers like Valve and EA often don't realize that this model is incompatible with the $50 complete-game model. Why on earth do you think so many MMOs are going free-to-play now? Hint: It's not because they're generous. And they're often providing a LOT of content for nothing that way.

Basically, I don't think very many games at all today are worth MORE than $50. However, that ends up not being the trend we see in pricing, where the game is $50, then the extra content $30.

It's a different story when DLC starts development AFTER the release of the game. In that way you can sort of treat it as a different game. Furthermore, you know it will be developed with feedback from the original game in mind.

 

[Netrigan]

Oh FFS, I wish this issue would die. No one is being underhanded or selling you an incomplete game by offering DLC. For the love of god, no one owes you anything.

I don't know. On the one hand, I agree with games like Fallout, Oblivion or Mass Effect where all the content takes place outside the main quest (unless I'm missing something). But looking at a game like Assassin's Creed 2, for example, it seems a little suspect that two sections of story right in the middle of the game are completely missing. Not that it hampered my enjoyment of the game in any way, mind you. It just seems like something that should be in the initial release.

Well, the Assassin's Creed 2 one really wasn't essential. Imagine if the Japanese had shown up right after the Ark was opened and there was a 30 minute adventure involving Indy getting the Ark back right before they lock it away. That's pretty much Assassin's Creed 2's DLC.

The mistake they made was creating a hole in the menu where it so obviously went.

 

[Sarcastic_Applause]

I took some time out to think specifically about DLC's and i think back to age of empires (one of my first games i was addicted to), and how that had a conquerers expansion pack that came out later in its life and the simple fact was, that nothing was removed from the original campaigns only added.
Your concept of a complete game is a little hazy if im to be honest; a complete game to me is one where you can go from beginning to end without any holes, and thus far in the games i've played, i've never had that be an issue.

I dont see DLC as a strategy to fleece people out of the full experience of the game, only adding sprinkles and a cherry to the whole game.
I side with the Extra Credits crew on this issue for the most part.

 

[Rusty pumpkin]

Well, I blame game stores. They rip game companies out of alot of money, so the dlc is quickly becoming a primary source of income from the game sales.

 

[HHKelevra]

Depending on the context of the DLC, I usually don't have a problem with them.

GTA IV's "Episodes from Liberty City" were extremely good. So was "Undead Nightmare" for Read Dead Redemption. That's how I'd like to see DLC done with any game.

I believe there was another game (Army of Two; 40th Day, I think) where the last few missions of the campaign were DLC. That's bullshit.

Another thing that bothers me is when the DLC is actually already on the disk when the game is released, just locked. There's no reason to NOT include it with the game's launch. It usually ends up being a pre-order bonus or something. (Admittedly I'm not too sure how pre-orders work. Do the publishers/developers actually make any extra money off of pre-orders compared to just selling it off the shelf?)

 

[Jandau]

im not here to say yes or no...spcualtion is just that...speculation

and with all the controversy over DLC and such its gotten me thinking

for better or worse mabye the Idea fo a complete game will instead be where you get the first "part" and then just get DLC as it comes

ot perhaps an episodic model...except personally I dont know...(because of a certain episode of somthing...)

I mean not only as a more benifical buisness model but also as some kind of way to combat Piracy?

It got me thinking after reading a big long article on piracy and PC gaming,

anyway personally I really dont like the Idea...

The problem isn't so much in the concept of "complete game" VS "episodic game / game + DLC", but rather in the fact that you pay full price for the game and then need to pay even more for the rest of it. At least that's the general principle of it. Naturally, exactly how screwed the customer is varies from game to game, but the general principle of it stands.

As for combating piracy, episodic content and DLC does nothing to combat piracy. Nothing at all. Zero effect. DLC is easy to pirate and you truly have to be naive to think it has anything to do with that.

Incomplete games have another problem, which is pacing. You buy a product and you expect the whole thing, with its narrative and structure. Episodic games either leave you hanging or are a series of loosely connected "minigames". Neither is a good fit for some genres.

The pricing problem is also there - it's a great business model because it lets you take what you'd normally sell for, say, $60 and sell it for $60 + $10/$20/$30/$40. The customer gets screwed to a certain extent (which, as I stated, varies from game to game), but why would you care about that? It's not like you're the custo... umm... wait... yes, you are. Nice to see that they are not only ripping you off but have gotten you to be happy about it...