In fact for older consoles it was simpler than that.MKCL said:
1) Buy Game
2) Insert Game into Console
3) Enjoy Game
Possibly with a 2a) Jiggle cart to make it work
Will the Idea of a "complete" game be a thing of the past?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
1) Buy Game
2) Insert Game into Console
3) Enjoy Game
Possibly with a 2a) Jiggle cart to make it work
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think there is a game out there (yet) that kind of skips a part of a game, and tells you you need to download it. (Spare fallout 3 I guess, but let's not get into that.)
If a company decides to release content for a game, content that you needn't visit or complete to 'finish' a game. Then the game was complete from the start. You're just buying some nice additions for it.
If a company decides to release content for a game, content that you needn't visit or complete to 'finish' a game. Then the game was complete from the start. You're just buying some nice additions for it.
The only problem I have with DLC is that I don't have a credit card so I can't buy any. What I usually do is I pirate them and then buy the game again when it comes with all the DLCs in the box. If I can't pay them at the moment even if I wanted to, how am I hurting the dev?
Then there is fake DLC, that comes with the disc and then you have to pay for it. Fuck that.
Then there is fake DLC, that comes with the disc and then you have to pay for it. Fuck that.
I always thought DLC was parts of a game they didn't have time to implement but still wanted to include in the final product. Like the hammerhead in ME2. This became a bit blurred for me with dragon age 2 as they had dlc's on release...whut.
Now I just think it's a way of stopping piracy and I can totally agree with that. I could see how it could be frustrating though if you can't access them.
Now I just think it's a way of stopping piracy and I can totally agree with that. I could see how it could be frustrating though if you can't access them.
Tons of DLC IS cut from the disc though. And thats what most people are annoyed about. 90% of gamers are fine if some new content is released to continue the lifespan 6 months or a year after the release date (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Undead nightmare), but MANY companies are cutting out content that IS finished, even on the disc, and selling it for 10$ later (or, if they want to rub it in your face, Day 1) So don't say Resi 5 Multiplayer, Jill and Shuma, Shale, and the assassins creed chapters are just unfinished. People datamined and found characters, played them even. So don't try to defend DLC by saying "You can't prove it was finished, so they should be able to charge for it."Sir John the Net Knight said:
I like DLC, I download most of it if I think it could enhance my gameplay experience and to support the developers. But it's getting to the point of just plain sinful amounts of greed. I remember when Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines came out, and the people that made the game stayed on to patch the problems for FREE. But now, you've got content locked on discs, re-releasing games with a few new characters and balance changes(Street fighter) and glitchy messes of games that are unplayable, and the patches just serve to make it worse.
It's silly. If I buy a pie, I don't expect to find a 2/3rds of a rotting pie inside, and being told I can buy the the rest for an extra 10$, and then wait a month for them to remove the rot, then buy some extras slices for even more. I payed for a pie, and I want my damned pie. If content is locked on the disc, it should say, in massive letters on the back "XXX LOCKED. PAY 10$ ON THE XBLA TO PLAY FULL GAME"
the thing with fallout 3 was Broken steel is the only DLC thats acctually important to the game (that is unless you dont mind being slapped in the face for being a good person and then are completley traumatized and become depressed...uh anyway) and I think that was only because of time constraints...which is a good thing about DLC I guessrazor343 said:
anyway DLC is a little more complex than "good" and "bad" it can be both
or to put it another wayJThai said:
somtimes people feel like they are being given the cake....but it has no icing because from a buisness perspective why provide the icing for free when you can get away with it?
I'm more worried about what "Good" games have become, complete and utter undiluted filth is praised greatly and sells millions
Not going to name names but when a game with NO story, HORRENDOUS AI, semi numerous slow downs, length impaired and horrible animations recieves massive appreciation and is called the greatest game EVER (Granted that was mainly before anything was even KNOWN about the damn game) I feel incomplete games with day one DLC/locked on disc content is currently the least of gamings worries
EDIT: Granted I do believe locked on disc content can go take a long walk off a short pier
Not going to name names but when a game with NO story, HORRENDOUS AI, semi numerous slow downs, length impaired and horrible animations recieves massive appreciation and is called the greatest game EVER (Granted that was mainly before anything was even KNOWN about the damn game) I feel incomplete games with day one DLC/locked on disc content is currently the least of gamings worries
EDIT: Granted I do believe locked on disc content can go take a long walk off a short pier
which game are you talking about?...Ryan Minns said:
anyway I know plenty of good games with great gameplay and story..I wouldnt play games otherwise
I mean all your saying is "all games today are crap!" (which unless you ahve rediculous standards I dont think is true) a little more info would be good anyway
I'm sure we can cook up a few examples where that really does seem to happen, although I agree that its not as much as everyone seems to think.Sir John the Net Knight said:
Those are expansion packs; DLCs become too much of a blanket term.HHKelevra said:
I have no memory of stating all games are crap, I clearly stated that a lot of crap is praised endlessly, I have enjoyed recent games. The specific game I am talking about will remain unnamed but to be honest, it's not unique, some games are simply NOT good, sure people can enjoy them, everyone has certain tastes and that's fine but the level of praise short, unpolished, storyless, brain dead AI technical messes receive these days is harming gaming a LOT more then day one DLCVault101 said:
Games I dislike I still suggest, I still see their pro's and cons and I disagree with them, however not liking a game and the game being BAD are different things
"I'm more worried about what "Good" games have become, complete and utter undiluted filth is praised greatly and sells millions" [/B]Ryan Minns said:
strong words you might as well have been saying that
anyway why not mention the game? fallout New vegas?
really it seems your over exagerating and not actually giving any points to suport your statment, its ok to hate things but you HAVE to give a reason
also yeah theres a differece but you seem to think your opinion of a bad game is fact, generallly allpeopel have to go on are reviews and their own opinion,
I hate the amount of DLC that games have most of it seems to make the core game missing something and more often than not I will completely refuse to buy the game if it has DLC.
The exception to this is if the DLC are more akin to what was called expansion packs before, but as it stand DLC to my mind means something that should have been in the game from the start but have been ripped out and sold separate.
The exception to this is if the DLC are more akin to what was called expansion packs before, but as it stand DLC to my mind means something that should have been in the game from the start but have been ripped out and sold separate.
See, now that would be wonderful if the DLC was just side missions or map packs or something along those lines. But when it's crucial to the story of a game? Like, for example, Mass Effect 2. As much as I love the game, the DLC was a low blow. I had to buy it, otherwise I would be missing a major chunk of story.Sir John the Net Knight said:
I don't expect something for nothing. Extra content should be paid for, that's why it's extra. But when I purchase a $60 game, I expect that game to be complete, and not have to pay another $30 to get the rest of it.
Games were never completed, they were just released. Here, we have the luxury of buying more aspects of the games that we wouldn't have before. Just try and remember the hundreds of sucktastic games of the past and not the 30 or so decent/great ones.
I could be wrong but I think Vault101's inquiry is about games being released in parts that you have to pay for individually in the future, not a crying complaint about current dlc. I've been wondering this myself and not because of dlc (if i like the dlc i buy it, if not I don't buy it, 'nuff said) but because business reps and devs have been speaking along those terms for a while. I recently read an article about, I think an Activision rep, who wants to sell cutscenes seperately from the game which gave me the impression that he wishes to exclude cutscenes from the game itself and sell it seperately.Sir John the Net Knight said:
Others have been speaking in favor of facebook and other online styles of gaming and paying in which you start the game for free but to continue playing and get the full experience, you have to pay or just pay for the parts you want. For example, Sam & Max is episodic and while I don't know how well that is working, I don't think I would want to play games like Portal, Persona, Saints Row 2, Uncharted, Street Fighter or Mass Effect(bought all the dlc for that game, I can't put it down) in episodic parts.
Hmm, how would a fighting game even work in seperate parts? Pay only for the characters and stages you want? Pay for how many fights are in an arcade mode?
a game is already complete, a DLC just adds stuff (like Ketchup on fries you can already it the fries but ketchup makes it more enjoyable but nobody forces you to use it)
I think the issue stems from a fear that certain non essential content will become pay-for-add-on/dlc. Think of Call of Duty where online multiplayer was premium price dlc. Regardless of what people say, online multiplayer is not essential to the game(unless its an MMO), so people are afraid of paying twice for content that might be the only reason they bought the game for in the first place.Sir John the Net Knight said:
I say it's an irrational fear until someone tries it on an established franchise.