323 réponses à ce sujet

[Nukenin]

I expect every DLC I obtain and download to be genre-defining and bar-raising.  If within hours of release the DLC hasn't garnered 5-star or 10/10 or perfect 100 reviews from every major game review site or publication, I cry for hours, then seek comfort in the arms of my trusty lawyer sidekick, as we plan the next salvo of litigation.

[Terra_Ex]

Well, DLC means continuous & ongoing revenue after the initial release so it keeps EA happy, which in turn means that Bioware remain open for business. DLC is a mixed bag - some like Rockstar's GTAIV DLCs exemplify what paid DLC should be, others are a complete joke.



The issue I, and many others have is when content is deliberately cut from the game to sell as DLC/offer as a pre-order incentive, which is the current tactic of many publishers in order to kill the pre-owned market. But, you aren't forced to buy it, so, yeah, you have to take the good along with the bad...

[Nukenin]

I have high expectations for the Horse Armor DLC.  The horses in the game need armor, and that DLC promises to deliver!  No longer will the horses of Ferelden have to hide behind invisibility cloaks or be explained away as a bizarre animal husbandry accident like the griffins!  Now good King Cailan truly can ride into battle alongside the Grey Wardens!

Every game should have a Horse Armor DLC!  I'm looking at you, Mass Effect 2!

*the rumors that horses were excised from the shipping game solely to increase the value of the planned Horse Armor DLC are completely unsubstantiated and fabricated by mean, spiteful anti-equestriennes who are clutching their copies of Mount & Blade protectively against their bosoms and waving pitchforks at us peaceful DLC-loving dwarves.

Modifié par Nukenin, 31 mars 2010 - 04:39 .

[ModerateOsprey]

I think ultimately DLC is the thin end of the wedge. Whole games will be delivered this way eventually. The main problem, IMO, is that the game and the DLC is tied to a single account. Even now this causes problems in our household. I can buy a game and get the DLC, but another member of my family often cannot play with all the DLC unless they sign in using my account details. I suspect this will become even worse when the inevitable evolution occurs where the whole game is DLC.

Sharing an account may not seem like a big deal, but it can make the difference to achievements and things. I am not bothered myself, but my lad likes stuff like that. This problem is also cross platform. I am already paying for 3 XBox live accounts.

Not good, but like I say inevitable.

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 31 mars 2010 - 04:39 .

[Metswiki772]

I disagree with this vehemently. I think DLC is the most awesome progress in gaming in our generation. From a developers perspective, they are always at the mercy of the lowest common denominator for games. Sure, maybe you have a gamer's PC with a terabyte drive and 16 GB of RAM, but the developers have to make games work for little Jimmy and his out of the box $199 XBOX 360 with no hard drive.



DLC, allows them to make a core game, whatever the limitgations may be based on the lowest common denominator systems, and then expand the world, and the game, and the story for their core users with bigger, better, badder, systems. XBox/PS3 have like 256/512MB of RAM, and a disc has like a GB or less of storage. that's what they have to work with for the core game.



DLC lets them expand those limitations a bit, make patches/fixes, and continue the fun/game play beyond the original lowest common denominator out of the box limitations.



I'm sure strictly from a development standpoint, it'd be more fun to make games with a terabyte drive of storage and 6 GB of RAM in mind. I'd wager if there wasn't the issue of having to get retailers to sell the hardware/consoles in the first place, that ALL content would be DLC. The costs would be so much cheaper for the developer if they didn't have to print boxes/discs/manuals, ship the stuff to stores, give up the chunk of the profits, deal with GameStop resales, etc.



My Dragon Age: Origins game would be a coaster right now if there weren't DLCs/Expansions, etc. instead it has new life as I am now creating a second character to play all the way thru Awakenings with, having imported a character, played an Orleasian, and created a character specifically to import knowing what I know having done it once.



it extends the value of your dollars spent on DA:Om because it extends the playability. If there wasn't something new, I'd be hardpressed to slug thru Orzamar one more time just to get to the Archdemon. But, because of Awakenings, I'm slugging thru it a second additional time. Similarly, I have played games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 multiple times because after I had finished it once or twice, DLC reinvigorated the title for me.



To me it's worth an extra $39 to extend my original $59 purchase to twice the playability. I'd rather have 6 months of fun for $100 than 1 month of fun for $59. I don't see how with that perspective, the cost of an expansion can seem not worth it.

[OrlesianWardenCommander]

Hell i love the DLC the Armor the staff's weapons. and i always welcome added quests and awakening although buggy as hell was a amazing add on to the origins "story" so i dont care what anyone says the DLC's are a good buy for anyone wanting more dragon age.

[ModerateOsprey]

Metswiki772 wrote...

I disagree with this vehemently. I think DLC is the most awesome progress in gaming in our generation. From a developers perspective, they are always at the mercy of the lowest common denominator for games. Sure, maybe you have a gamer's PC with a terabyte drive and 16 GB of RAM, but the developers have to make games work for little Jimmy and his out of the box $199 XBOX 360 with no hard drive.

DLC, allows them to make a core game, whatever the limitgations may be based on the lowest common denominator systems, and then expand the world, and the game, and the story for their core users with bigger, better, badder, systems. XBox/PS3 have like 256/512MB of RAM, and a disc has like a GB or less of storage. that's what they have to work with for the core game.

DLC lets them expand those limitations a bit, make patches/fixes, and continue the fun/game play beyond the original lowest common denominator out of the box limitations.

I'm sure strictly from a development standpoint, it'd be more fun to make games with a terabyte drive of storage and 6 GB of RAM in mind. I'd wager if there wasn't the issue of having to get retailers to sell the hardware/consoles in the first place, that ALL content would be DLC. The costs would be so much cheaper for the developer if they didn't have to print boxes/discs/manuals, ship the stuff to stores, give up the chunk of the profits, deal with GameStop resales, etc.

My Dragon Age: Origins game would be a coaster right now if there weren't DLCs/Expansions, etc. instead it has new life as I am now creating a second character to play all the way thru Awakenings with, having imported a character, played an Orleasian, and created a character specifically to import knowing what I know having done it once.

it extends the value of your dollars spent on DA:Om because it extends the playability. If there wasn't something new, I'd be hardpressed to slug thru Orzamar one more time just to get to the Archdemon. But, because of Awakenings, I'm slugging thru it a second additional time. Similarly, I have played games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 multiple times because after I had finished it once or twice, DLC reinvigorated the title for me.

To me it's worth an extra $39 to extend my original $59 purchase to twice the playability. I'd rather have 6 months of fun for $100 than 1 month of fun for $59. I don't see how with that perspective, the cost of an expansion can seem not worth it.

I agree with you totally here in the core principles of the stated advantages of DLC, but I am afraid the cynic in me believes that is not what we will get. Instead, we will pay more and more to keep something going until every last drop is milked.

If, for example the original game was bought on disk and then add/ons and expansions, etc were bought on disks, then these could be played within a household like mine. I can't believe I am  the only household with multiple gamers in it. If I am not playing a game, then my son or daughter could play it and get the full experience. This is not possible now, never mind when the disk is a distant memory.

Commercial software has never really been sold as something you own according to most EULAs, but to a large extent, it can be treated like that. This will disappear, IMO.

I take the view that a computer game is really a toy and my kids (well, not so much kids any more!) have played with toys I had when I was a lad. This generation will not be able to hand down classic games that they loved to their kids.

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 31 mars 2010 - 05:01 .

[TheMufflon]

I don't think it's the biggest crock, I'm pretty sure this crock is bigger:

[Rendar666]

No problem with DLC. I found them all pretty fun, tbh. But... whatever duuuuudes.

[k9medusa]

DLC are great fun and add extra content to the game. I only problem that I have them thus far, how back them up and how to reinstall them later.

[Lilisia]

Is that picture a real crock? Cool, I never knew what one looked like.

[ModerateOsprey]

Lilisia wrote...

Is that picture a real crock? Cool, I never knew what one looked like.

Aye, bet it can hold a decent dollop of BS and 'all

[Lilisia]

Everyone has different tastes though. If Bioware made a dlc that had lots of new robes, mage hats, etc. I would get that and be very happy. I am not meaning numbers or that stuff, just robes that had different looks and designs, colors and so. That would be amazing.

And if it isn't for you, of course you don't need to buy it. Everyone is happy.

[Phonantiphon]

I like DLC, I think it's a great idea with a lot of promise and I have really enjoyed playing the DLC. Ultimately if you don't like the DLC you don't have to buy it, do you?

[Lilisia]

I think a lot of it is a case of thinking, hey I paid for the game I should get everything included. But things don't work like that, really. If you go to a restarant and buy a meal, you don't expect to get dessert and a coffee for nothing afterward.

[13Dannyboy13]

DLC is hit-and-miss really, while some is great other stuff is just not worth it. One concern I have though is the trend of these companies trying to kill the used game market with very overpriced DLC that you have to pay over $20 for if you buy it used or not get the "extra" stuff. I use the term "extra" lightly though, because some of these things were part of the game from day one and it's just a greedy way of getting more money since they get no cut from used sales. I mean 1200 MS points for the cerberus network or stone prisoner if you buy it used is ridiculous, that's over $20 on top of what you'd pay for the game, probably cost more than buying it new. Of course you can always not get it and play the game through just fine, it just worries me to see how greed is taking over this industry.

[TheMadCat]

DLC can be a great thing when it's not abused. Things like Knights of the Nine and Point Lookout were great pieces of content and priced pretty reasonable, GTA 4 supposedly has some good DLC options as well. Adding content and simultaneously adding shelf life to a game are great on the consumer end and it's a great way for companies to make some killer profit as it's incredibly cheap to make a DLC.

The problem is DLC does tend to get abused and the reason for this is there is no market competition. No one is competing against BioWare's DLC so they are free to set the price to whatever they feel people are willing to pay, and in this digital dollar era peoples perception of value is incredibly low so there is plenty of breathing room for them to inflate. The principle of DLC is great, my favorite games getting extended for several years with great pieces of content, whether big or small and a chance for the developers to recoup profit after spending insane amounts on development and advertising. But it's become an avenue of abuse for a lot publishers/developers, taking advantage of a competitor less market and the digital dollar era.

[ModerateOsprey]

TheMadCat wrote...

DLC can be a great thing when it's not abused. Things like Knights of the Nine and Point Lookout were great pieces of content and priced pretty reasonable, GTA 4 supposedly has some good DLC options as well. Adding content and simultaneously adding shelf life to a game are great on the consumer end and it's a great way for companies to make some killer profit as it's incredibly cheap to make a DLC.

The problem is DLC does tend to get abused and the reason for this is there is no market competition. No one is competing against BioWare's DLC so they are free to set the price to whatever they feel people are willing to pay, and in this digital dollar era peoples perception of value is incredibly low so there is plenty of breathing room for them to inflate. The principle of DLC is great, my favorite games getting extended for several years with great pieces of content, whether big or small and a chance for the developers to recoup profit after spending insane amounts on development and advertising. But it's become an avenue of abuse for a lot publishers/developers, taking advantage of a competitor less market and the digital dollar era.

Neatly put.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

I hate DLC. The idea is good, but the implementation in this generation so far mostly is stupid, and some really make the consumers as morons.



But I don't really mind getting free stuff lol.



Oh, but it was much more simple last generation. And it was all good.

[Lilisia]

Well, it is only 'taking advantage' if you are obliged to buy it. But we have choice. It's totally optional. If you don't want it you don't have to pay for it. I don't see why it is an issue really.

[the_one_54321]

Obtusifolius wrote...
Agreed. I hate DLC.

Yes yes and more yes. DLC is just plain stupid from a consumer point of view. Gamers only hurt themselves in the long run by supporting/buying it.

[Lilisia]

I don't understand how that can be true.

[the_one_54321]

Lilisia wrote...
I don't understand how that can be true.

Think of it in a tiered sense. The top tier is the games themselves. The second tier is expansions. The last tier (so far) is DLC. As you step down the tiers, prices increase and content decreases. (content can mean lots of things so don't try to stick labels on it, it only references loosely how much "game" is in the game) By supporting a lowest tier system you only promote the creation of even lower tiers. (MMO subscriptions, and the gradual shift to pay-to-play fee systems is lowest tier evolution we've seen so far, and it's gaining momentum thanks to DLC)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 mars 2010 - 07:00 .

[Gaharia]

I like DLC the Valve style, all other kinds of DLC:s are bloody capitalist exploitation of the gamers.