291 réponses à ce sujet

[Saraphial]

I usually really like DLC. I mean its not like they falsely advertise that the mysteries of one of the best NPC's will finally be revealed and then make the resolution really short and unsatisfying and then give you a present but cut to the credits before you can find out what it is.

...Oh, wait...

Modifié par Saraphial, 15 septembre 2010 - 03:39 .

[Shadowomega23]

@Revan312 Yea Consoles have driven down the quality of some games like RPGs, as consoles have limits they have to put in place for their limited hardware, and drive space. Infact DICE the makers of the Battlefield seires had some info out about why BC2 was limited on both PC and console version. Console version they have a limited ammount of bandwidth they are allowed to take up by each console, ie Xbox 360 and PS3 with everything they added in game Like Destruction 2.0 what could have been played with little lag in a lan set up with the 360 at 64 players, however cap cause it to be limited to around 16 to 32 players with Desuction 2.0 this was later just copied over to the PC version. Even Mass Effect 2 felt the nasty bite of the console market by haveing the missions rearranged to fit on multi disks. Thus the down grade on the PC to acomindate the console. If a game was made exlusive for the PC it would likely include far more content then most do now.

Also noticed I see that the Orginal poster of this thread is not showing that they OWN ME2 DA:O DA:A or even Warhammer.

Modifié par Shadowomega23, 15 septembre 2010 - 03:41 .

[Darkchipper07]

CLime wrote...

It's laughable when someone bursts into a forum and accuses a company of "profiteering."
"Put down those gamepads, fellows! I have a startling annoucement: the studio is making money on these games!"

Gee, you don't say.

I think when they said "profiteering" they meant the fact that you can't use real money to buy the DLC you have to buy points. What happens then is your stuck with useless points. I'm currently stuck with 240 bioware points that I can't do anything with. If i want to buy a new DLC that cost 560 bioware points I can't buy 320 points I need to buy 500 or 560 now I still have points that are just sitting there. 

Please for the love of god let me just buy the dlc with real money

[Wishpig]

JimRPh wrote...
Downloadable content leaves me feeling cheated that I wasn't given the full game in the first place with my nearly $70 spent on the typical new release

God I hate it when people say this. There is SO much game developers want to do in their games. Many good ideas get cut because there just isn't enough time.  DLC offers the devs to include stuff they weren't able to or just make some cool and fun new things.

In concept DLC is great. And can be very well done.

However, it can be abused. Sadly thats how I feel about DA:O's DLC. I always felt it was a shoddy way to make $$$. Compared to the main game, the DLC, well, felt shoddy and poorly made. For $5 I'm not expecting an amazing product nor a long one. I would be fine with two or three hours of gameplay... if that two hours was up to par with bioware's other work.

DLC = Great
Companies misusing DLC = bad...

[Shadowomega23]

Darkchipper07 wrote...

CLime wrote...

It's laughable when someone bursts into a forum and accuses a company of "profiteering."
"Put down those gamepads, fellows! I have a startling annoucement: the studio is making money on these games!"

Gee, you don't say.

I think when they said "profiteering" they meant the fact that you can't use real money to buy the DLC you have to buy points. What happens then is your stuck with useless points. I'm currently stuck with 240 bioware points that I can't do anything with. If i want to buy a new DLC that cost 560 bioware points I can't buy 320 points I need to buy 500 or 560 now I still have points that are just sitting there. 

Please for the love of god let me just buy the dlc with real money

Makes sence, atm I have 80 left over but will likely have another 80 left over from the next big dlc so 80 and 80 make 160 which means one of those cheap dlcs they got, like firepower.

[B3taMaxxx]

Revan312 wrote...
Again, maybe it's because I'm hitting an age where I just find less enjoyment out of playig hours on end, but it does feel like games are beginning to trend into a land of unimaginative sequals and blatent ripoffs.  I mean really, how many more COD games can really be made and stay fresh?  They lost their spark ages ago to me, but people still clamber to buy them even though there's less features, less choice and more cash required now than ever before..

 Really? And I was under the impression that COD offers ever more ways for people to not have to aim and shoot (ie; lots and lots of "features"). And I'm not sure how "choice" plays into the series?  I've been a COD fan since 2, sinking ridiculous hours weekly into the game. It was when MW2 came out, and they offered a million "features" and nifty little hide spot "choices" that I had to finally put the series to rest.

I also attribute a portion of the lackluster state of games to the console market boom and the fact that devs no longer like developing for PC. I don't want to start a flame war, but that is how I feel as consoles are closed proprietary systems and PC's are open, and the thing companies love more than anything else is control.

 It's a fairly simple concept, at least in my understanding. It occurs to me that the Art and Coding Dept. have far more on their plate then what they did 15 years ago, leading to shorter games. I think it's easily plausible that the devs are sinking just as many if not more hours into their games as in the past.

 Annnnnnd,  I think it's hard to pin the blame on us console gamers when you PC guys are still beating us out in the crap game output. There must be at least 40 terrible games per every 1 developed for the PC. Reference Steam if you must.

[B3taMaxxx]

Shadowomega23 wrote...

@Revan312 Yea Consoles have driven down the quality of some games like RPGs, as consoles have limits they have to put in place for their limited hardware, and drive space. Infact DICE the makers of the Battlefield seires had some info out about why BC2 was limited on both PC and console version. Console version they have a limited ammount of bandwidth they are allowed to take up by each console, ie Xbox 360 and PS3 with everything they added in game Like Destruction 2.0 what could have been played with little lag in a lan set up with the 360 at 64 players, however cap cause it to be limited to around 16 to 32 players with Desuction 2.0 this was later just copied over to the PC version. Even Mass Effect 2 felt the nasty bite of the console market by haveing the missions rearranged to fit on multi disks. Thus the down grade on the PC to acomindate the console. If a game was made exlusive for the PC it would likely include far more content then most do now.

Also noticed I see that the Orginal poster of this thread is not showing that they OWN ME2 DA:O DA:A or even Warhammer.

 Other than graphics your comments in no way shape or form back up the previous claim(s) that consoles are the cause for games becoming less sophisticated.

[CLime]

Revan312 wrote...

Take RPGs though for example.. I remember when most were base.. base 80 hours.  Now they're about... 25-30.  Games have also gone down in complexity and the amount of thinking required in most games is now zilch.  Not that I hate movie like games, but they're all trying to go that route, which is sad to me as I got into games for the mere fact that they were interactive stories that also required imagination.  There was no other medium like it.  Now they're just slightly controllable movies with far worse plots and arcs than some actual films..

That's baseless.  I don't know what games you've been playing that are less complex than their predecessors a couple decades ago, but between Final Fantasy, Pole Position, and Super Mario Bros. versus SFIV, Burnout 3, and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, I know which group I would pick for being more complex and thoughtful.  Maybe you mean the old Zork "ye can't get ye flask" find-the-synonym type of complex, or the rougelike ASCII-only interface, or lack of any sort of explanation of combat mechanics, or several other tropes of the 80s and 90s in gaming that were more frustration and technological limitations than development choices.  There were certainly some gems, especially in the RPG department, but the Planescape: Torments and Baldur's Gates were the exception rather than the rule.

Free Fact of the Day: Games cost a hell of a lot more twenty, even ten years ago than they do today, in real terms.

CLime wrote...

Everyone who bought Dragon Age at release
was willing to pay at least $60. Some of those people would have bought
it for $70, $80, or more.

I would have been willing to pay $100
MSRP for Origins at release. So already we're at 2$/hr. Consider I
spent about four hours on the Darkspawn Chronicles and paid only $5 for
it, that's actually $0.80/hr less than I would have paid for Origins-
not a bad deal. Consider multiple playthroughs of Origins, and the DLC
is still only $0.20 more. Hardly triple the price.

Not sure what people your talking to, but not many people would have spent 100 bucks on DA:O, which is why collectors editions exist, for people who are fanatical about the game and have a ton of money to spend, not all of us are as zealous as you..  DA:O would have been an abysmal failure if they charged $100.

It likely would have, yes.  And yet, the DLC for it sells rather well, despite supposedly being a huge ripoff.  What is more likely: that tens of thousands of customers suddenly forget the value of money when converting dollars to Microsoft points, or that some people enjoy the additional content more than others?

Maverick827 wrote...

I have some better math than that guy up there. Ready for this?

Where I live, the minimum wage is $7.25/hour. For one hour on the job, you can buy two hours worth of new content per character that you play!

By
the same rate, you can buy the Celestial Pegasus (the WoW mount) for
roughly three hours on the job! Considering people who play WoW clock
tens of hours a week, for years at a time, that's quite the reasonable
investment.

But wait, it gets better!

You hate paying $7
for "only" two hours worth of content, you say? What would you rather
have been doing in your leisure? Watching a 90-minute movie for $11.50?
Renting a 90-minute DvD for $9? How about watching your favorite
weekly programming, which is costing you at least $30 a month, or
roughly $7.50 per episode!?

Gaming has historically been and
still is the cheapest form of (mainstream) entertainment with regards
to time per dollar spent.

Good points.

Modifié par CLime, 15 septembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[Revan312]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 Really? And I was under the impression that COD offers ever more ways for people to not have to aim and shoot (ie; lots and lots of "features"). And I'm not sure how "choice" plays into the series?  I've been a COD fan since 2, sinking ridiculous hours weekly into the game. It was when MW2 came out, and they offered a million "features" and nifty little hide spot "choices" that I had to finally put the series to rest.

I was referencing the lack of dedicated servers, no modding, no console commands etc etc.. less choice, less features..

It's a fairly simple concept, at least in my understanding. It occurs to me that the Art and Coding Dept. have far more on their plate then what they did 15 years ago, leading to shorter games. I think it's easily plausible that the devs are sinking just as many if not more hours into their games as in the past.

I'm not sure how games would take more time to develop now since game engines are amazingly easier to use anymore, compared to 10 - 15 years ago. Take UE3 for example, every game that runs that engine has 50 other games to reference and copy as far as modeling, lighting, triggers, scripting, texturing and more goes. Gone are the days of manually imputting code, now it's full blown toolkits that can create a game environment in less time than ever..

Annnnnnd,  I think it's hard to pin the blame on us console gamers when you PC guys are still beating us out in the crap game output. There must be at least 40 terrible games per every 1 developed for the PC. Reference Steam if you must.

Not sure if you mean PC has 40 times more crap games or vice versa, but regardless, besides MMO's, 90% of all PC games are ports now.. reference almost any game made in the last 5 years.. Which means the devs could care less for PC's.  And I own a console, so don't get all uppity about it, your pretty abrasive which is unneeded.  I simply have the fondest memories from the games that were solely on PC's back in the day.  They had huge modding communities, total conversions, tons of choices and a great community behind them.  Now, they're closed system games that have massive restrictions put on them because the consoles couldn't handle what a PC could have and therefor, the PC port suffers..  If you can't see that, then, I'm not sure where you've been.

[B3taMaxxx]

slimgrin wrote...
Console games, on the whole, are less sophisticated.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 Intriguing argument, however I still think a bear with an adamantium skeleton would win in an under water death match against a genetically enhanced smart shark.

 Just saying......................

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:01 .

[OriginsIsBest]

No I love downloadable content, it may not be perfect, but still it adds more hours of gameplay.

[B3taMaxxx]

Revan312 wrote...

I'm not sure how games would take more time to develop now since game engines are amazingly easier to use anymore, compared to 10 - 15 years ago. Take UE3 for example, every game that runs that engine has 50 other games to reference and copy as far as modeling, lighting, triggers, scripting, texturing and more goes. Gone are the days of manually imputting code, now it's full blown toolkits that can create a game environment in less time than ever..

 Many developers still create their own tool/engines. The bottom line is there's just more information to input.

 While there are limitations in building a game for a console, they to , as PCs, will evolve. PCs have the ability to always stay ahead of the curve.

 I don't know who you people are more mad at sometimes, the people who choose consoles as their primary platform or the devs that realize they can make more money in developing for them. Just wait, your sob story isn't over yet, when MMOs go full bore on consoles your really going to need alot of bandaids.


 Regardless, I still don't see how this hinders devs in any creative sense. Are puzzles less complicated because of graphic limitation? Is a story less engrossing because of virtual memory?

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Merced256 wrote...

You apologists need to form a club.

I don't see anyone apologizing, just stating their opinions.

[Shadow_broker]

ME1 DLC sucked

ME2 DLC rocked



DAO DLC sucked

DA2 DLC....hope it rocks

[HTTP 404]

good topic! should be in general discussion

[B3taMaxxx]

Shadow_broker wrote...

ME1 DLC sucked
ME2 DLC rocked

DAO DLC sucked
DA2 DLC....hope it rocks

 Not entirely. Now I know this is subject to the dreaded opinion, buuuuuuuuuuut.....

 Soldiers Peak, Shale, and Awakenings were on par with the best ME2 DLC. The rest, I agree; bad.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Shadow_broker wrote...

ME1 DLC sucked
ME2 DLC rocked

DAO DLC sucked
DA2 DLC....hope it rocks

SURE I CAN KIND OF AGREE TO THIS, AT 77% CAPACITY

I LIKE DISCS, HAVE MORE PHYSICAL SPACE THAN HARD DRIVE SPACE.  GOES FOR ALL SYSTEMS INCLUDING PC.  MY DVD DRIVE IS FAST WHY WON'T YOU LET ME PLAY IT OFF DVD.  CAN PLAY HELLBENDER FROM 95 BUT NOTHING ELSE.  EATS UP HD SPACE.  COMPUTER RUNS LIKE ****.  PS3 SIMILAR PROBLEM.  KEEP INSTALLING GAMES ALL OF A SUDDEN LOOK AT HD SPACE ONLY TEN GIGS LEFT.  OMFG.  LUCKILY WII RUNS GAMES WELL OFF OF DISC.  XBOX 360 THOUGH NOT AS GOOD, BUT AT LEAST NOT FORCED TO INSTALL.  NOT ENOUGH DISC SPACE. HAVE TO KEEP DELETING.  PARANOIA **** DISAPPEARS OFF OF MARKETPLACE.  HAVE TO GO INTO REGISTRY TO GET IT.  

NEW WAY BUT I LIKE PHYSICAL COPIES.  THEORITICALLY NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DOWNLOADABLE EXPANSION AND A DISC BASED.  EXCEPT CONVINIENCE.  HOWEVER CONVINIENCE TO ME IS NOT THE SAME AS CONVINIENCE FOR MOST.  PREFER TO RUN OFF DISC.  ONLY GTA4 DLC ALLOWS FOR THIS.  NOT DRAGON AGE, MASS EFFECT OR BETHESDA TITLES.

[SirOccam]

The problem I have with "suchandsuch is 1/xth the price of a full game but lasts only y hours" is that we're still talking about a few bucks here.

It's like complaining that the price of something tripled--OMG TRIPLED!--when it went from 1 cent to 3 cents. When you speak in percentages like that, you sort of lose perspective. Witch Hunt was about the same price as a fast food meal. Even cheaper if you're talking about a Jalapeno 6-Dollar Burger combo from Carl's Jr, widely regarded by me as the best fast food on Earth.

The great thing about DLC is that it's optional. If you feel like it's not worth the price, then you don't have to buy it. I've skipped lots of the gun and armor packs for Mass Effect because I just don't care about them. And so I don't have to spend money on them. But people who do like them can spend money on them. If they were not sold separately, but rather was developed as a major part of an expansion or something, then I'd be paying for them whether I want them or not.

[ErichHartmann]

Too many developers have jumped on the DLC bandwagon. I understand they are in the business to make money but very few seem to show any fan appreciation with free content anymore. Wouldn't be surprised if content is held back intentionally for future DLC. /carry on

[Bryy_Miller]

I definitely want the post-campaign ME2 DLC, but I'm waiting until they all come out. If the same was for post-campaign Origins DLC, same would apply.

[Revan312]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

I'm not sure how games would take more time to develop now since game engines are amazingly easier to use anymore, compared to 10 - 15 years ago. Take UE3 for example, every game that runs that engine has 50 other games to reference and copy as far as modeling, lighting, triggers, scripting, texturing and more goes. Gone are the days of manually imputting code, now it's full blown toolkits that can create a game environment in less time than ever..

 Many developers still create their own tool/engines. The bottom line is there's just more information to input.

 While there are limitations in building a game for a console, they to , as PCs, will evolve. PCs have the ability to always stay ahead of the curve.

 I don't know who you people are more mad at sometimes, the people who choose consoles as their primary platform or the devs that realize they can make more money in developing for them. Just wait, your sob story isn't over yet, when MMOs go full bore on consoles your really going to need alot of bandaids.

Regardless, I still don't see how this hinders devs in any creative sense.

All the major games that come out use an established engine, it's better business. Why spend two years developing your own engine when you can buy the rights to an already existant and bug tested engine. And there's really not more information to input.  Game development is a lot easier than it used to be. Especially since they're developing games on consoles which are stationary systems that don't change.

And no offense, but your the one that sounds angry.. not me. I'm just discussing why I think consoles have degraded the gaming environment as of late.  And creatively hindering devs?  I'm not entirely sure just how ridgid consoles are when it comes to development.  But just take an FPS game for example, instead of having 64 players on maps which could be made exclusivly for that type of play, consoles have forced those numbers into the 16 player range, which is sort of, well, limiting..  With the technology PC's and bandwith providers now have, a PC exclusive title could have far more players than ever before, but that's not cost effective, consoles are the money makers, I just wish they weren't.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The only game that I found 64 players actually fun was Tribes. Battlefield was extremely nonsensical. In fact back in the day as a hardcore Natural Selection player we would often cap the limit at 16 as anything more would degenerate into mindless chaos. Going back and forth in Battlefield games, it allows for a small amount more. But not much. Leave such mindless chaos to MMO's.

[ObserverStatus]

bsbcaer wrote...

I don't hate it, but Im on the console and simply couldn't afford the wireless attachment for my Xbox 360, so I don't have any DLC at all.

I sincerely hope that Bioware decides to do something like Bethesda did with DLC on Fallout 3 and offer DLC packets in disk form. If they don't do that, I hope that they have a set planned amount of DLC and then do a package deal with DAO and all the available DLC

Ever heard of an ethernet cable?

[Revan312]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The only game that I found 64 players actually fun was Tribes. Battlefield was extremely nonsensical. In fact back in the day as a hardcore Natural Selection player we would often cap the limit at 16 as anything more would degenerate into mindless chaos. Going back and forth in Battlefield games, it allows for a small amount more. But not much. Leave such mindless chaos to MMO's.

I thoroughly enjoy BFBC2's 32 player max, if you get into a server that seems mature enough, things progress quite well imo.  Ya, it can be chaotic, but for the most part it works well.  If they created an FPS for the sole purpose of having truly massive amounts of players and was developed for that.  As long as they really push the point of each game type and try to promote teamwork, I can see it working.

Modifié par Revan312, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:35 .