166 réponses à ce sujet

[CPT Eightball]

Not sure if you've been paying attention to the 'DLC situation' that's been a hot topic recently, but....
This guy makes a good point >>
http://www.youtube.c...v=db7-m0YuNU8#t
@ 2:00 in, he makes a valid point for Bioware involving Dragon Age & Mass Effect 2.

Most of his discussion involves Battlefield 3, BUT he makes a valid point that applies to all games being released(games involving EA - ie: bottom left-hand corner of the screen....), including Mass Effect 3.
I intend to buy Mass Effect 3 - I love the series, there is no doubt in my mind I will enjoy the game, but I don't want to have a bad situation with the DLC.

[BlackwindTheCommander]

Yeah personally I don't agree with the Battlefield 3 setup now that I've read up on it. Its pretty damn unfair. Though this isn't about BF3.

The Mass Effect 3 collector's Edition is the only thing out right now that even relates to dlc.

The DLC we get is...

Alternate character costumes. (So far only Vega and Liara are shown so they maybe the only ones who get it.)

A robotic dog that stays on the ship. (Bassically just a reskin of an old model, nothing game breaking.)

The N7 Hoodie (again not game breaking)

The N7 Arsenal (Reskins of the Phalanx, Inscisor, Locust and a shotgun I can't remember the name of)

Unknown Day 1 release Character

The reason I'm ok with these for two reasons.
A) Most of them are entirely cosmetic. They have not been stated as adding or subtracting anything from the game other then looking cool.

The Day 1 character/mission will be release to the public at a fee (like Shale/Sebastion) and is there mainly to discourage buying used, which is good for the industry.



I feel as long as they're not a game changing addition (or in BF3's case subtraction) Then by all means go for it. I have also had a change of heart towards the Terminus and Collector stuff being released for non pre-order gamers. I think it should be available for everyone, but also available early to those loyal fans.

[onelifecrisis]

Hmm... 4 minutes into the video I was having trouble getting onboard with this guy.

Firstly, he says that if the development of something was finished at the time the game goes gold then it should be included for free? This is nonsense. It's their product, they can sell it however they like. If they want to break it down into bite size chunks and sell them all separately, that's their prerogative.

Secondly he says that instead of punishing second hand buyers they should reward people who buy new, but he doesn't explain what the difference is between those two, and as far as I can tell there isn't any difference. It's the same thing worded two different ways.

Not a good start, so I stopped watching.

[Phaedon]

Yeah...no, sorry, I disagree completely.

You don't pay for what the developers develop, not at all. Do you have any idea how many resources get cut during game development? A lot.

If the stand-alone game doesn't have enough content to justify it's price tag then don't buy it. If the DLC are not worth their price tag? DON'T buy them, it's that simple.

Anything beyond that is a bullsh*t excuse for piracy. No, you don't have the rights for anything that the developers develop. These are property of the company.

That is seriously the same as saying that if not every singly model that is currently in the alpha of ME3 is not in the final game, you should boycott the product.

[Phaedon]

As for "supposed to be in there in release"?


No no no no no no no no no, not, absolutely not.

Unless marketing told you that these things will be in the SE, then you have no rights over anything. If however, they do, then that's a misrepresentation of a product to the consumer, which is illegal.

[Dave of Canada]

Seems just like a general anti-DLC rant which we've heard many times.

[Veex]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Firstly, he says that if the development of something was finished at the time the game goes gold then it should be included for free? This is nonsense. It's their product, they can sell it however they like. If they want to break it down into bite size chunks and sell them all separately, that's their prerogative.

Just wanted to solely address this point. Games traditionally reach a "finalized" state as they go through ratings with the ESRB and other QA checks months before they even reach gold, which means any content that they develop during that phase is left off the initial disk.

There are two prevailing ways to bring that content out. You develop expansion packs that are basically tie-ins to, but not necessarily cohesive portions of the original game. Or you develop DLC which integrates into and around the main game but wasn't completed before these deadlines passed. Shale, Zaeed, and Sebastian are all good examples of this.

Now, with 9 months before release and the game yet to reach gold, it is likely that the additional character is being used as a preorder incentive more than anything and a consumer can make of that what they will.

[AlanC9]

It's a stupid argument. Developers aren't allowed to work on a DLC and the main product simultaneously because.... well, because he doesn't think they ought to.

[BlackwindTheCommander]

Phaedon wrote...

As for "supposed to be in there in release"?


No no no no no no no no no, not, absolutely not.

Unless marketing told you that these things will be in the SE, then you have no rights over anything. If however, they do, then that's a misrepresentation of a product to the consumer, which is illegal.

As usual Phaedon, you are a voice for reason on the forums.

I always thought EA and Bioware handled the DLC for Mass Effect 2 well. Was there ever really any major complaints about availibility? Especially now that everything is becoming availible for everyone?

[Phaedon]

AlanC9 wrote...

It's a stupid argument. Developers aren't allowed to work on a DLC and the main product simultaneously because.... well, because he doesn't think they ought to.

He talks like we own development time. Not unless we are investors, we are not.

[AlanC9]

Maybe he thinks the government should nationalize EA?

[Phaedon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maybe he thinks the government should nationalize EA?

Power EA to the people!

Oh boy.

[CPT Eightball]

Phaedon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It's a stupid argument. Developers aren't allowed to work on a DLC and the main product simultaneously because.... well, because he doesn't think they ought to.

He talks like we own development time. Not unless we are investors, we are not.

True. But we buy the games. It'd be a real blow to the companies if there wern't any profits to pay the developers.
Plus - It's not the developers who decide how the game is sold. They just make the game awesome.

ALSO - (AlanC9) - It's when the company makes a 'release' of DLC that is already included in the game/ or on the disc to begin with that skrews everything up. Meaning: the actual "DLC" is just an 'unlock code'.


BTW this is what I mean -> http://media.gamerev...-see-a-game.jpg

[Wusword77]

What a lame argument.  Should companies also keep all content they decide to cut from the game as well?

Companies should be allowed to give you whatever they want for pre-ordering a game.  Why?  Because it generates them sales and is MUCH cheaper then making a bunch of TV commericals, and I'd rather have the money go to development rather then advertising.

As for the issue for DLC my main concern is paid for DLC that is already on disc (thats just shady).  Most other DLC, as long as it does not contain an intergral part of the game, is open season.  Optional weapons, missions, alternate appearance packs should all be fair game, regardless of when it came up in the development cycle.

[CroGamer002]

Boycott for 3 guns?

You can't be serious.

[Phaedon]

Wusword77 wrote...
As for the issue for DLC my main concern is paid for DLC that is already on disc (thats just shady).  Most other DLC, as long as it does not contain an intergral part of the game, is open season.  Optional weapons, missions, alternate appearance packs should all be fair game, regardless of when it came up in the development cycle.

I agree. On one hand, you paid for that data, on the other, one could just say that it's a simple alternative to downloading the whole DLC.

[AlanC9]

CPT Eightball wrote...
ALSO - (AlanC9) - It's when the company makes a 'release' of DLC that is already included in the game/ or on the disc to begin with that skrews everything up. Meaning: the actual "DLC" is just an 'unlock code'.

Why?

Sure, it's dumb to force the DLC to adhere to the same deadline as a product with a physical manufacturing process, since you're essentially reducing the time to make the product and getting no adcantage except reduced bandwidth costs. But this is the developer's stupidity and the developer's problem.

But what of it? The company is selling different products. Buy them, or don't. Whether they're on the disc or not is irrelevant.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2011 - 10:11 .

[Phaedon]

AlanC9 wrote...

CPT Eightball wrote...
ALSO - (AlanC9) - It's when the company makes a 'release' of DLC that is already included in the game/ or on the disc to begin with that skrews everything up. Meaning: the actual "DLC" is just an 'unlock code'.

Why?

Sure, it's dumb to force the DLC to adhere to the same deadline as a product with a physical manufacturing process, since you're essentially reducing the time to make th stupidity and the developer's problem.

But what of it? The company is selling different products. Buy them, or don't. Whether they're on the disc or not is irrelevant.

I have been thinking a bit about the argument.
Sure, your disc contains the data of the DLC. It also contains a lot of stuff. 
Most modern games have, however, data that the player will never see, since they were essentially cut, even though they are part of the disc. Sure, you can't resell those stuff. The DLC is indeed the "unlock switch".

But why is that necessarily a bad thing?
The developers gave you a disc that contains two products and the 'unlock switch' to unlock one of them. What you were promised was one product and one 'unlock switch'. Unless the DLC causes problems with the file size, I don't see why this policy should be an issue.

[Manic Sheep]

I don’t agree that if something is finished before release it needs to be in the game for free. I don’t know why we supposedly have a right to any content that was made before release. If they want to sell things as extra added content that’s there right. It’s expectable with other products, why not games? So long as you’re getting what was advertised and it’s worth the price without the DLC what is the issue?

There are some things I don’t like and that will stop me from buying a game. They may have a right to sell it that way but I don’t have to buy it. I only don’t like it if main plot stuff is day 1 DLC, you shouldn’t feel something is missing if you bought the regular edition. I didn’t like having NPC’s sell me DLC in Dragon Age: Origins. When you start getting to much of it and entire characters for pre order or retailer bonus it TBH dose puts me off. If its multiplayer based then weapons and things are a no go, it should be cosmetic only.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 15 juin 2011 - 10:20 .

[Chino 281]

There is only one DLC that I am opposed to. One that CapCom loves to pull now-a-days. That is the "already on the disc but you have to pay to unlock it" DLC. It aggrivates me because the others have to be downloaded through servers or from a seperate disc. Both of which cost money to the company, but something on a disc I paid for already and now I have to buy an unlock is total betrayl on the side of the company. See: Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5 (discussed in the video.)

Modifié par Chino 281, 15 juin 2011 - 10:35 .

[onelifecrisis]

makalathbonagin wrote...

well said,TB
stupid youtube skip to 05:04

Definitely not agreeing with him. He needs to read about free market economics. If what EA are doing is wrong by the consumer, the consumer (collectively) will let them know in no uncertain terms, with or without the boycots.