166 réponses à ce sujet

[Hathur]

Had a relative who worked in the gaming industry as an animator for a few years back in the late 90's and early 2000's - long before the DLC era.... he always lamented to me the sheer amount of content / assets of a game that would be outright cut and thrown out ... not because it wasn't good enough, but simply because they couldn't polish it and squeeze it in for their release window or get enough funding & resources to finish it off to be suitable for release with the rest of the game.

You know what DLC is? It's the stuff that would've otherwise been left on the cutting room floor due to time constraints and budget constraints... if we were in the year 2005 right now that content would just be gone - vaporware... never see the light of day.

Instead, DLC enables the devs to give us that content if we want it... I fail to see the negative to this... lots of games have DLC... I enjoyed Fallout New Vegas, but the DLC for it didn't sound appealing to me... so I didn't buy it.... I don't feel as if I'm missing out on anything.

Same thing for Mass Effect... I bought Bring Down the Sky back in the day, but not Pinnacle Station.... one appealed to me, the other didn't.... as a consumer, I had the power of choice.

Same with Mass Effect 2... I liked the content DLCs so I bought them.... the various bonus item DLC stuff? Didn't really care for (other than firepower pack).. so I didn't buy them... simple as that... I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not buying those various item pack DLCs because I feel they weren't worth spending money to get them... so why would I want them in the first place if I felt they have no significantvalue?

As a consumer, I have no problem with DLC and if anything I encourage developers to make more of it... it keeps some extra revenue for them coming in which helps them make more games and I have the freedom to choose whether I feel it's important to my gaming experience or not.

Modifié par Hathur, 15 juin 2011 - 11:31 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Useless, useless, useless argument.

If people like DLC, they'll buy it. More DLC will be made.
If people don't like DLC, they won't buy it. DLC will go away.

[Bnol]

My only complaint with DLC is if it gives an unfair advantage in a Player versus Player environment. Which obviously doesn't effect the ME series, but does have an impact on Battlefield 3. In terms of Battlefield, the developers claimed that the DLC weapons etc. would not create an advantage, but outside of purely cosmetic differences there are potential advantages to be gained, and players will discover them and exploit them. I don't think gamers should be placed on uneven playing fields in terms of spending power.

It doesn't matter whether that extra content is downloadable, or on the disc. DLC provides for a more varied price point of the game, so instead of forcing gamers to pay $70 ($60 for the game plus $10 for the extra DLC present) for the game they can pay the $60 with the option of purchasing the extra content.

[Whatever42]

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.

Actually, my EA stock has been doing really well for me lately. No complaints.

And DLC is awesome, yes.  It allows them to make a game for the standard price point and then make extra, optional content for those willing to pay for it.

[Neo Hex Omega]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

Actually, my EA stock has been doing really well for me lately. No complaints.

And DLC is awesome, yes.  It allows them to make a game for the standard price point and then make extra, optional content for those willing to pay for it.

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

[Whatever42]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

Meh, that's annoying but the content is usually very, very fluffy. And the non-vendor specific free stuff you get for buying new is a brilliant idea, I'm sure you'll agree. Although I don't think the used game market hurts developers as much as they say (since the possibility of resale makes games more affordable for many people), encouraging players to buy new with fluff is a good thing imo.

Ultimately, though, developing games is a business. And your owners expect a return on investment which is competitive with other investment opportunities like resources, banking, and tech. If gaming companies can make money developing fluff and optional content  for suckers like me who will pay through the nose for it then all gamers should applaud because it allows them to produce more games and keep prices down.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 16 juin 2011 - 01:21 .

[onelifecrisis]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

Actually, my EA stock has been doing really well for me lately. No complaints.

And DLC is awesome, yes.  It allows them to make a game for the standard price point and then make extra, optional content for those willing to pay for it.

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

If you really believe that then stop supporting it.

[Neo Hex Omega]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

Ultimately, though, developing games is a business. And your owners expect a return on investment which is competitive with other investment opportunities like resources, banking, and tech. If gaming companies can make money developing fluff and optional content  for suckers like me who will pay through the nose for it then all gamers should applaud because it allows them to produce more games and keep prices down.

The only problem with the last part of that statement, is that we as consumers have yet to see prices move in our favor. Games are as expensive as ever, and in the few short years that I have followed the digital market actively, the trend continues to be: more micro transactions, more expensive paid DLC, while the quality and quantity of free content is diminishing. And... games are still sixty dollars at retail, even on PC now.

Publishers are figuring out that many people will let themselves be nickel and dimed at the digital marketplace (best example: people who play Call of Duty and pay extra money for ridiculously overpriced map packs). While it is nice in many ways to see many games receive support post launch, the digital market is becoming saturated with overpriced junk, and/or things removed from games to be used as retalier/pre-order incentives.

I just hold the opinion that we as consumers should be much more discriminating about what we support from these publishers.

[Neo Hex Omega]

onelifecrisis wrote...

If you really believe that then stop supporting it.

Did I say that I did?

That is why I won't be touching Battlefield 3, for starters.

[Whatever42]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

The only problem with the last part of that statement, is that we as consumers have yet to see prices move in our favor. Games are as expensive as ever, and in the few short years that I have followed the digital market actively, the trend continues to be: more micro transactions, more expensive paid DLC, while the quality and quantity of free content is diminishing. And... games are still sixty dollars at retail, even on PC now.

Publishers are figuring out that many people will let themselves be nickel and dimed at the digital marketplace (best example: people who play Call of Duty and pay extra money for ridiculously overpriced map packs). While it is nice in many ways to see many games receive support post launch, the digital market is becoming saturated with overpriced junk, and/or things removed from games to be used as retalier/pre-order incentives.

I just hold the opinion that we as consumers should be much more discriminating about what we support from these publishers.

Games have higher production values than ever so developers are fighting to hold prices down in the face of rising costs.  Its like airlines micro-charging you for bags and snacks to keep down the costs of their fares.

Ultimately, as I said, that extra content is produced for people who are willing to pay for more. If they added all that content into the game and raised the price $20 then they would lose a lot of sales from people who wouldn't be willing to pay for the extra content. By separating it out, those people who would prefer a shorter game for less money will buy it while those who are willing to pay more for more also get what they want.

Game development is a very competitive industry and that's what ultimately keeps the prices in check. I own stock in a couple game companies and trust me, these guys generally don't do great on their returns. It's definately not banking.

[JayhartRIC]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

Ultimately, though, developing games is a business. And your owners expect a return on investment which is competitive with other investment opportunities like resources, banking, and tech. If gaming companies can make money developing fluff and optional content  for suckers like me who will pay through the nose for it then all gamers should applaud because it allows them to produce more games and keep prices down.

The only problem with the last part of that statement, is that we as consumers have yet to see prices move in our favor. Games are as expensive as ever, and in the few short years that I have followed the digital market actively, the trend continues to be: more micro transactions, more expensive paid DLC, while the quality and quantity of free content is diminishing. And... games are still sixty dollars at retail, even on PC now.

Publishers are figuring out that many people will let themselves be nickel and dimed at the digital marketplace (best example: people who play Call of Duty and pay extra money for ridiculously overpriced map packs). While it is nice in many ways to see many games receive support post launch, the digital market is becoming saturated with overpriced junk, and/or things removed from games to be used as retalier/pre-order incentives.

I just hold the opinion that we as consumers should be much more discriminating about what we support from these publishers.

The thing is, if not for these things the only other alternative is a price increase across the board. Games are getting more and more expensive to make, and the price has basically been the same since the NES days. Not even talking about inflation. With the price of making games, one flop can cause a dev to get folded up. 

Plus once the used copies hit the scene, it is nearly impossible to sell many new copies. They are basically built like the movie industry. They make all their money the first couple weeks after it comes out. Movies have a second chance on dvd, but games only have that first shot.

I actually bought ME2 twice (my 360 got stolen with disc 2 inside.) I bought all the dlc, and I don't feel cheated at all. Like someone else said, people keep saying, "You used to get the full game." The fact is you never knew what you weren't getting cause they didn't have an easy way to distribute it.

[KainrycKarr]

I've actually enjoyed most of Bioware's DLC. The only thing I'm concerned about is making increasing a DLC's ratio to the original game.

If a game is about 40 hours of content, about costs $49.99, then a DLC of about 2 hours, should NOT cost $10.

[Lunatic LK47]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

Actually, my EA stock has been doing really well for me lately. No complaints.

And DLC is awesome, yes.  It allows them to make a game for the standard price point and then make extra, optional content for those willing to pay for it.

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

I agree here. nThe handling of L.A. Noire is outright shady (i.e. "Yeah, you can get achievement points from our store-specific cases, so you're ****ed if you didn't buy this from our store), and no, putting it up on X-Box Live right after the fact is not damage control, no matter how you spin this. Hell, I'm not sure if Deus Ex: Human Revolution is worth it for introducing this crap

[Abirn]

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.

You mean like advertising that you're new console can support Linux operating system then taking it away and actually sueing somebody who does what you told them they could do.....


Also I'm still waiting for the paid dlc to be available, you know of the cool preorder bonuses....  When are we getting those available to be purchased. 

[OdanUrr]

DLC is a marketing tool, pure and simple. It's one of those things that helps sell the game. Whether it's new content, content that was intentionally or unintentionally cut from the game, we have no way of knowing. We can just as easily say it's business, or the devs pleasing fans, or both, and perhaps we'd all be right.

To me it all comes down to this: Is the core game a good experience in its own right? If the answer's "yes," then any and all DLC will add to your already-good experience. DLC can allow for the shortening of development cycles without compromising the story as we've seen with ME2. I repeat, DLC is not inherently evil as long as it adds to an already good/great gaming experience. When it's used to strip a story of some of its elements to turn a profit, that's a different ballgame.

Concerning pricing... well, there is something odd about the hours-to-price ratio in story DLCs, can't deny that. And how would you price item packs? Those don't add hours to gameplay experience. So, yes, DLC can be a slippery slope IF it's favoured over the core game. Otherwise, "it's just good business."

Modifié par OdanUrr, 16 juin 2011 - 03:32 .

[Abirn]

OdanUrr wrote...

DLC is a marketing tool, pure and simple. It's one of those things that helps sell the game. Whether it's new content, content that was intentionally or unintentionally cut from the game, we have no way of knowing. We can just as easily say it's business, or the devs pleasing fans, or both, and perhaps we'd all be right.

To me it all comes down to this: Is the core game a good experience in its own right? If the answer's "yes," then any and all DLC will add to your already-good experience. DLC can allow for the shortening of development cycles without compromising the story as we've seen with ME2. I repeat, DLC is not inherently evil as long as it adds to an already good/great gaming experience. When it's used to strip a story of some of its elements to turn a profit, that's a different ballgame.

Concerning pricing... well, there is something odd about the hours-to-price ratio in story DLCs, can't deny that. And how would you price item packs? Those don't add hours to gameplay experience. So, yes, DLC can be a slippery slope IF it's favoured over the core game. Otherwise, "it's just good business."

Look I have no problem with DLC,  if you want to sell it extra then go for it.  But there should be in no way shape or form exclusive content. Why should I be punished because I choose to pre order from a site like Origin instead of gamestop.

[In Exile]

CPT Eightball wrote...
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.

EA isn't just a publisher - it's a developer, too. Bioware is EA, remember.

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

Right, but depending on how the DLC was developed, either side could be right. That's the point. Unlock code certainly falls under "crippled" at least in principle. But if DLC is developed on an independent timeline from the initial game and goes through a different certifiication with its own budget and with an entirely different expectation (i.e. game sales pay  for the game, DLC-only sales for the DLC) then the EA view is totally justified.

[OdanUrr]

Abirn wrote...

Look I have no problem with DLC,  if you want to sell it extra then go for it.  But there should be in no way shape or form exclusive content. Why should I be punished because I choose to pre order from a site like Origin instead of gamestop.

You make a good point. I've absolutely no idea why different retailers should affect game content when the developer and publisher are obviously the same for all.

[In Exile]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

The only problem with the last part of that statement, is that we as consumers have yet to see prices move in our favor. Games are as expensive as ever, and in the few short years that I have followed the digital market actively, the trend continues to be: more micro transactions, more expensive paid DLC, while the quality and quantity of free content is diminishing. And... games are still sixty dollars at retail, even on PC now.

What? Gamers have been riding a golden rainbow of savings for the last decade (or more). Development costs for AAA games have, what, tripled? quadrupled? in the last decade and the pricepoint of games (as you put it) has stayed the same. Producing games on a budget of 1.6 million and doing it on a budget of 16 million and charging $50 for both is a huge, huge saving for the consumer.

Publishers are figuring out that many people will let themselves be nickel and dimed at the digital marketplace (best example: people who play Call of Duty and pay extra money for ridiculously overpriced map packs). While it is nice in many ways to see many games receive support post launch, the digital market is becoming saturated with overpriced junk, and/or things removed from games to be used as retalier/pre-order incentives.

That's nothing more than price discrimination. It's what Cosco does, only an even better deal for the corporation, because they can price more people to the most they're willing to spend.

[Gatt9]

Hathur wrote...
You know what DLC is? It's the stuff that would've otherwise been left on the cutting room floor due to time constraints and budget constraints... if we were in the year 2005 right now that content would just be gone - vaporware... never see the light of day.

Depends on your exact meaning.

Day 1 DLC,  your statements don't hold true.  If it's done on Day 1,  it was done when the disc went to manufacturing,  because it also has to be QA'd and Approved by the console manufacturer.  Dragon Age Origins is a great example,  a great deal of compelling content was sold as exclusives or DLC on day 1,  but was complete for release.

EA's also really bad about DLC.  Day 1 DLC is common,  and they've got no problem making mandatory DLC.  Dead Space 2 had DLC that unlocked almost necessary stuff in the retail game,  if you didn't buy it,  you couldn't access a wealth of content.  It was even worse in,  it was only available for consoles,  but in the PC version,  the stuff was still locked even though it was impossible to buy the DLC.  Which made me very angry.

EA's plan is to railroad people into paying more for the whole game than the $60 you drop at the register,  it's a stealth price increase.  "Want the whole game?  $20 more please!".

Contrast this to Dead Rising 2,  where you could buy a short complete game that showcased the title's strengths,  and it gave you a marginal advantage in the retail copy.  It was a whole level,  with plenty of stuff to see and do,  but not necessary.  That was a fair approach,  and money I felt was very well spent.

The DLC is one of the primary reasons why ME3 will be my last EA game,  at least for a long time.  I do not like getting railroaded into paying extra.  I am highly annoyed by the fact that my game had areas locked out because I didn't pay an extra $20 for the content in the retail copy to be fully unlocked.  I expect that if I buy a game,  I can access everything on the disc without paying an extra fee.

The other primary reason is EA's "Mass market" push,  forcing everything to be as watered down as possible so that it appeals to the widest possible audience in theory.

[javierabegazo]

Gatt9 wrote...

The other primary reason is EA's "Mass market" push,  forcing everything to be as watered down as possible so that it appeals to the widest possible audience in theory.

So Dead Space 2, and Battefield 3 are mass market games? Those seem like heavily niche genres to me.

[Razor_Zeng]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

Actually, my EA stock has been doing really well for me lately. No complaints.

And DLC is awesome, yes.  It allows them to make a game for the standard price point and then make extra, optional content for those willing to pay for it.

That is well and good for normal paid DLC, but it is a decidedly different matter when parts of a game are purposely cut out well before launch, then doled out to people who shop at certain retailers, and even then only if they pre-order. That is the kind of slippery slope that we should all be careful to avoid supporting.

Gamestop, Bestbuy etc generally pay money to publishers to get stuff for them to go "buy from us and get XXXX!" Therefore the extra stuff we get from preordering from storeX is free DLC for us that the company selling us the game has paid for.

[SilentNukee]

Oh, the cynical brit. He did amazing on the WoW stuff.

Hmm...I agree with him, but I might be bias because I work at EB Games and also if I can, I get my games pre-owned.

Modifié par SilentNukee, 16 juin 2011 - 04:34 .

[CroGamer002]

It's 3 guns.

You still have 26 other guns.
Why the fuss?

[Admoniter]

For the most part I agree with him; and the only part that I really disagree with him on is that if the stuff can be available on release it should be free. That said retailer specific pre orders are just not cool in my book the same applies to pre order bonuses as well. The only exception being if they are merely cosmetic things or early unlocks; customers should never be punished because they didn't go with store x/retailer y, decided to go with a store with a better record, or a different service for getting games.

Needless to say I do not like being nickle and dimed, furthermore I despise the content is already on the disk and you are paying for a code to unlock said content system. When I pay for a game I expect a full game not just a bunch of partitioned pieces; some of which are sold off to retailers, others given as a pre order bonus, and yet others locked away on the disk until some suit decides that they need something to keep the buzz going. Thankfully most games don't go down this route... if they did I would be praying for another gaming crash.


With all that said though ME2 really wasn't all that bad. I thought the DLC packs were lacking yes, but they were cheap and never really rubbed me the wrong way, I bought the stuff I liked and avoided the stuff that didn't appeal to me. The only part of ME2 DLC that I did not enjoy was the aformentioned pre-order bonuses and retail specific ones; it wouldn't have been so bad if they were just cosmetic skins but they weren't, these were full armor sets or exclusive weapons; as I have stated before not a fan of those.

Although the ME2 stuff at its worst is still leagues above the likes of the BF3 physical warfare thing, or Back to Karkland (I might just skip this game if these continue to exist,) or the GeOW 2 Flashback map pack, the LP2 map pack that was exclusive to gamestop or the Killzone "flashback" (I don't remember the actual name.) I mean a robust map selection is the life blood of games with an ephasis on their MP content or any game with MP content for that matter; restricting said life blood to those who pre-order or even worse those that are given to specific retailers just make my blood boil. Speaking of which not a fan of retailer specific missions either, here's looking at you Deus Ex. But this is more of a discussion for a different topic.

My point is this I don't have a problem with what ME3 does so long as it isn't ME2, BF3 style or Deus Ex style I suppose. Do all the cosmetic stuff you like, but the second one of your bonuses affects gameplay I'm going to have a problem.

Modifié par Admoniter, 16 juin 2011 - 07:18 .