166 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

there is 2 kinds of DLC in my mind.

1: the DLC that was made pretty much with the same budget of the original game. This kind of DLC is usually ready upon release and sometimes even already on the disc (way to go capcom!). There is no doubt in my mind this kind of DLC is **** move and the kind of material that is ripped out of the final game to make more moneyin a cheap way. Is it against the law? No. Is is ethical in my mind? No. The only exception is when this kind of DLC is FREE to new buyers and used to discourage second hand sales (sorry I truly believe that hurts the industry).

2: the DLC that is made with an entirely separate budget (and almost always deveoped by a separate team). This DLC warrants a return of investment funds and therefore should not be free....even when it is available at launch. This particular DLC is not ripped out of the final game to make a quick buck (like the #1 type) and is worth being paid for in the measure of your interest toward it

that is the only distinction I am ever interested in

[aftohsix]

DLC and pre-order bonuses are not going to go away. They exist as a direct response to decisions members of the gaming "community" made. Namely supporting the used game market and pirating software.

A dev for battlefield also mentioned that the pre-order DLC will be available for all. Just that it's free for those who pre-order and you'll have to pay for it if you don't.

[Wulfram]

aftohsix wrote...

DLC and pre-order bonuses are not going to go away. They exist as a direct response to decisions members of the gaming "community" made. Namely supporting the used game market and pirating software.

It's got f*** all to do with piracy.  And I think it's frankly disgusting that the games companies are trying to screw us out of the right to sell on our property.

Pre-order bonuses have nothing to do with reselling games anyway - they're a marketting tool, plain and simple.  While your regular paid for DLC is a reaction to nothing except people's bizarre willingness to pay ridiculous prices for any crap they put out.

[aftohsix]

Wulfram wrote...

It's got f*** all to do with piracy.  And I think it's frankly disgusting that the games companies are trying to screw us out of the right to sell on our property.

Pre-order bonuses have nothing to do with reselling games anyway - they're a marketting tool, plain and simple.  While your regular paid for DLC is a reaction to nothing except people's bizarre willingness to pay ridiculous prices for any crap they put out.

Which is why Bioware and other companies are now including "online passes" in new games?  Pre-order bonuses are just another way they're encouraging people to buy new, rather than used.  They exist because a large chunk of money started being lost to used game sales.

And I'm sorry but I disagree.  Piracy has played a significant role in DRM, DLC and other post-relase additions that you wouldn't get if you stole the game.

It's a joke to lay all the blame at the feet of the developers and publishers.  I don't have to like the market.  I'm certainly not defending it but I'm not dumb enough to think these things just started existing for no reason.

[Wulfram]

aftohsix wrote...

Which is why Bioware and other companies are now including "online passes" in new games?  Pre-order bonuses are just another way they're encouraging people to buy new, rather than used.  They exist because a large chunk of money started being lost to used game sales.

Pre-order bonuses are a way of encouraging people to pre-order.  If they were to encourage people to buy new, they'd be available to everyone who bought new.

Not that I think it's a good thing that we shouldn't be able to resell all of the game we payed out money for.  I don't have to snip out a couple of chapters from a book before selling it on.

And I'm sorry but I disagree.  Piracy has played a significant role in DRM, DLC and other post-relase additions that you wouldn't get if you stole the game.

It's a joke to lay all the blame at the feet of the developers and publishers.  I don't have to like the market.  I'm certainly not defending it but I'm not dumb enough to think these things just started existing for no reason.

They didn't get started for no reason.  They were started to make companies more money.  Which is OK - that's what companies exist for, and it's up to us as consumers to decide whether what they're offering is worth our money.  If people are prepared to pay more money for the same content if some of that content is seperated out and sold as DLC, then obviously the company is going to do that.  But I object to all the bull**** nonsense justifications that are come out with.

[Puzzlewell]

I personally don't have an issue with DLC, afterall it's optional. My only gripes for with it in an adventure type DLC is that sometimes the cost is a little too much for what we're getting. I know most distributors have price points that developers have to work within so I honestly don't completely blame the distributor for this.

Case-in-point, LotSB. Worth every penny to me. Sure it would have been nice to have got this resolution to Liara's story without waiting on a DLC, but from what I've read the original plan for it wasn't anywhere near as fantastic as the final product. Sometimes giving the development team more time to work on a plotline they originally cooked up during production of the main game works out in our favor because they can devote more time and effort to it, making it an astounding final product.

[Sanunes]

I look at DLC to be like an episodic expansion pack, for that is how it feels to me. If BioWare said that certain characters were to be in the game and then were released as DLC I would be disappointed, but characters like Sebastian from Dragon Age 2 were always tagged to be a DLC character and I played the game completely without using him and I didn't feel like I missed anything.

[Someone With Mass]

DLC is good. You know why? Because that gives the developers more time to work with the content that didn't make it into the game because it simply wasn't ready. They're not trying to steal your cash (which is something really stupid to think, since the DLC is completely optional) by charging for something you think should've been in the game from the start. They need more time to work on it. And any company in the world would charge for content they've worked on well beyond the deadline.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...
1: the DLC that was made pretty much with the same budget of the original game. This kind of DLC is usually ready upon release and sometimes even already on the disc (way to go capcom!). There is no doubt in my mind this kind of DLC is **** move and the kind of material that is ripped out of the final game to make more moneyin a cheap way.

So the company can't make a DLC product and the main game simultaneously, because they theoretically could have added the DLC product's budget to the main game's budget instead of making a separate product?

[Travie]

Developers that follow those simple guidelines (or exceed them) will get more of my hard-earned money. CDprojekt is a great example of this.

Simple as that.

[Travie]

Someone With Mass wrote...

DLC is good. You know why? Because that gives the developers more time to work with the content that didn't make it into the game because it simply wasn't ready. They're not trying to steal your cash (which is something really stupid to think, since the DLC is completely optional) by charging for something you think should've been in the game from the start. They need more time to work on it. And any company in the world would charge for content they've worked on well beyond the deadline.

Thats not the kind of DLC we are discussing here. It is DLC that was cut from the game to be sold seperately that people don't agree with.

Fans by and large (shown by sales if nothing else) are fine with developers churning out more content after the game is released in the form of DLC or better yet, expansions.

Its when companies do obviously greedy things like cut parts of the game out to sell seperately or sell as enticements to buy early.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Wulfram wrote...

It's got f*** all to do with piracy.  And I think it's frankly disgusting that the games companies are trying to screw us out of the right to sell on our property.

It's not your property. It is THEIR property. Read the terms of service next time.

The only thing you bought is the right to play a copy of THEIR game. And that right is not yours to sell. Never has been.

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 17 juin 2011 - 05:34 .

[Travie]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's got f*** all to do with piracy.  And I think it's frankly disgusting that the games companies are trying to screw us out of the right to sell on our property.

It's not your property. It is THEIR property. Read the terms of service next time.

The only thing you bought is the right to play a copy of THEIR game. And that right is not yours to sell. Never has been.

No court of law has ever upheld a 'term of service' or EULA that states that what you are buying does not truely belong to you.

They all know that it would never stand up in court, it is just for show.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia....#Enforceability

There is some info about how some EULA language is not enforceable (and they know it). Although, some parts are.

Basically you can do whatever you want with YOUR software, as long as you don't violate the license holder's intellectual property rights. 

Modifié par Travie, 17 juin 2011 - 05:45 .

[crimzontearz]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
1: the DLC that was made pretty much with the same budget of the original game. This kind of DLC is usually ready upon release and sometimes even already on the disc (way to go capcom!). There is no doubt in my mind this kind of DLC is **** move and the kind of material that is ripped out of the final game to make more moneyin a cheap way.

So the company can't make a DLC product and the main game simultaneously, because they theoretically could have added the DLC product's budget to the main game's budget instead of making a separate product?

read the second half of my post I specify that the second kind of DLC CAN be ready on day one

it is not the best way to win over your fans (especially if the staff gets flat out belligerant when it comes to confirm which budget the day one non free DLC comes from) but it is possible

for instance, let me make a ME3 example

Let's say the Edmonton team works on this rumored ME3 multiplayer which ends up being a stand alone DLC. The edmonton team is on another budget than the main ME3 team, ergo even if THAT DLC is out on day one I am more than happy to pay for it. Was this particular DLC made with the SAME budget of ME3 but sold separately then yeah I'd see it as a rippoff 

[Iamnotahater]

Expansion packs are the only thing that game companies should charge for. If they want to add three guns or additional outfits they should be free.

Characters shouldn't be ripped out then added to the storyline afterwards. You guys want to get ripped off go right ahead. I've never paid or played DLC and I won't now.

If bioware needs more time to finish the game then they should take more time to finish the damn game. They shouldn't be selling me a Lemon and have me pay a fee to make it run properly (see DA 2).

[NotEvenAmused]

javierabegazo wrote...

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.

HAHAHAHA WHAT?!?!? What are you smoking? 

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
1: the DLC that was made pretty much with the same budget of the original game. This kind of DLC is usually ready upon release and sometimes even already on the disc (way to go capcom!). There is no doubt in my mind this kind of DLC is **** move and the kind of material that is ripped out of the final game to make more moneyin a cheap way.

So the company can't make a DLC product and the main game simultaneously, because they theoretically could have added the DLC product's budget to the main game's budget instead of making a separate product?

read the second half of my post I specify that the second kind of DLC CAN be ready on day one

it is not the best way to win over your fans (especially if the staff gets flat out belligerant when it comes to confirm which budget the day one non free DLC comes from) but it is possible

for instance, let me make a ME3 example

Let's say the Edmonton team works on this rumored ME3 multiplayer which ends up being a stand alone DLC. The edmonton team is on another budget than the main ME3 team, ergo even if THAT DLC is out on day one I am more than happy to pay for it. Was this particular DLC made with the SAME budget of ME3 but sold separately then yeah I'd see it as a rippoff 

OK. But then it'svery unlikely that the bad kind of DLC exists at all. Companies know they're doing day 1 DLC from project inception now. There's going to be a budget and team for that DLC. It's not like they're suddenly going to realize thay they need some DLC a week before they go gold.

[AlanC9]

Iamnotahater wrote...
Characters shouldn't be ripped out then added to the storyline afterwards. You guys want to get ripped off go right ahead. I've never paid or played DLC and I won't now. 

Where do you get the idea that Bio's ripping characters out of the storyline? Kasumi and Zaeed are obviously built differently from the rest of the ME2 characters - they were always going to be DLC. Same thing for Sebastian in DA2.

Shale was ripped out of DAO, but that's because it wasn't going to make the original ship date.

Edit: which doesn't mean that these DLCs aren't a ripoff. I didn't think Kasumi was worth buying either.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2011 - 09:02 .

[Lunatic LK47]

AlanC9 wrote...

Where do you get the idea that Bio's ripping characters out of the storyline? Kasumi and Zaeed are obviously built differently from the rest of the ME2 characters - they were always going to be DLC. Same thing for Sebastian in DA2.

Hmm, kinda hard to tell regarding Zaeed and Kasumi. I mean Casey did hype ME2 to be the gaming equivalent of the Dirty Dozen, and at the time, I didn't expect that to be in the LITERAL sense. I mean, sure, the lack of dialogue trees may suggest Zaeed and Kasumi being built differently, but Kasumi WAS found in hidden files (how else did we figure out Conrad Verner was glitched?)

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 21 juin 2011 - 09:16 .

[mithikx]

It really depends on how hard companies try to "milk it" if it's a way to add more gameplay, character development and what not in a quality manner then I have no qualms about it (i.e. LotSB).
Or if you add an optional DLC such as an appearance pack it is after all optional and changes nothing signifigant.
And as for day 1 DLC if they are free or low cost to the consumer because say... they couldn't fit it on the disc, or because they couldn't finish it in time or to just deter from people buying used games (i.e. Zaheed)
And if they do free DLC's I think no one will really complain to that (if they would even consider a major DLC for this treatment)

I mean it's a effective way to recoup funds for a company as long as they don't pull what a certain FPS franchise does (not BF3) by charging $15 for 3 resued maps from it's predecessor (i.e. a dick move) then it's fine by me personally since after all you're not required to purchase the DLCs.

I think it's more like options you can get on something such as a vehicle, you don't need the power seats but they're nice, same for DLCs, I think it might just be the next evolution of the expansion pack considering the resources saved from not having to physically manufacture discs, and housing them in big box stores they might just be more cost effective in the long run for the consumer since you only pay for what you want and not what you don't need.

[byzantine horse]

Arcian wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

I'm still stunned from boycott do to 3 f*cking guns.

Because if people want those 3 guns to be on par with everyone else, they HAVE to buy the game at day 1 - no exceptions. Like TB said, those guns will not be available anywhere else in any way, shape or form. It would have been a whole different thing if they were available as a normal DLC package to be bought and downloaded at any time.

Wrong. The preorder bonuses on BF3 will be released to everyone later this year. Call it early unlocks if you will, but the bonuses will be available for everyone at a later date.

Still, Collector's Editions or Pre-Order bonuses should, imo, never contain in-game items, especially not if they change the way the game works/makes the game easier somehow. The DA2 DLC did just that and potentially broke the experience the game tried to deliver. Bonuses you get when you buy a game should only be for example a map, a poster, a soundtrack etc, physical (or digital media) things more or less.

I also disagree with the "Day one DLC" that most companies have today, all DLC that is there on launch should be in the game from the start, no matter pre-order or collector's edition bonuses. None wants to pay for ½ a game. This goes for expansions as well, it isn't an expansion if it is available at release for extra pay. Then I'd rather they held onto to expansion for a year (despite it being developed already) and released it later as we players wouldn't be the wiser. Cheap? Very. But at least it doesn't penalize players from day one onwards.

[Zeevico]

The Vale DLC was 33mb. Is that because it was on the disc already? I wonder.

[grimkillah]

Another EA game, Alice Madness Returns, which I was looking forward to for months, but I might not get it anymore. Reason is you can't get 1000gs if you get it second handed. fairly annoyed. 100gs from that game is related to a first day dlc which only the new copies have. I don't mind first day releases content, but it isn't offering you new contents, but a copy of the original Alice wonderland game. I don't mind buying the first game if I chooses to, but I already have it on pc, so I don't really needed it on xbox too, but this means you can never complete the game, which is just bad. I will get a second hand copy for pc, which means I can both enjoy the game and deny EA revenue, which I feel is fair.