286 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

That may be true Sylvius, But considering the story line going into 3, and so forth. Some decisions have to have a basis somewhere and thus if a player didnt play ME2, or what not, or didn't do SOMETHING. a Defualt choice will be made for sake of continuance of the story.

Just like if you played ME2 and not ME1, doesnt matter, ME1 happened, just like if you play ME3 without an import, ME1 and ME2 happened and default choices will be made (or decided if a genesis-essque editor is involved).

So while you may say your shepard would have no part of it...well the story line will be pushed ahead regardless.

[MightySword]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The primary benefit of DLC over core content is that it's optional. You don't have to do it. The game's core content pretty much has to be played. You can't play ME without become a Spectre. That's not optional. But whether you deal with the Batarian terrorists in BDtS, that's optional. DLC are side-quests. You can skip them.

Specter is not a good comparable example to DLC. the Vermin decisions, the Archanid queen live or not, Congrad, romance ...etc... can swing differently, and some of them are optional. It all comes down whether you want to excesise more resource to to accomodate your experience, or settle with the default choice otherwise.  

[FERMi27]

I've bought only three main DLCs so far: Overlord, LotSB and Arrival, plus downloaded those that are free. Unfortunately, I have a retail copy of ME2, but I'd love to have one on my Steam account as well. Now I'm waiting for that Ultimate edition everybody is promising, with all DLCs bundled in it(and, of course, the main point is it's availability on Steam). Or, at least, a DLC pack deal or something, I dunno. Such a shame Bioware drops prices so rarely...

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's what I like about DLC. If they're not side-quests, then I want them in the game. I don't mind paying extra for side-quests. I'll happily pay extra for side-quests. But I don't want the game to assume I completed them when I didn't. If I bought LotSB, but didn't play through it with this particular Shepard, then when I import that Shepard into ME3 I don't want the game to tell me what my Shepard did. I know what my Shepard did, and it wasn't that.

Well put. It's a bad system once it becomes mandatory.

[Xeranx]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The primary benefit of DLC over core content is that it's optional. You don't have to do it. The game's core content pretty much has to be played. You can't play ME without become a Spectre. That's not optional. But whether you deal with the Batarian terrorists in BDtS, that's optional. DLC are side-quests. You can skip them.

That's what I like about DLC. If they're not side-quests, then I want them in the game. I don't mind paying extra for side-quests. I'll happily pay extra for side-quests. But I don't want the game to assume I completed them when I didn't. If I bought LotSB, but didn't play through it with this particular Shepard, then when I import that Shepard into ME3 I don't want the game to tell me what my Shepard did. I know what my Shepard did, and it wasn't that.

I understand what you're saying and I agree completely.  The problem is the sequel took half the time the original did in development.  Obviously corners were cut and they weren't patched well enough if at all.  So now we get dlc that's supposed to be in-game and instead of it being free we have to pay for it.  I wish development companies and their publishers didn't act like their customers were stupid, but the will of the people as it is will not be against the dlc.  They will buy and the companies will think what they're doing is good.  As far as how they treat the absence of playing the dlc, we'll see once ME3 is released.

[TCBC_Freak]

Since we are back on the DLC topic I'd like to put my opinion that got buried, twice, earlier in the thread. It's logic and common sense, use those when you read and I think you will see my point.

To me not buying DLC is like the people (like my aunt) who refused (and maybe still refuse like my aunt) to buy DVDs and stayed with VHS (or even cassette tapes over CDs, or hell even 8trakes over cassettes).

DLC is the natural evolution of the full box expansions, they are cheaper for the devs to make and cheaper for us to buy (look at the full game of Kane and Lynch 2 which was 4 hours long and cost 60 bucks; yet all the story DLC for ME 2 maybe comes to the same in price [much less if you got it on sale or free even] and is well over 10 hours if you play it right), they can be put out faster and don't take up space on your shelf, lol. The truth is that the stubbornness of those who refuse to buy DLC is causing them to miss out on some awesome stuff (just like my aunt who is constantly missing out on new films because they don't come out on VHS and she will not go to movies because of the cost of drinks and popcorn and stuff). If you think about DLC as anything from any other industry you will understand that it cannot be free, that's a dumb thing to want, why?? Because the game wasn't free was it? A box expansion isn't free is it? That DVD or Blue-ray player isn't free when you buy a TV is it (sometimes you do get a special deal...but guess what sometimes DLC is free too, like Zaeed or Shale from DA:O; and those Blue-ray's and DVD aren't free are they...neither is Lair of the Shadowbroker...)? Why would DLC be free when it's hours worth of content and months worth of work for the developers.

Just wanted to drop my two cents because, take it or leave it.

[sedrikhcain]

The entertainment value of games like the Mass Effect trilogy, dollar for dollar, stacks up really well -- provided you enjoy the experience, of course. Even if you paid for every DLC and bought the game full price, you're getting something like 5 dozens hours of content for under $200 (and that's at the outrageous Australian prices I have to pay). Compare that to $10 or so for a movie and I think you come out well ahead. Games are a good bargain if you get one you like. I'm not complaining.

[whywhywhywhy]

happy_daiz wrote...
I wasn't thinking of it in that way, so thank you for making it more clear. I agree, there IS a lot of crap DLC out there, and it isn't worth paying for. I typically look at DLC as a "satisfaction not 100% guaranteed" item in the first place, so I am equipped to deal with the consequences - whether it's a great DLC, or something just...meh. It's kind of like gambling - never take more money to the casino than you can afford to lose.

And that's the hook, that's why DLC as it is, is very bad to invest in just for the sake of it.  You have demo's ok games so you can try before you buy.

happy_daiz wrote...
I would argue (not with you, just in general) that refusing to pay for DLC, just for the sake of refusing to pay; or thinking it should just be included in the original sale price is rather idealistic, and somewhat naive. Expect eternal disappointment with that philosophy, as companies exist to make money.

They aren't just trying to make money, they are trying to make money at the EXPENSE of the gamer.  Trying to pass off shovelware is what made the used game industry to vibrant in the first place, especially with the 7 day return policy.  You can't do that with new games nor DLC.  The greed came back to bite developers and will return to bite them again for their DLC practices as well.  I had a don't bite the hand analogy but I decided to drink a beer instead.

happy_daiz wrote...
You bring up a good point, though. If DLC is deemed "crap" by a certain percentage of its buyers, should the company give a refund? How long would it take before the average gamer would always say it was crap, just so it would be free? I can't imagine that would fly for long, as developers would be eating the cost.

How long before a burned gamer starts getting the game illegaly as payback ?  Then we all lose.  Let me lay out a example:

game A released $69.99
free content
free content
free content
paid content
free content
paid content
paid content
and etc.
3 DLC's 1-2.5 hour content all free.
paid content 3-7+ hour content
10-20 bucks

Game B 69.99
all paid content
No standard to content could be avatar, themes, outfit packs, weapon packs, short dlc content of varying quality.

Which game would you buy ?  And what advantages would game company A have over game company B as far as userbase ?

happy_daiz wrote...
Personally, I've often thought that after a certain point in time, pay DLC should be reduced in price, then eventually made free. Like any other commodity, its retail value should change according to the market.

Great things to ponder, thanks.
 

I agree with this it's a obvious money grab and again why I dislike DLC, especially combined with all the other negatives..

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:04 .

[Xeranx]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

Since we are back on the DLC topic I'd like to put my opinion that got buried, twice, earlier in the thread. It's logic and common sense, use those when you read and I think you will see my point.

To me not buying DLC is like the people (like my aunt) who refused (and maybe still refuse like my aunt) to buy DVDs and stayed with VHS (or even cassette tapes over CDs, or hell even 8trakes over cassettes).

DLC is the natural evolution of the full box expansions, they are cheaper for the devs to make and cheaper for us to buy (look at the full game of Kane and Lynch 2 which was 4 hours long and cost 60 bucks; yet all the story DLC for ME 2 maybe comes to the same in price [much less if you got it on sale or free even] and is well over 10 hours if you play it right), they can be put out faster and don't take up space on your shelf, lol. The truth is that the stubbornness of those who refuse to buy DLC is causing them to miss out on some awesome stuff (just like my aunt who is constantly missing out on new films because they don't come out on VHS and she will not go to movies because of the cost of drinks and popcorn and stuff). If you think about DLC as anything from any other industry you will understand that it cannot be free, that's a dumb thing to want, why?? Because the game wasn't free was it? A box expansion isn't free is it? That DVD or Blue-ray player isn't free when you buy a TV is it (sometimes you do get a special deal...but guess what sometimes DLC is free too, like Zaeed or Shale from DA:O; and those Blue-ray's and DVD aren't free are they...neither is Lair of the Shadowbroker...)? Why would DLC be free when it's hours worth of content and months worth of work for the developers.

Just wanted to drop my two cents because, take it or leave it.

Natural evolution or not, it's not being used in that sense by many companies.  If the next part of the story is supposed to be affected by any dlc offered then it should be free.  That's pure common sense right there.  Someone of course will say no it's not and you can't expect them to offer you for free something extra they did.  My counter is if it's supposed to have an effect on what I'm doing then it should be.  

In the case of Mass Effect, we know the story isn't finished and ME3 will be the conclusion of Shepard's story.  However, if Arrival is supposed to have a profound effect on the story and it's needed to advance the story of ME2 into ME3 then I am to assume that the story I paid anywhere from $50 - $60 is incomplete.  They told us that we'd get dlc to advance the story.  I or no one should be expected to pay additional monies for pieces that are missing due to shortened development.  

ME2 spent 2 years in development compared to ME's 4.  Due to ME2's development cycle we have in-game movement that looks horrible while the cutscene action is smooth and even.  We have standing postures that beg the question as to why it was left the way it was and not refined.  We have inconsistencies and at least one character who's very motivations are anyone's guess.  Should I or anyone else expect to pay for anything that fixes the inconsistencies, and Shepard's walking animation that we look at for 90% of the game minimum?  No.  That's work that was left unattended and left unpolished as a result of shortened development time.

The truth of the matter is many development companies are using dlc as a crutch.  It allows them to get lazy during development because they can use dlc to add what was missing.  Now that's a general statement.  I don't know how ME2's development occurred, but the evidence is there.  

Good dlc adds background information to the universe and may give us a different perspective on things.  It doesn't affect what's going to happen later and it doesn't warrent any input from us.  It's there if we want to read it.

[Il Divo]

Xeranx wrote...
Natural evolution or not, it's not being used in that sense by many companies.  If the next part of the story is supposed to be affected by any dlc offered then it should be free.  That's pure common sense right there.  Someone of course will say no it's not and you can't expect them to offer you for free something extra they did.  My counter is if it's supposed to have an effect on what I'm doing then it should be.  

In the case of Mass Effect, we know the story isn't finished and ME3 will be the conclusion of Shepard's story.  However, if Arrival is supposed to have a profound effect on the story and it's needed to advance the story of ME2 into ME3 then I am to assume that the story I paid anywhere from $50 - $60 is incomplete.  They told us that we'd get dlc to advance the story.  I or no one should be expected to pay additional monies for pieces that are missing due to shortened development.  

ME2 spent 2 years in development compared to ME's 4.  Due to ME2's development cycle we have in-game movement that looks horrible while the cutscene action is smooth and even.  We have standing postures that beg the question as to why it was left the way it was and not refined.  We have inconsistencies and at least one character who's very motivations are anyone's guess.  Should I or anyone else expect to pay for anything that fixes the inconsistencies, and Shepard's walking animation that we look at for 90% of the game minimum?  No.  That's work that was left unattended and left unpolished as a result of shortened development time.

The truth of the matter is many development companies are using dlc as a crutch.  It allows them to get lazy during development because they can use dlc to add what was missing.  Now that's a general statement.  I don't know how ME2's development occurred, but the evidence is there.  

Good dlc adds background information to the universe and may give us a different perspective on things.  It doesn't affect what's going to happen later and it doesn't warrent any input from us.  It's there if we want to read it.

You do realize that this entire argument can apply to expansions, as well as sequels? Any game which features a connected sequel can be considered 'incomplete'.

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[RPGamer13]

I understand the apathy towards buying DLC period. Especially when there is so much they could easily come up with some deal, like the Director's Cut of Devil May Cry 3 or Game of the Year Editions for other games.

The only reason I bought Kasumi is because I loved the trailer for it and thought she looked like an interesting character. Lair of the Shadow Broker, I bought because of the interaction Shepard has with Liara at the end of it because I romanced her in the first game.

And then, I had to buy Alternate Appearance Pack 2 so I wouldn't have odd points left over. Which pisses me off. But that's another story and pointless to go on about.

[Xeranx]

Il Divo wrote...

You do realize that this entire argument can apply to expansions, as well as sequels? Any game which features a connected sequel can be considered 'incomplete'.

A sequel is one thing.  It's a continuation.  The sequel requires the preceding be known, but the preceding or prequel shouldn't need to setup the next installment.  An expansion is another.  DLC are expansions.  Or at least they're supposed to be.  They shouldn't be necessary to move the story along.  They should only be made available to explore whatever world the dlc pertains to.  DLC should not be vital to the main story.  It should only serve to enhance what you've already played.

I'm waiting on the latest Dresden Files novel.  July 26 can't come soon enough.<_<  Anyway, each story is written so that the main plot is resolved, but it can begin a new plot for the next book much like the last one did.  What shouldn't happen, however, is that the plot is resolved in the first book with the next book beginning a new plot without telling me the setup.  It can give me that information later, but it can't completely leave it out. 

Keep in mind that I don't know how it's going to play out so this is just an example.  Arrival is supposed to be a lead-in to ME3.  Rather than put it in at the start or close to the start of ME3 (read: within ME3), they put it at the tail end of ME2 and put it up for sale.  If Arrival only served to expand the universe and didn't need me to do or say anything as Shepard then it's fine.  The problem comes in when it is required for my ability to make choices as to how ME3 progresses.  

Let's say you buy a can of whatever beverage you prefer and you find yourseld needing the tab that allows you to open the can so that you can drink your beverage.  For this scenario ME3 is the beverage and Arrival is the tab.  Now, rather than giving us the can complete with the tab to open it they want us to buy the can (which is understandable) and pay seperate for the tab that'll allow us to open said can.  If you can combine both to make the process of drinking the beverage (absorbing the story) easier why would you, instead, decide to make it more difficult?  

[AlanC9]

Xeranx wrote...
In the case of Mass Effect, we know the story isn't finished and ME3 will be the conclusion of Shepard's story.  However, if Arrival is supposed to have a profound effect on the story and it's needed to advance the story of ME2 into ME3 then I am to assume that the story I paid anywhere from $50 - $60 is incomplete.  They told us that we'd get dlc to advance the story.  I or no one should be expected to pay additional monies for pieces that are missing due to shortened development.  

This is just confused. Do you really think that an ME2 with a longer development cycle would have ended any differently from the way the released version did?

[Omega-202]

Xeranx wrote...

A sequel is one thing.  It's a continuation.  The sequel requires the preceding be known, but the preceding or prequel shouldn't need to setup the next installment.  An expansion is another.  DLC are expansions.  Or at least they're supposed to be.  They shouldn't be necessary to move the story along.  They should only be made available to explore whatever world the dlc pertains to.  DLC should not be vital to the main story.  It should only serve to enhance what you've already played.

Who are you (or anyone else) to determine this?  

The DLC's can just as easily be seen as ME 2.5  

In a way, Overlord/LotSB/Arrival can be considered one full expansion that acts as an interim between ME 2 and 3.  
Should fans of Assassin's Creed be complaining to Ubisoft if plot points revealed in Brotherhood are important to AC 3?  In many ways, it was basically a full game expansion with multiplayer more than it was a sequel, so by your logic, what Ubisoft did was just as terrible.  

Expansions have ALWAYS worked this way.  Just because ME 2's expansion came out in episodic small chunks and not one big disk based release, you have no right to be so juvenile about it.  Its the same thing.  

[the_one_54321]

1. Kane and Lynch is a horrible example for anything because everyone knows that it's garbage. Everyone.

2. If some content is specifically designated as optional, then the effect is has on my game should be equally optional. It is a bad practice to tell me later that the content that I did not play happened anyway.

[TexasToast712]

 Someone is a little stingy.

[Cainne Chapel]

to be fair... I dont call DLC that comes out a year+ after release to be considered "Withheld" from the game to push it out the door. Especially when the DLC in questions amounts to a 1-2hr side quest. It is just that... Optional additional content.

That said, the devs from the beginning of the rumblings of LOTSB announced that it would be "bridging" DLC. So basically they announced ahead of time that it bridges the small gap between ME2 and ME3 and basically is tantamount to a sidestory.

So in essence it will happen anyway, but you get the chance to play it.

So I dont see what the problem is.

Also i have no hate for DLC in general. AS most of the time in the games i play it amounts to no more than a costume pack or such. and as such, I tend not to buy most DLC for the games i play, unless its something that interests me or I could use to enhance my enjoyment of the game (such as LBP DLC packs and costumes)

[Beerfish]

Eh? A money grab? It like the games themselves is a retail product you are free to buy it or not. totally up to you and dlc usually has not a massive effect on full versions of the game. There is nothing at all wrong with the_one deciding to never buy any dlc, it's a choice.

[Xeranx]

AlanC9 wrote...
This is just confused. Do you really think that an ME2 with a longer development cycle would have ended any differently from the way the released version did?

I think the writers wouldn't have had a shorter frame of time in which to write and that would have led to a more fleshed out story.  I think the animators would have had more time to iron out the obvious kinks that existed in-game. Overall, I think a longer development cycle would have allowed for more thought in regards to what was to be done and how it could be accomplished.

Would it have ended any differently?  Probably not, but I believe it would be more satisfying.

Omega-202 wrote...

Who are you (or anyone else) to determine this?  

The DLC's can just as easily be seen as ME 2.5  

In a way, Overlord/LotSB/Arrival can be considered one full expansion that acts as an interim between ME 2 and 3.  
Should fans of Assassin's Creed be complaining to Ubisoft if plot points revealed in Brotherhood are important to AC 3?  In many ways, it was basically a full game expansion with multiplayer more than it was a sequel, so by your logic, what Ubisoft did was just as terrible.  

Expansions have ALWAYS worked this way.  Just because ME 2's expansion came out in episodic small chunks and not one big disk based release, you have no right to be so juvenile about it.  Its the same thing.  

I have to say that I find it ironic that this is your response, but you want to call me juvenile or assume that I am being juvenile.  I don't know what Ubisoft did and apparently I don't need to as your response was more a show about you being self-righteousness than trying to actually tell me something.  

What I'm discussing is in regards to ME2 and ME3, but there is a general statement about DLC that I think fits.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
2. If some content is specifically designated as optional, then the effect is has on my game should be equally optional. It is a bad practice to tell me later that the content that I did not play happened anyway.

While I've got some sympathy for this, wouldn't that just mean that they'd say Arrival and LotSB are mandatory?

[AlanC9]

Xeranx wrote...
I think the writers wouldn't have had a shorter frame of time in which to write and that would have led to a more fleshed out story.  I think the animators would have had more time to iron out the obvious kinks that existed in-game. Overall, I think a longer development cycle would have allowed for more thought in regards to what was to be done and how it could be accomplished.

Would it have ended any differently?  Probably not, but I believe it would be more satisfying.

Let's say that's true. What does it have to do with the DLC? After that hypothetical alternate ME2 shipped -- would it have even shipped yet? -- they'd still have an interval between ME2 and ME3. Is there any reason to think that interval wouldn't be filled up with LotSB and Arrival?

It's OK to complain about the short dev cycle  -- I wasn't bothered by the stuff you mention, but that's personal taste. But you asserted a relationship between the short dev cycle and the bridging DLC, and I don't see how that's tenable.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:59 .

[Xeranx]

AlanC9 wrote...

Let's say that's true. What does it have to do with the DLC? After that hypothetical alternate ME2 shipped -- would it have even shipped yet? -- they'd still have an interval between ME2 and ME3. Is there any reason to think that interval wouldn't be filled up with LotSB and Arrival?

Who knows?  LOTSB and Arrival might have been in the release of ME2 with a longer development cycle.  They would have come up with something different.  As to whether it would have shipped or not: if ME2 had the same development cycle as ME it would be probably ship around the same time ME3 is to ship next year.

AlanC9 wrote...
It's OK to complain about the short dev cycle  -- I wasn't bothered by the stuff you mention, but that's personal taste. But you asserted a relationship between the short dev cycle and the bridging DLC, and I don't see how that's tenable.

I didn't see that your post was edited, but the part in bold above is relevant to what you added.

Modifié par Xeranx, 01 juillet 2011 - 06:11 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's what I like about DLC. If they're not side-quests, then I want them in the game. I don't mind paying extra for side-quests. I'll happily pay extra for side-quests. But I don't want the game to assume I completed them when I didn't. If I bought LotSB, but didn't play through it with this particular Shepard, then when I import that Shepard into ME3 I don't want the game to tell me what my Shepard did. I know what my Shepard did, and it wasn't that.

Think of it this way: it is part of the main quest with no solutions. LotSB and Arrival, for example, both happen, but only insofar as their endgames happened. Shepard doesn't actually change the world in any way.

[AlanC9]

Xeranx wrote...

Who knows?  LOTSB and Arrival might have been in the release of ME2 with a longer development cycle.  They would have come up with something different.  As to whether it would have shipped or not: if ME2 had the same development cycle as ME it would be probably ship around the same time ME3 is to ship next year.

AlanC9 wrote...
It's OK to complain about the short dev cycle  -- I wasn't bothered by the stuff you mention, but that's personal taste. But you asserted a relationship between the short dev cycle and the bridging DLC, and I don't see how that's tenable.

I didn't see that your post was edited, but the part in bold above is relevant to what you added.

I think it's unlikely that Arrival gets added in to ME2 - I'm sure that where ME2 ended was where they always wanted it to end. LotSB, maybe that would have been in. But let's say they're both in ME2 as released. In that case Bio makes different bridging DLCs, as you yourself say.

So how is the short dev cycle relevant to DLCs, again? Or are you just taking advantage of this thread to make an unrelated complaint.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
2. If some content is specifically designated as optional, then the effect is has on my game should be equally optional. It is a bad practice to tell me later that the content that I did not play happened anyway.

While I've got some sympathy for this, wouldn't that just mean that they'd say Arrival and LotSB are mandatory?

Well then they should have been included with the game, shouldn't they?