137 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

 In another forum I been getting into a heated argument with this guy.
Ok its more like his fanboyism losing it whenever I say anything negative about Saints Row.
Where this came from is I find out that Volition is already talking about DLC for Saints Row 3......
I got a bit mad and took it out on the SR3 thread over there.
This guy jumps down my throat for it saying "they need to be greedy to stay in business"
what... what i... don't.  Such blatant fanboyism for a company trying to cheat you out of your money.
So where do we draw the line?
I for one refuse to buy anything a company is coming out with before the game is even out.  If we keep making excuses like this is it really such a stretch to imagine 20 years from now having to put in money per mission?

[KenKenpachi]

Its pretty much a given now that all games will have DLC. It depends on the content if its worth it or not. Chances are if I like a game and the DLC is cheap enough I'll buy it. But I doubt it will go as far as you think. SR2 had DLC, which was rather cheap (one was 800 points the other free), and added new cars, clothes and missions. And you could play the game with out them. Just as you Can SR without its extra content.

As to 20 years from now. I like to think ahead, but I would be more worried about Economic failure, or WW3 than I would the price on a game, that I'll be in my 50's in any case to play provided I even care to still play at that age.

[Blastback]

Where I'll draw the line is if I find out that a company has removed parts of the original game to sell as DLC. Do that, and I'm not buying your product. Otherwise, I'll atleast look into it.

[KenKenpachi]

Blastback wrote...

Where I'll draw the line is if I find out that a company has removed parts of the original game to sell as DLC. Do that, and I'm not buying your product. Otherwise, I'll atleast look into it.

That would count under not liking a game for me, and thus no DLC.

[VoiceOfPudding]

What annoys me a lot is games that have dlc of five new levels or weapons. I've no problem buying dlc that actually has a substantal amount of content that actually adds to the original game( I think the FONV dlc was probably the best for this and I can't wait for lonesome road). DLCs like Empire: Total War's Elite units ones just ****** me off - it adds 10+ units to some factions (depending on which pack it is East or West) but you have to buy the units for the other half of the countries seperately.
About announcing dlc before release - if the content was cut from the game due to time restraints and is free then i've no problem with it. If the dlc is just content that was removed from game to release as dlc then it's just annoying

Modifié par VoiceOfPudding, 27 juillet 2011 - 08:32 .

[naughty99]

I don't really have any problem with DLC being developed in parallel with the original game.

Particularly if it is a large expansion. The timing of the release or development doesn't bug me at all.

I just dislike a lot of small DLC that feel like a rip off. However, I would not presume to tell any of those publishers/devs releasing lots of small DLC how to run their business. It's completely up to them to release whatever the hell they want to release, just as I'm free to buy it or not buy it.

I never understood why some people get angry when DLC is released on the release date. I understand some claim that "it should have been in the game," but clearly it was not as long as the game is playable without it.

I bought DA2, enjoyed it, despite its flaws and never had any interest whatsoever in buying the Sebastian DLC. It never felt like anything was missing from the game because there was no Sebastian. I might buy the Legacy DLC, but I will wait until it goes on sale.

Modifié par naughty99, 27 juillet 2011 - 08:41 .

[Stanley Woo]

Rockworm503 wrote...
Such blatant fanboyism for a company trying to cheat you out of your money.
So where do we draw the line?

"We" draw the line wherever "we" feel the need to. This isn't a matter of the government taking your job away from you or the military taking away your home. This is an commercial entertainment product, a luxury item that you can choose to buy or not. DLC is merely an additional product being offered that, again, you can choose to buy or not. As long as the choice remains yours and yours alone, I'm all right with DLC. If you don't feel DLC is worth the extra money, then that's totally fine. choose not to buy DLC, and all is rigth with the world. No one's choices have been taken away, and no one pays for something they don't want. Done.

I for one refuse to buy anything a company is coming out with before the game is even out.  If we keep making excuses like this is it really such a stretch to imagine 20 years from now having to put in money per mission?

Games are already being released episodically. Free-to-play MMOs charge for premium content like quest chains, area access, and special items. Casual/browser/Facebook games already have a microtransaction pay model. Map packs have been around longer than the "DLC" acronym became commonly used.

Comic books are essentially a pay-by-part serial. Anime is based on serialized comics. Books used to be serialized in magazines.

Forget about 20 years from now. Your "fear" has already happened and it's been around for a few years. The thing is, it's not the end of videogaming as we know it, nor is it the end of people buying videogames as we know it. In fact, serialized games, microtransactions, and DLC have worked out rather well for gamers. And who knows? 20 years from now, perhaps serialized games will be the norm, even for AAA titles.

So let's not let hysteria get the better of us, okay?

[Rockworm503]

Yes Stanley your right its here and thats what scares me. People are willing to fork over a small fortune to get an edge in an MMO why should I be surprised that people will do the same for a single player game?
Its sad how pathetic some people's concept of value has gone lately. It feels like I'm paying for a full burger and only getting 1/4th of it and then have to pay 3 more times for the other 3 pieces.
I miss the easy days where a game is whats on the disc or cartridge and I don't have to worry about content I'm missing out on just because I don't want to pay more money.
Most of ME2's DLC worked for me because it didn't feel like I was being cheated. They expand on the game with something more and I'll defend to my death bed the greatness that was Lair of The Shadow Broker.
Also Fallout 3 and New Vegas is doing it right too.

[Lord Phoebus]

I don't buy DLC (other than expansion packs which are the original DLC), either I'll buy a GotY edition that contains all the DLC or I'll pass. If you feel you're not getting your money's worth, don't buy it. You don't have to pay the tax on fanboyism.

[Stanley Woo]

Rockworm503 wrote...
Yes Stanley your right its here and thats what scares me. People are willing to fork over a small fortune to get an edge in an MMO why should I be surprised that people will do the same for a single player game?
Its sad how pathetic some people's concept of value has gone lately. It feels like I'm paying for a full burger and only getting 1/4th of it and then have to pay 3 more times for the other 3 pieces.

Whoa, that's where the hysteria needs to be dialed down, Rockworm503. Value is completely subjective, and who's to say that it's not your "concept of value" that's "pathetic?" One could just as easily say that it feels like I'm paying for a full burger and not only getting everything I ordered but, in addition, having the option of buying delicious sliders to complement my meal!

I understand that you're not into DLC and don't feel they provide adequate value for the price, but really, insulting the opinions of those who disagree with you is hardly the way to make your case.

I miss the easy days where a game is whats on the disc or cartridge and I don't have to worry about content I'm missing out on just because I don't want to pay more money.
Most of ME2's DLC worked for me because it didn't feel like I was being cheated. They expand on the game with something more and I'll defend to my death bed the greatness that was Lair of The Shadow Broker.
Also Fallout 3 and New Vegas is doing it right too.

So... you don't like DLC as a concept except for the DLC that you like? Isn't that further evidence that the "value" of DLC is subjective? Come on, man. Surely you can see that your argument boils down to little more than "I like the stuff that I like, and I don't like th stuff I don't like"? Your first paragraph implies a categorical dislike of the concept of DLC, yet you're praising ME2's DLC.

[Rockworm503]

umm its subjective to have DLC before the game is out and see it as greed?
Your not making any sense.
I like the DLC I like because it didn't feel like greed.
If LotSB was being made before ME2 was coming out my tune would be very different.
You are missing the point.
First day DLC is greed period no amount of spinning it into "its all subjective" will change the facts. Are we just ignoring the fact that some games had content in the disc and you had to pay to unlock them?
If i'm coming off as hysterical not my intention.
The way I see it DLC is a slippery slope. yes some of it works if it seems like its actually adding to the game but first day DLC? I ask where do we draw the line for the reason. Where does it stop improving on an already game and becomes just plain greed?
I'm worried about this because if we don't draw the line then why even stop with DLC or episodic content? Why not charge us for starting the game? Why not charge us for every step our character makes?
The line has to be drawn somewhere and I fear that the line has already been crossed.

[Rohx]

Still, i personaly i dont like most DLC, For example all DA2 DLCs.
The fact Bioware has day 1 DLC, i think is for 2 reasons, 1º Second hand sales and 2º piracy. well thats the what i say to miself.

But after a while i thought, man i dont like spend my money in DLC, ok is cool and all, but come on, 10 bucks for 30 minutes of gamplay, or 2 bucks for 3 items. paying 5 bucks for a character in a fighting game, 10 bucks for 4 maps in a first person shooter, that sells like hot bread, is for my taste a waste of money.

I dont know, it feel they are bad products and not worth of my money.
I like good games, i like to buy good games, but if people feel they bought a bad DLC. It kinda ruins that favorite game for you.
In may case I bought to many DA:O DLCs and i feel that it will take me a lot of time to trust DLC, they have to be realy Good, and even then may want to pay a less of that they are charging.

But thats just me. Companies want to make money, and i feel is all good but i will only buy good products and i may feel betrayed with a company that sells tons of DLC that dont add nothing realy new to the game.

For example the consept of the cerberus network was my favortite DLC.
you buy it once and you get updates and new content, i wish Bio will do more DLC like that, adding new stuff to people that bought the game. A DLC like that feels like man they care about me, they liked that my bought my copy.
But then a day one DLC for people that preoder the game for X store, y say man they dont care about me, they just care about money. they dont want me to have all those DLC and expirience their game, they just care about money.

But thats just me.

[KenKenpachi]

Rockworm503 wrote...

umm its subjective to have DLC before the game is out and see it as greed?
Your not making any sense.
I like the DLC I like because it didn't feel like greed.
If LotSB was being made before ME2 was coming out my tune would be very different.
You are missing the point.
First day DLC is greed period no amount of spinning it into "its all subjective" will change the facts. Are we just ignoring the fact that some games had content in the disc and you had to pay to unlock them?
If i'm coming off as hysterical not my intention.
The way I see it DLC is a slippery slope. yes some of it works if it seems like its actually adding to the game but first day DLC? I ask where do we draw the line for the reason. Where does it stop improving on an already game and becomes just plain greed?
I'm worried about this because if we don't draw the line then why even stop with DLC or episodic content? Why not charge us for starting the game? Why not charge us for every step our character makes?
The line has to be drawn somewhere and I fear that the line has already been crossed.

So you know the DLC in SR3 your ****ing about is the pre-order pack items for those who don't pre-order so they don't **** about being left out.  And a Voucher Pass thats used to buy the next three DLC when they come out, that will be mission packs.  Future DLC, not a week after it comes out. I don't see the big deal.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 27 juillet 2011 - 09:54 .

[ErichHartmann]

I don't buy 99% DLC out there but make exceptions for Dragon Age and Mass Effect. The only thing I really don't like is retail specific DLC pre-orders. /shrugs

[OBakaSama]

Where we draw the line with dlcs is very much dependent on what we find acceptable. The idea of what is acceptable is, of course, tied up with one's subjective opinion on what is valueble (as Stanley was pointing out).

I myself had bought all the Dragon Age: Origins dlc for the 360, and bought the Ultimate Edition for the PC. I missed out on certain pre-order dlcs but I joined in late. In that I was willing to purchase all the dlc for it the first time around.

I also bought all the story based dlcs for Mass Effect 2, but I chose not to purchase any of the weapon/equipment packs or the alternative costume packs. While the weapon/equipment packs can change the way the game plays I feel the aesthetic changes with regards to the alternative costumes is not worth it.

Having 'said' that I did purchase the various alternative costumes for Street Fighter IV. I just like my beat 'em ups. *Shrugs*

I can see the frustration regarding day one dlc though, as it does feel as if something was removed from the game. I can't remember which game(s), though I'm sure it was a racing game, but a long while back there was an article somewhere that noted that the game disc (this was a console game) had all the data there but needed a code to unlock what was on the disc. This isn't like an 'old school' feature where you have to beat the game under certain conditions in order to gain access to new things to use in the game (replay value); the data was purposefully denied (possibly for financial gain). This is when day one dlc gets a bit dodgy in my opinion. And as consumers I believe we should be outraged by such practice.

I don't believe the types of dlc we see now are like what I noted in the above paragraph though. The way some of these dlcs work require a download which I assume is separate from the 'base package' one would purchase. As one poster noted above it seems to be used as an incentive for early adopters of the game (example the Exiled Prince with the Signature Edition of Dragon Age 2). With this approach I do prefer the Mass Effect 2 application of the Cerberus Network over Dragon Age: Origins' application: that is to say, I preferred that the dlc was available to purchasers of a new copy of the game rather than the bonus dlc having an expiry date (more accurately, that the code which redeems the dlc has an expiry date). After the expiry date there is little benefit for a consumer to purchase a new copy of the game, with the possible exception of condition (and even that isn't guaranteed with my recent experience), when a second hand copy could be cheaper with the exact same content (both lacking the dlc at this point). A consumer purchasing the new game will not have the benefits of those who bought the game earlier.

Stanley makes the interesting observation that a lot of established mediums are episodic in nature, and accepted. Actually...would that approach have benefited Dragon Age 2 given its narrative structure? Hm......

[Boiny Bunny]

The way I see it is, it's either worth it, or it's not. Which of these two categories any given DLC falls into, be it day one, a map pack, a party appearance pack, or an entire new quest line, is entirely subjective.

If you don't think it's worth it, then what is the problem? Simply don't buy it - just as you (most likely) wouldn't buy ME3 if it's initial retail price was going to be $700 US.

If it is worth it, in your books, then you also have nothing to complain about, because to you, it's worth paying the money for.

I do agree with you on 'day one' dlc that is actually on the disc and just needs to be unlocked however. That's fairly shameless greed on the part of companies - a great example was the Dead Space 2 DLC (particularly amusing because despite EA not actually offering the content to PC players at all, it was on all the PC discs and was less than a week after release before somebody found it and all PC players got all Dead Space 2 DLC for free - while the console users were stuck paying for what was already on their discs).

But, bear in mind that businesses thrive off of being incredibly greedy. The best way to tell a business that you don't like what it is doing, is simply to not purchase the product.

The (comparatively) low sales of DA2 to DA:O have hopefully delivered a clear message to Bioware. I believe a developer made a statement to the effect of, if Legacy sells well there will be more DA2 DLC, if it doesn't sell well, there won't be. So, there you go - consumer power.

[IronSabbath88]

DLC is great if it's done right and can add a lot of fun onto a game past beating it. It has given us such gems as Awakening, Lair of the Shadow Broker, Broken Steel and The Shivering Isles. However, where to draw the line?

Let's start at charging 1200 points a piece for MAPS. No campaign missions, no new content, MAPS. Call of Duty does that, but I guess as long as people keep buying it (For whatever reason) they'll keep pricing them that high.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

I wish we could go back to expansion packs.

[chiliztri]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I wish we could go back to expansion packs.

This, a million times.

I vastly prefer expansion packs over DLC. Typically you'll get a good amount of content for a decent price. None of this nickel and diming for an hour of gameplay, extra weapons, or whatever things they can think of.

Honestly I'd rather wait a while for an expansion pack than have DLC released every couple of months.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I don't mind DLC as a commercial enterprise except when it's used in the following fashion:

Content that was originally going to be part of the core game, was completed and could have easily been released as a part of the core game, is cut purely to become Downloadable Content. So, for instance, cutting Qunari Warrior: Sten and his quests out of DA:O and having him as a Pre-Order 'bonus' or additional $10 add-on. Yep, the Lothering cleric only gives you the key if you donate to the Chantry, as it were.

That kind of DLC I find unethical. It's not additional content, it's core content that was cut and put in the guise of additional content.

DLC that was actually created separate from the core game I don't mind. If people want to pay for it, more power to them.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 28 juillet 2011 - 12:31 .

[AloraKast]

chiliztri wrote...

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I wish we could go back to expansion packs.

This, a million times.

I vastly prefer expansion packs over DLC. Typically you'll get a good amount of content for a decent price. None of this nickel and diming for an hour of gameplay, extra weapons, or whatever things they can think of.

Honestly I'd rather wait a while for an expansion pack than have DLC released every couple of months.

And once more QFT!

Incidentally, made a bit of a rantish post earlier today

http://social.biowar...69010/5#7973692

followed by another thought

http://social.biowar...69010/5#7974137

which may be relevant.

Also, Rohx most definitelly agree with your sentiment. ;o)

Edit: Fixed the links.

Modifié par AloraKast, 28 juillet 2011 - 01:12 .

[Dominus]

My only major issue with DLC comes with the certain lack of, I suppose the word is mystique you got before DLC as we know it existed. Episodic Story driven DLC Content is more than fine by me, but when companies start offering robotic dogs or the like for pre-orders, it makes it more difficult to get immersed in a game. I don't know, that's just me. It depends what type of DLC as well.

One thing is clear though - The chance of DLC dissapearing anytime soon is very, very unlikely.

Modifié par DominusVita, 28 juillet 2011 - 01:34 .

[Turnip Root]

I'd prefer more expansion packs as opposed to DLC but generally I don't mind them. The same standards of quality that I expect from games also extends to DLC.

[Homebound]

I think as gamers we need to express unified self-control and as a collective entity decide not to buy a product that we don't believe in instead of buying it and then complaining how it's a DLC.

When we buy things, even things we dont want, Companies WILL see these things as a success, and if we keep biting, they won't learn that what they are doing is not acceptable.

Or maybe what they are doing IS acceptable and we need to let go of the notion that a game should come all-in-one, complete and in one piece in the disc/(whatever-delivery-service-companies-come-up-with-to-cut-out-gamestop)

Make your choice.

[Weiser_Cain]

Day one DLC is crap.