137 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I just don't buy most DLC. Problem solved.

If developers specificly develop games and withhold content to later package DLC sales then I typically won't buy the game either. DLC has taken over the industry as a common practice of between-project fund raising and the quality is sometimes quite low, sometimes it is decent. Either way, I am fairly disappointed in much of the DLC I see. I'm afraid that it will eventually destroy any chance of developers releasing future customization tools to build game communities around software. And that, to me, is quite sad since some of the most fun with software is what the fans can add to it...not for money but for the love of the game and pure creativity.

[Deathwurm]

akselic wrote...

Deathwurm wrote...
A terrific example of DLC that "counts for something" was Overlord.

I was very pleased with it...I thought it was a good Mission that had some great moments (the end is pretty sad) It added to my Game but in no way presented info that had impact on the overall arc of the ME Trilogy.

I think ultimately everyone is Voting with their wallets. It will be interesting to see what Developers see as "Good" vs "Bad" DLC for their business models...

Overall I think that a lot of the DLC for Mass Effect 2 was very good. Overlord definately, Lair of the Shadow Broker.. even Arrival to some extent. With the DLC for ME2 I felt much more comfortable than most DLC I've bought for different games. 

Agreed.

Overlord & LotSB were excellent in my opinion...

The distinction I'm making is that while LotSB was amazing; it did contain some pretty important Story info, whereas Overlord created its' own self-contained Adventure that I still thought had impact.

LotSB would have still been Epic even if it didn't contain that one vital piece of info about Shepard (it's really difficult to talk about it without giving away any spoilers for those that may yet play it) That was the only real issue I had with it, because I did a full playthrough without LotSB and began wondering just exactly what the Lazarus Project was all about and came up with some pretty wrong conclusions.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Overlord & LotSB were excellent in my opinion...

Except these two ME2 DLC and two other DLCs from DA:O (Lelian and ostagar?) others were mediocre.

[akselic]

Garbage Master wrote...

Except these two ME2 DLC and two other DLCs from DA:O (Lelian and ostagar?) others were mediocre.

I disagree.. but that's because DA:O was an rpg, and any dlc that's just hack&slash doesn't fit in with the rest of the atmosphere of the game. I was really disappointed with all the DA:O DLC, so much that I didn't buy a single one for DA2. This in general is a problem for DLC I think. If they are rushed or just released to get people to play the game longer, they usually won't fit in with the rest of the game as well as original quests and goals. This is also why I liked the ME2 DLC more than normal.

[Deathwurm]

Garbage Master wrote...

Overlord & LotSB were excellent in my opinion...

Except these two ME2 DLC and two other DLCs from DA:O (Lelian and ostagar?) others were mediocre.

Lelianna's Song was terrific IMO. Really great use of some very interesting visual elements...especially when each character is introduced and gets the "Tarrantino" intro splash!

It's hard for me to judge the DA:O DLC fairly as I bought the Ultimate Edition so essentially did not pay for any of them. I enjoyed Shale as a companion and it was a good Companion Quest. I thought Darkspawn Chronicles was pretty interesting but I'm not sure I would have been happy if I had purchased it. Ostagar had some really nice visual images and added some pretty emotional moments, especially if you were playing a Good & Dedicated Warden.

Those are really the only types of DLC's I am interested in. I still think things that others have mentioned, like skins or Map packs and such are a bit much and really seem to be a money-grab. Then again, it's not stealing...people make the choice to purchase those.

Modifié par Deathwurm, 30 juillet 2011 - 11:17 .

[Chuvvy]

Stuff like Wardens Keep and Exiled Prince, stuff that could have easily been in the game but was cut or designed to be sold as day/week one DLC.

Modifié par Slidell505, 30 juillet 2011 - 01:47 .

[Dandynermite]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

Actually thinking about this a bit harder, there is a line that EA breach in every single game they make with an online mode, and thats giving you a one use code to play online. That is TOTALLY wrong. Say I buy Fifa 12 pre-owned, I pay for my internet, I pay for xbox live, and now I have to pay, to use the game I've paid for, to use the game on the online system I've already paid for, to use the internet I also pay for. If Day 1 DLCs are to combat pre-owned sales, then they need to scrap this online charge. (This isn't a problem with Bioware though, so its a bit irrelevant, but then Bioware is EA, and it's a forum not strictly about Bioware, as it starts with Saint's Row)

Even though you buy a pre-owned Toyota, and having paid for your license and insurance, you still have to pay when you travel toll roads, you have to pay for gas, you still have to pay for the food you get at a drive-through, and you still have to pay for the car wash. And if you want to use Toyota brand parts installed by a certified Toyota-licensed technician, well, I would think they would make you pay for that (assuming it's out of warranty, or course).

Sure, you buy FIFA pre-owned. Who are you paying for it? the game store, not the developer or publisher. Sure, you pay for internet. Who do you pay for that? Your ISP, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing and whose online features you wish to access, since the internet's a huge place and full of many other things besides FIFA (like the BioWare Social Network). You paid for Xbox Live, awesome, it's a system I like. Who are you paying for that? Microsoft, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing, since Xbox Live grants access to ALL online features, not just FIFA multiplayer.

So far, I'm not seeing any mention of paying the people who made/published the game in the first place, and you wish to crow about how unfair it all is? I don't mean to sound like a jerkface, but it seems like you're getting all the enjoyment out of the game without the developers or publishers making a cent off of you. Though I didn't see you mentioning that you also had to buy an Xbox and have electricity turned on, or that you also paid rent to have a place in which to play games, or the grocery bills you racked up so you didn't starve to death while playing. As an extreme case, maybe you need corrective lenses to see the monitor clearly. You had to pay for those too, didn't you?

The point is, none of that really has any bearing to the features of the game you are interested in, and neither the publisher nor the developer receive any monies from you for those things. Yes, it's a pain to have to pay more to access all the features you want, but like many hobbies, videogaming costs money. And at some point, companies gots to get paid.

Yes, but for example, Game, buy the right to sell the game, and then they buy the games to sell,
take Call of Duty, its incredibly successful, they'd have riots brake out if they started charging people to play it online, with the Toyota, if I brought a pre-owned Toyota, and then I had to pay the Toyota company an additional charge to use on main roads, or stick to backroads, then there would also be outrage. Fifa's career mode is awful compared to games like Football Manager (Fifa manager is a joke), so I buy it only for the online. just like you'd buy a car to drive on main roads. Or if you brought a mobile from phones4u or wherever, and then they made you pay a charge to enable text messaging, it just irritates me because ONLY EA do it. I got Team Fotress 2 the other day, I didn't need to pay anything for that, and they still get by. Soon we'll see EA charging us to access forums and such as it's a 'premium content'. But the thing that annoys me the most, is that it is a hidden charge, as it says on the back, the code is inside, and then you open the pre-owned game, and it's not there, nowhere does it warn you 'the code may already be used'. Although this won't be a problem with Fifa 12, since they decided to put 99% of Fifa's focus into Ultimate Team, which is a mode where the person who spends the most buying players with optional free money charges instant wins, I'm going to get PES 12 (same with MW3 and BF3, I know even if I get it pre-owned Infinityward won't slap a hidden charge on me when I try to play online).

DLC's aren't a problem for me, it's a DLC, you don't buy a game to play a DLC, so it's additional charge for additional content, which is fine, buying a game and then having to pay to use the mode you bought the game for is different though

(And on a side note, Fifa's online customer support and ruling system is absolute tosh. You get your game hacked, and have the other person score 15 own goals with your team, and turn your xbox off, you get a permanent mark on your name that affects every single game you play forever more, they won't do anything about the other person if you contact them (tried it) and should your game not come with an EA pass when it's brand new and pre-ordered, my dad, then even if you can prove it is brand new, have a reciept, they refuse to help you, I'm just ranting about EA and Fifa now, that's why it's in brackets, and this is an online service I've paid for)

I like to rant, I do it alot

[Dandynermite]

Whilst I'm ranting about DLC and stuff, I was cheesed off about the Black Emporium, I got it for free yes, but it is not a DLC it is a shop,

The line is fine where it is,
but myself I'd like to see a short bit on the back of the box saying
"Pre-owned customers will have to pay an additional charge to use this product's online services"
and
"The DLC included with this will give you (example DA2 Black Emporium) 5 minutes play time, or (example DA:O Ultimate Edition) this will give you 15 hours+ play time"
It would take a small piece of space, yes you can read reviews, but if you are pre-ordering it for a DLC, which will not yet have any reviews, and then it turns out to be one small shop with some items only your person can use, I'd be cheesed off

[Fishy]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

Actually thinking about this a bit harder, there is a line that EA breach in every single game they make with an online mode, and thats giving you a one use code to play online. That is TOTALLY wrong. Say I buy Fifa 12 pre-owned, I pay for my internet, I pay for xbox live, and now I have to pay, to use the game I've paid for, to use the game on the online system I've already paid for, to use the internet I also pay for. If Day 1 DLCs are to combat pre-owned sales, then they need to scrap this online charge. (This isn't a problem with Bioware though, so its a bit irrelevant, but then Bioware is EA, and it's a forum not strictly about Bioware, as it starts with Saint's Row)

Even though you buy a pre-owned Toyota, and having paid for your license and insurance, you still have to pay when you travel toll roads, you have to pay for gas, you still have to pay for the food you get at a drive-through, and you still have to pay for the car wash. And if you want to use Toyota brand parts installed by a certified Toyota-licensed technician, well, I would think they would make you pay for that (assuming it's out of warranty, or course).

Sure, you buy FIFA pre-owned. Who are you paying for it? the game store, not the developer or publisher. Sure, you pay for internet. Who do you pay for that? Your ISP, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing and whose online features you wish to access, since the internet's a huge place and full of many other things besides FIFA (like the BioWare Social Network). You paid for Xbox Live, awesome, it's a system I like. Who are you paying for that? Microsoft, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing, since Xbox Live grants access to ALL online features, not just FIFA multiplayer.

So far, I'm not seeing any mention of paying the people who made/published the game in the first place, and you wish to crow about how unfair it all is? I don't mean to sound like a jerkface, but it seems like you're getting all the enjoyment out of the game without the developers or publishers making a cent off of you. Though I didn't see you mentioning that you also had to buy an Xbox and have electricity turned on, or that you also paid rent to have a place in which to play games, or the grocery bills you racked up so you didn't starve to death while playing. As an extreme case, maybe you need corrective lenses to see the monitor clearly. You had to pay for those too, didn't you?

The point is, none of that really has any bearing to the features of the game you are interested in, and neither the publisher nor the developer receive any monies from you for those things. Yes, it's a pain to have to pay more to access all the features you want, but like many hobbies, videogaming costs money. And at some point, companies gots to get paid.

Just make sure it's written ..

REQUIRE EA ACCOUNT AND MISSING 10 DLC .. Ill make sure i pass.
If i sell a computer deskp to someone . He can do what the hell he want with it . Just not copies. He's owning that copies.

Modifié par Suprez30, 30 juillet 2011 - 09:42 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Remember when you could just about bet your life that a popular game got two full expansion packs? DLC seems to have killed that, now we just get a mission and a handful of items for a fiver a pop.

In my opinion, mainstream popular culture embracing videogames and the increased competition from all sorts of increasingly accessible other media (including movies, online, mobile, tablet, handheld, casual, and on demand products and venues)  is responsible for producers wanting to keep players engaged with their product for a longer period of time before their eyes and minds wander elsewhere.

I was under the impression that the competition here was between new and used games.
Game companies focussing on DLC and online-play both to keep players engaged rather than selling back to the shop and (through "project 10-dollar") encouraging people to buy new rather than buy used for a tiny reduction.
Of course this whole competition is the battle for a share of the profits in gaming which (I believe) is shrinking due to gamers demanding best possible graphics (increasing the development costs) but not wanting to pay more for the end product...
...which leads us to part of the reason to charged for dlc...

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 30 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[Get Magna Carter]

One of the main controversial areas is where content designed to be part of the core game is taken out and made dlc (one reviewer criticized "Exile Prince" for this citing it's inclusion of a character who can use bows found or purchased as evidence).
Even worse is when content is hidden on the game disc requiring a downloaded code to enable..

[Fishy]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

One of the main controversial areas is where content designed to be part of the core game is taken out and made dlc (one reviewer criticized "Exile Prince" for this citing it's inclusion of a character who can use bows found or purchased as evidence).
Even worse is when content is hidden on the game disc requiring a downloaded code to enable..

Next time you purchase a car might miss the engine .. Because they did not have the time to polish it . .So you will need to buy them has PUL (Pick up later)

We now have the PUl steering! Coming with the preorder only! It's not because we want to make extra money and use you .. Noo .. It's because we needed more time to make it.

[Nerdage]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

One of the main controversial areas is where content designed to be part of the core game is taken out and made dlc (one reviewer criticized "Exile Prince" for this citing it's inclusion of a character who can use bows found or purchased as evidence).

That's not very compelling evidence. The PC can use bows, so they couldn't just not have them drop from enemies or be in shops. You get one companion of each archetype in the main game, + the sibling, it just so happens that the archer companion can only use one weapon, doesn't mean there must've been there was a bow-using comapion meant to be in the main game too, just to use the bows you find in case the PC doesn't use them.

[Get Magna Carter]

nerdage wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

One of the main controversial areas is where content designed to be part of the core game is taken out and made dlc (one reviewer criticized "Exile Prince" for this citing it's inclusion of a character who can use bows found or purchased as evidence).

That's not very compelling evidence. The PC can use bows, so they couldn't just not have them drop from enemies or be in shops. You get one companion of each archetype in the main game, + the sibling, it just so happens that the archer companion can only use one weapon, doesn't mean there must've been there was a bow-using comapion meant to be in the main game too, just to use the bows you find in case the PC doesn't use them.

I suggest you discuss that with the reviewer in question
If/when you do so remember that PC mage and warrior cannot use bows (rogue-only weapon)

In some ways having a weapon like Bianca with a dlc character would seem more natural

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
IP's are difficult, different legal system in the Uk to the US. Possibly, that if you are paying for the right to use the intellectual property indeffinately, the physical object is a way of distributing the information, rather than what you are actually paying for in and of itself. The licence, the EULA is granting those with the right of use, due to the consideration of the sale, the use of the IP, but subject to the caveats of the contract, including limiting liability and the copyright legislation.

The problem with this stance on software IP's is that it enters us in the cluster**** that is right of sale. If we're looking at used copies of software, we're looking at the rights & limitations on the sale & re-sale of an IP. Software companies are going to want to say that the license is non-transferable; if the contract stands as written, then it's a non-starter to look at the used software market as equivalent to a used goods market. 

To get this back on topic, under that logic there doesn't seem to be any restriction on software companies to bundle (or not) software. 

So if the game is made in full and then it is sold "per unit," there doesn't seem to be anything prima facie wrong with that other than what the market will tolerate. 

Which means that if a company wants to have obtrusive log-ins or internet access requirements... there's nothing wrong with doing so (to make the used market untenable) other than that it might hurt the business. 

The bigger issue being that it also means that there isn't any reason to consider day 1 DLC as anything other than an independent license between you and the company. 

Modifié par In Exile, 01 août 2011 - 06:59 .

[AlanC9]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

One of the main controversial areas is where content designed to be part of the core game is taken out and made dlc (one reviewer criticized "Exile Prince" for this citing it's inclusion of a character who can use bows found or purchased as evidence).

That's not very compelling evidence. The PC can use bows, so they couldn't just not have them drop from enemies or be in shops. You get one companion of each archetype in the main game, + the sibling, it just so happens that the archer companion can only use one weapon, doesn't mean there must've been there was a bow-using comapion meant to be in the main game too, just to use the bows you find in case the PC doesn't use them.

I suggest you discuss that with the reviewer in question
If/when you do so remember that PC mage and warrior cannot use bows (rogue-only weapon)

In some ways having a weapon like Bianca with a dlc character would seem more natural

Hey, if you repeat a reviewer's opinion here, you own it. Ducking behind a "someone else said this" is super lame.

[Wulfram]

I don't buy DLC, because it seems poor value - I might buy LotSB or Legacy at some point, but at current prices they're a way down my list. I don't buy games if they don't seem to be offering me an acceptably complete product at a sensible price.

I don't object to businesses honestly trying to make a profit, but I do feel that Bioware's conduct in regard to day one DLC has been less than straightforward, and this makes me feel less positively towards them than I otherwise would based on the excellent games they produce.

[AlanC9]

What's been "less than straightforward" about it? I remember knowing exactly what was going to be in the DLC long in advance of the game's release.

[Wulfram]

AlanC9 wrote...

What's been "less than straightforward" about it? I remember knowing exactly what was going to be in the DLC long in advance of the game's release.

For example, the way they tried to pretend that the way Shale happened was a happy accident.  Which was clearly nonsense, since they then did exactly the same thing in subsequent games.

[AlanC9]

Huh? Releasing Day 1 DLC with later products doesn't "prove" a damn thing about what happened with Shale.

It's just as possible that the Shale thing looked like a really good idea to Bio in retrospect so they decided to do it in future releases. Or that EA invented a policy of having Day 1 DLC for all products from all brands after DAO shipped, and Shale had nothing whatsoever to do with that decision. Or that EA decided on the Day 1 DLC policy before DAO shipped, and that Warden's Keep was going to be the free Day 1 DLC, but when Shale was delayed they moved WK to paid status and made Shale the free DLC.

Of course, it's also  possible that Bio decided to lie to us for no apparent reason about Shale, and then for no apparent reason decided to tell the truth about future games. I don't know why this is your preferred hypothesis.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 août 2011 - 08:31 .

[Lord Phoebus]

The way Shale was handled, it did seem like she was planned as a core companion from the start and was cut for DLC later. Other than near the end, when you're using the mansion as a camp, she seemed to have as much dialog as the other companions, her dialog was woven into the game, and her gifts were as well distributed as everyone else's gifts (unlike Zaeed, who feels tacked on). That said, if you cut Shale from the game it didn't feel any less complete.

I really don't object to a dev. creating DLC (though I object to consumers buying it), as long as it isn't a case where it is vital plot that is being added as DLC, e.g. if Origins ended at the Landsmeet and you had to buy the Archdemon battle as DLC. As I understand this might be the case with Arrival for Mass Effect, as the events in Arrival may be critical to the beginning of ME3. But I'll withold judgement until the game is released.

[Get Magna Carter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

One of the main controversial areas is where content designed to be part of the core game is taken out and made dlc (one reviewer criticized "Exile Prince" for this citing it's inclusion of a character who can use bows found or purchased as evidence).

That's not very compelling evidence. The PC can use bows, so they couldn't just not have them drop from enemies or be in shops. You get one companion of each archetype in the main game, + the sibling, it just so happens that the archer companion can only use one weapon, doesn't mean there must've been there was a bow-using comapion meant to be in the main game too, just to use the bows you find in case the PC doesn't use them.

I suggest you discuss that with the reviewer in question
If/when you do so remember that PC mage and warrior cannot use bows (rogue-only weapon)

In some ways having a weapon like Bianca with a dlc character would seem more natural

Hey, if you repeat a reviewer's opinion here, you own it. Ducking behind a "someone else said this" is super lame.

so is someone quotes someone for the purpose of disagreeing with the quote they are contradicting themselves by both agreeing and disagreeing?  That does not make sense to me.
The point I was was making in that aside is that the view exists and has appeared in print in a magazine review - and I stand behind that point 100%
Whether the reviewer was correct is another matter - only the people involved in the making of it will ever truly know for sure what actually happened.
For everybody else what matters is what the finished product is like and (maybe) what we each as individuals believe happened.  Perception is important (sometimes moreso than reality).

My personal position is I'm disappointed that my lack of a suitable home internet connection means I miss out on the main part of the return of Lelianna and other things which are currently dlc only

[RavagerDX]

DLC doesn't really bother me except for two types:
- When the developers decide to cut out some existing content from the game and sell it as DLC instead.
- The type where you can buy extra weapons/armor/etc. that give you an advantage in a multiplayer game.

As long as it's about something like extra missions or some new skins I'm OK with it, because you don't have to buy it and the game is just as fun without it.
I bought all the DLC for Mass Effect 2 because I thought the game was worth it and the DLC itself aswell. But I enjoyed ME2 just as much before the awesome content like Overlord or Arrival was released.

[Rockworm503]

hmmm. I decided to sit this out for a while to see what people had to say maybe give me some insight but I'm still left with the same questions... maybe I was overreacting over the SR3 DLC thing where I read it sounded like they were charging for it and nothing was mentioned about it being a preorder bonus.
But thats just my point. Pre order bonus... You have to go to Best Buy to get this or go to gamestop to get that. Order it on Amazon for something else. Preorder on Steam for those...
The days of feeling like the content on the disc is the full game are over. And that just blows my mind.
I ask for a line because it can't be as simple as whatever we personally find acceptable because for many that line was crossed when the very concept of DLC was thought up. Everyone has their own personal line that is being crossed every day and they don't even realize it.
For every person that says "I won't buy DLC ever" Theres someone else who says "I'll buy DLC but only good ones not those skin packs" then there's someone else saying "i'll pay any DLC thats attached to any game I love"
The way I see it with all these personal lines all over the place game companies seem to be able to get away with more.
Someday the guy who says "I won't buy any DLC ever" will be saying "I'll buy any DLC so long as I love the game"
And then the guy saying that has moved onto shoving his money like Fry yelling "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY"
I don't know maybe that cheap skin pack totally enhanced the game for you. But I can't help but feel a little sad that this question even needs to be asked.