730 réponses à ce sujet

[StephanieBengal]

Avalanche404 wrote...

The abuse of DLCs has become a frustrating matter.
Before being tagged as a "hater", let me say that I am a long-term fan of Bioware and I've played almost any of their games, from Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age 2, passing through Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass effect, and any episode of those series.

But I have grown tired of Bioware (and probably EA) policy about the quantity and quality of downloadable contents.
First of all, there is an unequal balance between the price of DLCs and the quantity and quality of their content, as most of them are skin or weapon packages and 10-minutes-long quests. Talking about additional quests: I think is unfair to expand the story through many single missions, "forcing" fans to spend even more money than the original game, in order to know how the plot continue through a bunch of short missions. This brings to the second point: is quite offensive to make and announce DLCs before the release of a game, because is like to say "hey, we are selling you an incomplete product, if you want it all you must spend more".
Last but not least: please, stop producing gameplay-ruining DLCs, like over-powered weapons and armors. Sure, there is no reason to buy them if I don't want to, but what if I am a collector and I like to buy limited edition? Am I forced to have a lot of addictional contents which gave me enough power to finish the game without changing equipment? Is like cheating! And again, someone could say "no one force you to use them", but hell, I have spent a lot for a collector's edition and those money cover also that, why I shouldn't use what I've paid for?

This is an invitation to all Bioware fans to tell your opinion, and let's gather Bioware attention, hoping in a future change of plans. I know that DLCs = easy money, but at least stop selling cheap cheats and splitting the plot in pieces.



Without regret but with hope of will have been understood,
a Bioware fan that have just preordered Mass Effect 3 limited edition (as I have made with Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, and Dragon Age 2*).






PS: forgive me for my lack of english.
*: sorry but I must say it: worst-limited-edition-ever, expecially compared to DA:O.

First off, I appreciate you actually saying this with some substance or if nothing else a decent reason for why you feel this way and decided to write this -- if everyone else did I wouldn't have to comment the way I do half of the time. 

That being said, it's easy for many people to say this/feel this way because we aren't the ones running the business and we don't have to worry about keeping the establishment a float.

If you were Bioware/Developers, who put a lot of hours into these things, can you honestly say that you'd be fine with giving away things for free or without people paying a decent amount? No matter the angle of the reason behind it, if I worked for a video game company in whatever route -- I'm sorry but y'all are gonna have to shell out cash to get things. I'm not gonna do things and not get paid for them, unless you like being broke and lack common sense. 

I make something, I get paid, you want something I made? You pay for it. 

I have no problem buying DLC that I find to be worth while and fair. I'll be the first to say that I find weapon DLC to be a joke, because IMO it's such a small difference in regards to playing the game, which is why I rarely buy that type of DLC. 

Story DLC though? Different view, again it's more about how much they put into. Ultimately though, I will make my own choice if they get my money or not. Part of this is the responsibility of us the gamers of when to buy and when not to buy.

Then again we could look at the demographics and so forth. I'm nearly 30, a parent, married, have a job, a house, my priorities lie there more than anything. The game really isn't targeted towards me and that's perfectly understandable. So DLC to me is so minor for me, if I don't get it or simply can't afford it -- for me it's not important. 

If you're tired and feed up (which seems to be the case) just don't buy it my friend. I say that with no tone or to be a smartass. Bioware and EA are gonna run the company and their games how they want, the few choices you can make such as buying the game or the DLC then take your stand. Don't buy it. 

But again, thanks for writing your outlook with substance, even though I don't ride for it. 

[shepskisaac]

Curunen wrote...

It seems a lot of the DLC tied to other products, cross promotions and so on, is basically fluff. Multiplayer items that might never be used, appearances and so on.

It is fluff when looked upon individually. But when you look at it as a whole? How many DLC guns for both SP & MP are there already? In a game that desperately needs more loot and which predecessor was criticized for little customization? If it's day 1 stuff, then I'm really questioning when someone says "it's not cut-out from the main game".

Modifié par IsaacShep, 09 février 2012 - 12:31 .

[jcolt]

never gonna happen companies want more money and ppl want more of their favorite games.

Modifié par jcolt, 09 février 2012 - 12:36 .

[izmirtheastarach]

IsaacShep wrote...
Pretty much. When publishers see that people buy horse armors, they come to the only logical conclusion: "people will buy anything".

Horse armor DLC delivered in it's promises like no other DLC I've ever bought. I paid my money, and my horse now had armor. 100% delivery on the hype.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 09 février 2012 - 12:34 .

[DragonRageGT]

Avalanche404 wrote...

PPS: I think the following image is fully pertaining the matter.

LOL... Abso-fraking-lutely great one.

I miss when games were released complete and we could expect full Expansion packs to expand them. Not exactly as shown in the picture these days. Unless they are 100% FREE like the daring CDProjekt is doing with The Witcher 2 and amazing response too. Wait till it hits the x-box this year and they will profit 10x more than if they charged for DLC.

[Kileyan]

IsaacShep wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

They'll stop making them when people stop buying them.

Pretty much. When publishers see that people buy horse armors, they come to the only logical conclusion: "people will buy anything".

I'm not against major DLCs at all. These are nothing more than modern equivalents of expansion packs/gold editions from back in the day and can really enhance and prolong a great experience. However, all this "junk" DLC hoopla is just ridiculous. But unfortunately, it exist because gamers keep buying it.

I am the opposite. I am not against the horse armor, costume pack and weapon pack mini dlc. Some people like the gunplay of a game, if they want to spend 2 bucks on a super sniper shotgun, good for them and it didn't cost devs much time. I am not against the devs making money!

When it comes to actual story content, I am against he current DLC model, because none of it has been major content. On average, most of it has been 45 minutes of play. I am against that kind of content. I'd rather they spend time putting out 15 or 20 hours of cohesive content, rather than 10 mini adventures, some of which have almost less playtime than the time it takes to purchase, download and install. Mostly I just get more excited about and more immersed in a 15 to 20 hour expansion, as opposed to picking up a one hour DLC, playing it, then waiting another 2 or 3 months to play another 1 hour of the game.

Modifié par Kileyan, 09 février 2012 - 12:37 .

[Il Divo]

Avalanche404 wrote...


First of all, there is an unequal balance between the price of DLCs and the quantity and quality of their content, as most of them are skin or weapon packages and 10-minutes-long quests. Talking about additional quests: I think is unfair to expand the story through many single missions, "forcing" fans to spend even more money than the original game, in order to know how the plot continue through a bunch of short missions. This brings to the second point: is quite offensive to make and announce DLCs before the release of a game, because is like to say "hey, we are selling you an incomplete product, if you want it all you must spend more".

Good to see that you are also against expansion packs and sequels.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 février 2012 - 12:40 .

[izmirtheastarach]

After I've put hundreds of hours into a game like Oblivion, if the next time I launched the game a pop-up came up and said "hey, we see you're really enjoying our game, would you like to give us 5 dollars?", I would have no trouble paying that.

In the case of DLC, I even get something for my money. Something that may vary in it's own value, but why should that bother me? I consider DLC to be another way of supporting a developer I appreciate. If I don't care much for the game, I won't care much for the DLC.

[roth2006]

I agree 100%.














www.herfree.com/avatar1.jpg

[Berkilak]

The game industry has changed a lot in the past few years. There are people who develop things directly for DLC these days. Likewise, "expansion packs" have been around as long as games have - they're just making an appearance on consoles now because this is the first time that it has been viable. It's going to continue happening, as it always has.

If you don't like it, you always have the option to not pay for it. The days of DLC being small aspects of the game being excised to sell later are long gone, even if people wish to keep believing that. If you wish to expand upon your experience, feel free to do so.

Modifié par Berkilak, 09 février 2012 - 12:43 .

[Atakuma]

IsaacShep wrote...

Curunen wrote...

It seems a lot of the DLC tied to other products, cross promotions and so on, is basically fluff. Multiplayer items that might never be used, appearances and so on.

It is fluff when looked upon individually. But when you look at it as a whole? How many DLC guns for both SP & MP are there already? In a game that desperately needs more loot and which predecessor was criticized for little customization? If it's day 1 stuff, then I'm really questioning when someone says "it's not cut-out from the main game".

The game has something like 66 weapons. I think we'll be ok without the handful of extras.

[Candidate 88766]

I've never had a problem with DLC.

When I buy a game, I spend £30-£40 and I hope to get £30-£40 worth of content. In some cases I do, in some cases I don't. In the case of the ME games, where a single playthrough can exceed 30 hours and their is plenty of scope for replaying, I feel I am getting more than my money's worth. So if they want to charge me a little more for some extra guns then I'm not all that fussed. Chances are I'm going to be getting more than my money's worth with ME3 anyway.

Don't get me wrong - I'd much rather all these extra guns and armours be in the game - but chances are I'm going to be getting a lot more content in ME3 than most games for the same price provide.

[Bleachrude]

The only DLC I personally tend to buy are storyline DLCs..I honestly don't understand why people pick up things like weapon packs...even the much vaunted Firepower pack (if I can complete the game on Insanity already, why the hell would I bother with guns that make it even easier?) or the Gun Runners arsenal from F:NV.

Thus, I'm honestly shocked that people are actively trying to catch it all...

(as an aside, it isn't the number of guns that are important...it is the number of balanced, unique guns that you want...ME1 had a problem where both upgrading anything not named Spectre gear was a waste of time. I much rather have the smaller but more balanced/interesting guns we have in ME2)

[OmegaBlue0231]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

I've never had a problem with DLC.

When I buy a game, I spend £30-£40 and I hope to get £30-£40 worth of content. In some cases I do, in some cases I don't. In the case of the ME games, where a single playthrough can exceed 30 hours and their is plenty of scope for replaying, I feel I am getting more than my money's worth. So if they want to charge me a little more for some extra guns then I'm not all that fussed. Chances are I'm going to be getting more than my money's worth with ME3 anyway.

Don't get me wrong - I'd much rather all these extra guns and armours be in the game - but chances are I'm going to be getting a lot more content in ME3 than most games for the same price provide.

This!

[izmirtheastarach]

Berkilak wrote...

The game industry has changed a lot in the past few years. There are people who develop things directly for DLC these days. Likewise, "expansion packs" have been around as long as games have - they're just making an appearance on consoles now because this is the first time that it has been viable. It's going to continue happening, as it always has.

If you don't like it, you always have the option to not pay for it. The days of DLC being small aspects of the game being excised to sell later are long gone, even if people wish to keep believing that. If you wish to expand upon your experience, feel free to do so.

Yet, it almost feels like that cut content argument was only valid for a period lasting a couple of years. When DLC first started becoming big, a publisher might have gone to a developer and told them to make some DLC. They game is close to realease, so they just pull some stuff out and label it DLC.

But now it's such a part of the model that the DLC is part of the design from day one. There are often seperate teams, and seperate budgets. Even when there aren't, it's still not a sudden thing. Everyone knows that they will have to produce some DLC content.

[shepskisaac]

Kileyan wrote...

I am the opposite. I am not against the horse armor, costume pack and weapon pack mini dlc. Some people like the gunplay of a game, if they want to spend 2 bucks on a super sniper shotgun, good for them and it didn't cost devs much time. I am not against the devs making money!

When it comes to actual story content, I am against he current DLC model, because none of it has been major content. On average, most of it has been 45 minutes of play. I am against that kind of content. I'd rather they spend time putting out 15 or 20 hours of cohesive content, rather than 10 mini adventures, some of which have almost less playtime than the time it takes to purchase, download and install. Mostly I just get more excited about and more immersed in a 15 to 20 hour expansion, as opposed to picking up a one hour DLC, playing it, then waiting another 2 or 3 months to play another 1 hour of the game.

Even if the missions are only 1-hour expansions, the time & resources spent on creating it are obviously MUCH more appopirate to their the price (usually between 5-10 dollars) compared to a freaking gun or an outfit that publishers charge $2 or even $3 already (Gears of War 3) which took very little time & resources to create.

Atakuma wrote...

The game has something like 66 weapons.

Source please.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 09 février 2012 - 12:50 .

[Gatt9]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

After I've put hundreds of hours into a game like Oblivion, if the next time I launched the game a pop-up came up and said "hey, we see you're really enjoying our game, would you like to give us 5 dollars?", I would have no trouble paying that.

In the case of DLC, I even get something for my money. Something that may vary in it's own value, but why should that bother me? I consider DLC to be another way of supporting a developer I appreciate. If I don't care much for the game, I won't care much for the DLC.

It should bother you because now,  especially with EA,  it was something on the disc you paid for that was intentionally held hostage to force you to pay extra money to get the whole game.

Dead Space 2:  In the retail game,  there's a number of doors locked along your path,  behind these doors are upgrade items and armor.  They only way to open those doors is if you bought a DLC prior to release.  A DLC that wasn't even offered on the PC,  so you could never open those doors on the PC and get all of the content you had paid for.

DLC as an addition to a game,  like Dead Rising 2's epilogue (Or even Lair of the Shadowbroker),  is understandable.  It's a modern expansion pack.  But EA blatantly holds content hostage,  or cuts content out and releases it as DLC in an attempt to generate more revenue,  making you pay more for the same thing you would've gotten for your money years ago.

DLC designed to force the player to pay extra for what should've been (And often already is) on the disc isn't acceptable.

[izmirtheastarach]

IsaacShep wrote...


Even if the missions are only 1-hour expansions, the time & resources spent on creating it are obviously MUCH more appopirate to their the price (usually between 5-10 dollars) compared to a freaking gun or an outfit that publishers charge $2 or even $3 already (Gears of War 3) which took very little time & resources to create.

So they charge what people will pay. And sales of silly bonus DLC pay for the development of more serious, long-form DLC. Why is this a problem?

[Dasher1010]

I actually like DLC since a lot of stuff gets left on the cutting room floor. Plus, expansion packs, extra missions and map packs can be a good thing. Would you really like Gears of War 3 better if it only had ten maps?

[CARL_DF90]

I myself would like the DLC quality to match its asking price myself. Beyond that I have few complaints. All I would ask is that we can avoid the story/quality issues of the Arrival DLC.

[Sailears]

IsaacShep wrote...

Curunen wrote...

It seems a lot of the DLC tied to other products, cross promotions and so on, is basically fluff. Multiplayer items that might never be used, appearances and so on.

It is fluff when looked upon individually. But when you look at it as a whole? How many DLC guns for both SP & MP are there already? In a game that desperately needs more loot and which predecessor was criticized for little customization? If it's day 1 stuff, then I'm really questioning when someone says "it's not cut-out from the main game".

I'm not too sure on exactly what DLC is available from additional products, aside from the KoA demo, the figurines (alternate appearances for those characters?), the art book (?) and facebook game.

And I wasn't referring to day 1 stuff in any case, which will most likely be the stuff included with the CE, so yes it can be considered to be "cut" from the standard game.

All the preorder bonuses can be obtained without too much difficulty, which is the only stuff I consider to be of any importance.

Multiplayer DLC will go mad, I bet there's going to be tons of that in the future, so it's best to be discerning and get only that which you really like.

[Niemack Saarinen]

\\\\\\\\\\ -------


Here's a crazy idea.... Dont BUY the DLC's, EA/Bioware arent putting a gun to your head saying "buy it". It is completely and 100% your decision, DLC's serve to keep a game alive past release, injecting new content, which is completely optional to you, the end user.

[Cyber Raul]

The 80% of dlc's are only crap stuff to spend some money, I appreciate Liar of Shadowbroker, but I still think important plot pieces have to be in full game especially in CE.

Modifié par Cyber Raul, 09 février 2012 - 12:54 .

[shepskisaac]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

Why is this a problem?

The problem is if it gets cut from the main game. It doesn't matter if it's on the disc or downloaded via code. If it's Day 1 DLC, then there's little doubt at least part of it would've been in the main game if it was still, let's say, 2001.

[sackyhack]

The problem's with EA I think. The pre-release promotional dlc is always awful for Bioware games, with the way it's scattered everywhere. But their post-release DLC has always been god-tier. The only other company that's even in the same league is Bethesda. That's just a sign of an overzealous marketing department.