730 réponses à ce sujet

[GothDude]

Avalanche404 wrote...

GothDude wrote...
DLC is meant to extend the "full" game, adding more hours to it, as well adding more of a replay value. also it's meant to help stop the Used game market. the DLC is meant to make you wana keep the game instead of get rid of it!
also, Game Developers need a constant flow of revenue to keep the company doors open and employees payed.
I support DLC, for the simple reason that I love games. it's the only reason i have kept a lot of my games, waiting for DLC. and i fully support Bioware in their decision for DLC. wana complain about a incomplete game? go find a Bethesda forum.
good day sir

Bethesda is probably the one who started the DLCs market, but in Oblivion they sold the minor DLCs for something like 1 dollar, and then released them all with a single, massive compilation (Knights of the Nine), not to mention the fact that none of them was necessary for going on with the story-line.

I again underscore the real point of this discussion: DLC containing mission, characters and so on ready-to-be-sold BEFORE the game release.

again, if we had the whole story on a disc, now be honest. you'd beat and then go to sell it correct?
cus thats the purpose of story driven DLC, to help keep interest in the game

also Bethesda continues on a yearly bases to release "broken" games. that even their patches make worse! E.x. Fallout new Vegas and Skyrim. they are both broken and incomplete withouth DLC and/or patches

[DayusMakhina]

legion999 wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete. The only DLCs I somewhat enjoyed from BW were the ones that felt like they were actually cut out of the main game (i.e. Shadow Broker) or actually were cut out of the main game (i.e. Stone Prisoner). If you look at, say, Fallout New Vegas, that's how I wish BW would do it too - a few unimportant bonus items as preorder bonus, fine, and then DLCs that are clearly expansions. The only recent example that comes to my mind was Mark of the Assassin for DA2, not really my favorite DLC but at least one that actually was done like all DLCs should be and a fair trade.

How on earth can a piece of DLC that was released long after the game feel like it was cut out of the main game? That's just... astonishing. ME2 in no way felt like an incomplete game.

As for Fallout New Vegas: All 4 DLC packs were relatively short, none of them took any longer to complete than Shadow Broker did yet you class them as expansions? Not to mention that those Fallout DLC's were basically churned out in the end, with 3 of them coming out in a period of 5 months. Hardly sounds like expansions to me.

I have to disagree. New Vegas DLC ranged from 5 to 8 hours for me while LOTSB took 1 to 2 hours. And considering how the New Vegas DLC (Honest Hearts, Old World Blues and Lonesome Road FYI) was worked on for months before they were released I can't see how they were churned out.

5 to 8 hours? What were you doing exactly? That said, it's inevitable that DLC for Fallout would be longer than it would for ME2, because Fallout includes a whole lot of travelling about and doing next to nothing. 

Honest Hearts release date: May 17th 2011
Old World Blues release date: July 19th 2011
Lonesome Road release date: September 20th 2011

Okay, not even 5 months, twas basically 4. An if I recall correctly Lonesome Road was supposed to be released in August but was delayed so if there wasn't any delays it would of been 3 pieces of DLC in the period of 3 months. Even if they'd started working on them for quite some time the fact that all 3 came out within that short amount of time eachother indicates they were churned out.

[casadechrisso]

Bethesda's games are always buggy, but every single game out there needs patches to fix stuff, even Bioware's. But no, they do not feel incomplete without DLCs, and game patches are still free (don't give EA any ideas here!).

[james1976]

I think the problem is that if they thought people would buy DLC to make Joker's chair a different color, they'd make and sell it. I feel like it's the publisher pulling the strings on some of it. At least the promotional stuff anyway.

[Il Divo]

casadechrisso wrote...

No. Take Mark of the Assassin, a DLC I personally didn't like that much, but many did and it was quite fine on my sheet too. That's a fair DLC, it doesn't feel cut out of the main story, it's worth the price and everyone's happy. Shadow Broker was a very good DLC too, probably the best I played, but as someone said above it was clearly planned from the beginning, maybe even cut out in parts and the game feels kinda incomplete without it. Before I bought it I was really wondering why Liara was even included in the game, as I said above.

Sure, there were a lines of script found in the ME2 files. But that's it. Saying that Liara's inclusion felt pointless, you may as well have thought that we were going to get dlc with either Wrex or the VS survivor. The point of including these characters in the game was simply so that the player had some degree of familiarity with their current actions and where the plot thread would go in ME3. ME2's plot focuses on Shepard tackling the Collectors. Both Lair of the Shadowbroker and Arrival occur as completely separate plot threads.

[GothDude]

casadechrisso wrote...

Bethesda's games are always buggy, but every single game out there needs patches to fix stuff, even Bioware's. But no, they do not feel incomplete without DLCs, and game patches are still free (don't give EA any ideas here!).

wat i was trying to say is that the patches for bethesda games made it worse, e.x. Backwards dragons in Skyrim >.>
and the patch was meant to fix texture issues, wtf happened there??

i have never had a problem with any of Bioware's pathces becus they dont seem to break something while they fix it lol
also Fallout 3 was incomplete without the broken steel dlc for e.x

though Bioware pulled that same stuff with ME2 and Arrival (thanks for that Bioware, had to go out and buy the game again >.<)

[JoePilot]

Lol.  You might as well tell EAware to stop milking their fans making money.  You want DLC to go away?  Stop buying it.

[string3r]

If the DLC is good and worth the money than that's fine by me.

But day one DLC? Hell naw amigo.

[Wulfram]

If you didn't buy the collectors edition and pre-order from the right store



Not that the page tells you this

[mulder1199]

don't care, keep making them, just get them to me before 'shep's story' has been completed....if it's not there by then, i won't buy em....

[wolfsite]

Wulfram wrote...

If you didn't buy the collectors edition and pre-order from the right store



Not that the page tells you this

This isn't a fair accessment as the full picture includes a piece at the bottom (which you conveniently cut out) that states more weapons are found in game and also shows more weapon reveals as we get closer to release.

[Wulfram]

wolfsite wrote...

This isn't a fair accessment as the full picture includes a piece at the bottom (which you conveniently cut out) that states more weapons are found in game and also shows more weapon reveals as we get closer to release.

Yes, the 3 alliance symbols at the bottom totally change the situation and make selling the game with stuff that isn't actually included in it totally OK!

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 février 2012 - 06:10 .

[Alex_SM]

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

Modifié par Alex_SM, 09 février 2012 - 06:16 .

[wolfsite]

Wulfram wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

This isn't a fair accessment as the full picture includes a piece at the bottom (which you conveniently cut out) that states more weapons are found in game and also shows more weapon reveals as we get closer to release.

Yes, the 3 alliance symbols at the bottom totally change the situation and make selling the game with stuff that isn't actually included in it totally OK!

The N7 weapons are included in the Collectors Edition as a bonus.

Also just because there are only 4 spots at the bottom does not mean there are only 4 weapon reveals to make.

[AlanC9]

casadechrisso wrote...
No. Take Mark of the Assassin, a DLC I personally didn't like that much, but many did and it was quite fine on my sheet too. That's a fair DLC, it doesn't feel cut out of the main story, it's worth the price and everyone's happy. Shadow Broker was a very good DLC too, probably the best I played, but as someone said above it was clearly planned from the beginning, maybe even cut out in parts and the game feels kinda incomplete without it.

Well, all I have to say to that is that I simply don't share your feeling. To me, LotSB seems like something that's obviously for DLC. It doesn't ahve any bearing on the main ME plot, but it continues a ME1 character's story. It's exactly what I want from DLC.

[mulder1199]

Alex_SM wrote...

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

the bigger return they get on me3, the more likely we are to see me4...

[Wulfram]

wolfsite wrote...

The N7 weapons are included in the Collectors Edition as a bonus.

Exactly.   They're not part of the regular game.  Yet they are being used to advertise the game with no indication of this. 

It's dishonest

[NOD-INFORMER37]

mulder1199 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

the bigger return they get on me3, the more likely we are to see me4...

And that can easily be done without them resorting to making more money off used games and countless pricey dlc-tacked products. 

Modifié par NOD-INFORMER37, 09 février 2012 - 06:20 .

[mulder1199]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

the bigger return they get on me3, the more likely we are to see me4...

And that can easily be done without them resorting to making more money off used games and countless pricey dlc-tacked products. 

probably true, but they are a business....

[Forsythia]

I think it's great Stanley is in here answering questions, and what I like most, is that he actually takes the time to give a decent response. So kudos for that.

Personally, I don't mind the extra items, as long as I can get them fairly easy. So, no, I'm not bothered with Day 1 DLC, but I am bothered with retailer exclusive DLC or DLC that you can only get by buying a certain item, or region specific promotions. I understand it's a business practice and won't go away soon, but I think it's a bit too much for ME3. I'm just hoping that these items will be purchasable for everyone some day.

Modifié par Forsythia, 09 février 2012 - 06:26 .

[Nu-Nu]

Alex_SM wrote...

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House constructors see zero money from used houses.
Etc...

Why should game developers see any cent for used games?  

You don't quite get it. What game developers are trying to do is divert money that could be used on second hand games onto first hand products, whether that be in dlc form.

Their attitude is, sure pay for a secondhand game, that ok, but you won't gt this cool character that's only free with the firsthand game unless you pay extra to download him.

You think none of the car companies/ contracters try to advertise to people to buy their new product/house/item, to try and use tatics to bring customers to their new products.

Some tatics used by these other companies to sell new things -

Contracter - Buy now, and choose your finishing touches for your kitchen/bedroom
Car companies - buy our new car and get 3 years worth of insurance
Video game company - Buy firsthand and get this cool new character

Business is business, and they will try whatever means to keep in business.

Modifié par Nu-Nu, 09 février 2012 - 06:29 .

[AlanC9]

Alex_SM wrote...

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

The economics are a bit different for all of these. A single copy of a game can fully satisfy multiple customers' demand for that game. Most game players play a game a few times, or once, or part of one playthrough, and are then done with it.

For a house, car, or TV, it's not possible for one of these to fully satisfy more than one person at a time.

Edit: I'm just talking economics, not morality. If you want to say that customers should have a right to resell their games at full functionality, that's a different discussion.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 février 2012 - 06:35 .

[Herewegoagain]

Stanley Woo wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

My problem is that EVERYTHING has exclusive DLC now.  It's moved beyond a cool bonus that makes the game more fun--now it's obnoxious and gimmicky.  I also have a problem with day one DLC because, seriously, that stuff should go in the god damn game.  There is no point in NOT including it in the vanilla edition other than to nickel and dime your consumer base.

"Bonus" content left and right before the damn game's even out?  Pathetic.

And that's my opinion on that.

You know what they call bonus content that's already in the main game? "The main game." To be a "bonus" it has be demonstrably separate from the main game. It has to be an add-on to something that is already a whole thing.

If it's "in the god damn game," it's just content, and to call it a bonus then would just anger more people because the bonus is already in the game! I don't think you can complain about "bonus DLC should be in the game" in one breath and suggest "make the bonus more invisible but still call it a bonus" in the next. Because at that point, you're just wanting to get more content for free.

Whenever these topics come up, I try to explain how DLC is made, by whom, and why it can't appear on the game disc. But some people are quite happy to dig in their heels and keep spouting their incorrect and misguided statements against DLC. I'm okay with folks disagreeing with DLC or disliking it, even hating it as a concept, but please be honest about it and get your facts straight, at the very least.

And Gatt9, that goes for you too.

[AlanC9]

IsaacShep wrote...
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 agree that it's ridiculous. But I have a tough time caring. I'm not going to buy any, and I don't particularly care what anyone else does. It'd be different if Bio was spending a huge amount of effort making the stuff, but what makes this stuff "junk" is precisely that they don't put much into it.

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

The economics are a bit different for all of these. A single copy of a game can fully satisfy multiple customers' demand for that game. Most game players play a game a few times, or once, or part of one playthrough, and are then done with it.

For a house, car, or TV, it's not possible for one of these to fully satisfy more than one person at a time.

A game still only satisfies one person at a time. And at least in my country a usual car passes trhough 2-3 people before being dismantled. Used cars market is as big as new cars market.