319 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Alex_SM wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

1. Thats not completely true, there is very little incentive to buy DLC when fans are creating it themselves. It has an effect.

Bethesda still sells DLC and their games are the most modded ones out there. 

The point is that, if people create their own content, you can't sell them lazy retexture DLC. Because there would be thousands of retextures available for free. And lots of them better than the one offered. 

Modders force the developers to actually care about the downloadable content and make it good. 

DLCs like "Lair of the Shadow Broker" would still make the same money, others like "your pink armor" wouldn't make sense. 

Also they will probably sell more games. As it happens in Bethesda games, people fix them and makes them better. 

If ME3 were modder friendly we would probably have already a couple of alternate endings. Also it would be a extremely better looking game, less glitched and would probably have some new sidequests.

Don't get me wrong I loved modders, I still do. I find it a shame they are not supported anymore with regard to kits and such from Bioware. However my statement is true in the sense mods do have an impact on income for a developer especially with regard to item packs Bioware like to sell which many people are happy to buy. The only reason I picked up F3 DLC from them is because came with the product free due to GoTY, I did not feel the incentive to go out and buy them separately due to the amount of modifications already existing.

With regard to ME3 you can still mod SP the devs said though they provided no kit and I have not seen anyone put it to the test except those who are cheating in MP through modifications of the files to give more money and such. This is however not an issue Bethesda have had to deal with as their titles do not have MP.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 08:39 .

[Alex_SM]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Don't get me wrong I loved modders, I still do. I find it a shame they are not supported anymore with regard to kits and such from Bioware. However my statement is true in the sense mods do have an impact on income for a developer especially with regard to item packs Bioware like to sell which many people are happy to buy. The only reason I picked up F3 DLC from them is because came with the product free due to GoTY, I did not feel the incentive to go out and buy them separately due to the amount of modifications already existing.

Most of those modifications were not extending the campaign, so there's no reason why they should have an effect. Would I miss Broken Steel because I changed all the textures of the game, the weapons, the models for the characters, added real nights, rain, etc...? No, because all those mods don't do the same as the DLC. If we were talking about a DLC about weapons... well, in that case yes. But I don't understand how anyone could spent 3-4$ in weapons for any game. 

With regard to ME3 you can still mod SP the devs said though they provided no kit and I have not seen anyone put it to the test except those who are cheating in MP through modifications of the files to give more money and such. This is however not an issue Bethesda have had to deal with as their titles do not have MP.

ME3 is really unfriendly to mod. Just having to use Texmod to load textures is crap. While in FO3 and FO:NV I have my 4GB+ texture packs and the game uses them without problem. Last time I played Fallout 3 I was using around 20GB in mods. Some times the game was unrecognizable. That's impossible in Mass Effect 3. 

And for MP... just use some kind of anti cheat system and don't allow modded files to be loaded.     

[Jade Elf]

Basically what Dragoonlordz said the first two pages.

Breakdown Boy wrote...

Bioware has recently started delivering exceptional DLC (Overlord, Shadow Broker), Mass Effec t3 has been very enjoyable and worth every penny, the endings could much better but hey, I'm still playing the game and enjoying it fully, any DLC that looks good will get my cash.

And this.

[Inxentas]

wolfsite wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Inxentas wrote...

 The fact remains though, that many companies give me the impression their implementation of DLC is actually an artificial and hidden price-bump, instead of completely optional content.

Javik is a shameless price bump, because he's practicly pivotal to a part of the story. Nothing indicates that he wasn't considered a main character, such as the case with Zaeed and Kasumi was. The way I experience it, Javik is a shameless attempt to make the game more expensive, hiding behind the fact that he's 'optional'. Apart from the 2 starting squaddies THEY ALL are optional. That's the whole point behind having a choice in the first place.

I too resent the oblivious fact that what started out as a good idea to ADD content, led many companies upon a path where the 'vanilla experience' of a game is actually the stripped version of the game, with as much content REMOVED as possible. The companies that do this, reason that 'casual' buyers will still have a complete experience, while 'hardcore' gamers are willing to pay extra for more. The reality of it though, is that most modern games feel stripped and bare compared to an 80's or 90's game. I don't consider myself hardcore and I still experience most games as incomplete without their DLC. Mind you, I'm talking about DLC characters and missions, not some vanity item or an appearance pack.

Truth. 

Javik added almost nothing to the story.  If he had information on the Crucible then ya that would be grounds to complain, but he is just a soldier with no pivtol knowledge that turned the tide in the fight.

It was explained several times that it was made after the game went to certification.  The only people who say otherwise are people who refuse to believe it.

Take Javik to Thessia. Smart players who didn't take him will catch on to the Prothean angle and take him to Thessia. The mission is basicly catering to the dynamic between Liara and Javik, the Asari and the Protheans. The fact that actual work on that mission was done after certification, only has meaning from a technical standpoint. Not from a moral one.

Day-one DLC is basicly a free pass to deliver a stripped version, releasing the extra content only when the deadline can truly be met, while possibly adding another pricetag. Deadlines are a risk factor in any software development process, and DLC can help solve this issue. It caters to modern project management methodologies such as Agile. 

I don't refuse to believe a technical statement about content X being developed in period Y which is after release on date Z. It's totally irrelevent to the consumer. I simply refuse to believe this was done for any other reason then to bump the product's price and dealing with a strict deadline. While the latter is understandable, the former is a dodgy business tactic which, as a consumer, I find dishonest. Worst of all BioWare's latest endevours in the field of DLC is actively breaking down the trust I had with this company.

[RyuujinZERO]

Inxentas wrote...
Worst of all BioWare's latest endevours in the field of DLC is actively breaking down the trust I had with this company.

Whatever happens, ME3 likely represents the end of the relationship between me and Bioware. They're an abusive partner and the only reason I've gone this far is because I wanted to see the end of Shepards saga (Though having now seen the end I cannot unsee it >.<)


...so, you guys stil discussing this 8 hours later?

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 02 avril 2012 - 09:58 .

[jess05]

On DLC it depends.

DLC for the game they promised and told us we would get?
Or the game we actually got which was the complete opposite.

For the game they promised, YES. More DLC.
For the game we got ..... Ummm... wheres the rest of it. Wheres what you promised?


I'll not be purchasing any DLC at all untill they deliver what they promised.
If not, EA and Bioware will never see another penny from me.

They lied to us, at least with what we have currently vs promised.

Modifié par jess05, 02 avril 2012 - 10:15 .

[SalsaDMA]

Jade Elf wrote...

Basically what Dragoonlordz said the first two pages.

Breakdown Boy wrote...

Bioware has recently started delivering exceptional DLC (Overlord, Shadow Broker), Mass Effec t3 has been very enjoyable and worth every penny, the endings could much better but hey, I'm still playing the game and enjoying it fully, any DLC that looks good will get my cash.

And this.

Dunno. the last DLC for ME2 was Arrival, and I personally feel they really dropped the ball on that one compared to what they had done previously.

OFc, it seems like it was a portent of what was to come in ME3 in more than one way...

In any case, I personally felt Arrival sucked, and I only bothered playing it through with a single of my plethora of characters. After the first playthrough I was utterly bored of that DLC and couldn't get myself to go through it with any of my other characters. Neither of the other DLCs for ME2 had that problem for me.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Just so everyone understands where some of us are coming from:

Some of us gamed a long time without DLC. Companies would have 100 ideas and only 75 of them would be used due to space and other limitations.

I know what some of you are thinking....."now we get all 100 ideas due to DLC". Well, thats not exactly true.

It used to be a game was made to be 100% complete from the start. Now companies can take 100 ideas put in 75 and leave some out for no reason at all except money. It's one thing to leave stuff due to limitations or to create a DLC after the creation of the original game.

It's a completely different story to spend the money and time during original development to make something that will be released later or day 1. That time and money we are paying for is suppose to go with the original game. Especially, when theres no limitations behind.

So in short: Context and principles.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Just so everyone understands where some of us are coming from:

Some of us gamed a long time without DLC. Companies would have 100 ideas and only 75 of them would be used due to space and other limitations.

I know what some of you are thinking....."now we get all 100 ideas due to DLC". Well, thats not exactly true.

It used to be a game was made to be 100% complete from the start. Now companies can take 100 ideas put in 75 and leave some out for no reason at all except money. It's one thing to leave stuff due to limitations or to create a DLC after the creation of the original game.

It's a completely different story to spend the money and time during original development to make something that will be released later or day 1. That time and money we are paying for is suppose to go with the original game. Especially, when theres no limitations behind.

So in short: Context and principles.

How long you have been gaming really has nothing to do with it. Not being mean, just pointing out it is not that.

You can however base it on your principles and perception but only in the personal sense not broad one. i.e. In principle to you day one DLC sucks / in principle to me day one DLC is not a major issue these days. If you see what I mean. But context meaning history has nothing to do with it. I come from long gaming history.

[Gatt9]

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Just so everyone understands where some of us are coming from:

Some of us gamed a long time without DLC. Companies would have 100 ideas and only 75 of them would be used due to space and other limitations.

I know what some of you are thinking....."now we get all 100 ideas due to DLC". Well, thats not exactly true.

It used to be a game was made to be 100% complete from the start. Now companies can take 100 ideas put in 75 and leave some out for no reason at all except money. It's one thing to leave stuff due to limitations or to create a DLC after the creation of the original game.

It's a completely different story to spend the money and time during original development to make something that will be released later or day 1. That time and money we are paying for is suppose to go with the original game. Especially, when theres no limitations behind.

So in short: Context and principles.

This above is exactly true.

What consumers thought:  Great!  Now we can have even more content in our favorite games while we're waiting for a sequel,  it'll be like a bunch of expansion packs!

What publishers thought:  Great!  Now we can take the same amount of work,  chop the product up,  sell the core of it for $60,  and sell all of the other parts for $10 more apiece,  without spending an extra dime!

There was a major disconnect between what we consumers expected,  and what publishers did.  Publishers thought people would be foolish enough to let them chop up the complete game and sell it to us in pieces.  Consumers are starting to get angry.

How long you have been gaming really has nothing to do with it. Not being mean, just pointing out it is not that.

You can however base it on your principles and perception but only in the personal sense not broad one. i.e. In principle to you day one DLC sucks / in principle to me day one DLC is not a major issue these days. If you see what I mean. But context meaning history has nothing to do with it. I come from long gaming history.

Your list leaves me with many questions,  but this isn't the thread for that.

History is everything,  look at how many people here will post "Games were turn-based because back then computers didn't have power for real time!". 

If people have never seen a complete game released,  then how would they know what the difference is?  It's Plato's cave allagory.

[Dragoonlordz]

Gatt9 wrote...

How long you have been gaming really has nothing to do with it. Not being mean, just pointing out it is not that.

You can however base it on your principles and perception but only in the personal sense not broad one. i.e. In principle to you day one DLC sucks / in principle to me day one DLC is not a major issue these days. If you see what I mean. But context meaning history has nothing to do with it. I come from long gaming history.

Your list leaves me with many questions,  but this isn't the thread for that.

History is everything,  look at how many people here will post "Games were turn-based because back then computers didn't have power for real time!". 

If people have never seen a complete game released,  then how would they know what the difference is?  It's Plato's cave allagory.

History does not mean will feel same as you do about day one DLC. I proved that already.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[Redcoat]

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Just so everyone understands where some of us are coming from:

Some of us gamed a long time without DLC. Companies would have 100 ideas and only 75 of them would be used due to space and other limitations.

I know what some of you are thinking....."now we get all 100 ideas due to DLC". Well, thats not exactly true.

It used to be a game was made to be 100% complete from the start. Now companies can take 100 ideas put in 75 and leave some out for no reason at all except money. It's one thing to leave stuff due to limitations or to create a DLC after the creation of the original game.

It's a completely different story to spend the money and time during original development to make something that will be released later or day 1. That time and money we are paying for is suppose to go with the original game. Especially, when theres no limitations behind.

So in short: Context and principles.

Absolute, 100% truth.

I wasn't born yesterday, and I imagine most of us here weren't, either. We remember that for the $59.99 we spent on a game, we got the whole game, that is, everything the developers had ready by release day. Hell, we don't even have to remember - there are plenty of games released today that are like that.

But now we've got companies like EA, who develop content in parallel that they have zero intention of releasing with the retail version, and instead charging us extra for it. And if we point out this obvious bit of corporate avarice, we get called "entitled" and told to shut up and accept everything the game companies do, becaues "it's their game and they can do whatever they want with it!"

Which they can. But they shouldn't be surprised that when you bite the hands that feeds you, it'll eventually stop feeding you.

Modifié par Redcoat, 03 avril 2012 - 12:43 .

[Foryou]

You got a full game without any DLC. Javik is by no means necessary, he's nice to have, but not necessary. The ending DLC was most likely not planned by Bioware, due to the strong negative reactions

[Gosia]

Redcoat wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Just so everyone understands where some of us are coming from:

Some of us gamed a long time without DLC. Companies would have 100 ideas and only 75 of them would be used due to space and other limitations.

I know what some of you are thinking....."now we get all 100 ideas due to DLC". Well, thats not exactly true.

It used to be a game was made to be 100% complete from the start. Now companies can take 100 ideas put in 75 and leave some out for no reason at all except money. It's one thing to leave stuff due to limitations or to create a DLC after the creation of the original game.

It's a completely different story to spend the money and time during original development to make something that will be released later or day 1. That time and money we are paying for is suppose to go with the original game. Especially, when theres no limitations behind.

So in short: Context and principles.

Absolute, 100% truth.

I wasn't born yesterday, and I imagine most of us here weren't, either. We remember that for the $59.99 we spent on a game, we got the whole game, that is, everything the developers had ready by release day. Hell, we don't even have to remember - there are plenty of games released today that are like that.

But now we've got companies like EA, who develop content in parallel that they have zero intention of releasing with the retail version, and instead charging us extra for it. And if we point out this obvious bit of corporate avarice, we get called "entitled" and told to shut up and accept everything the game companies do, becaues "it's their game and they can do whatever they want with it!"

Which they can. But they shouldn't be surprised that when you bite the hands that feeds you, it'll eventually stop feeding you.

Yes, that's exactly what I fear they are doing although I'm not sure if I'm right, but it certainly feels this way.

[Calbeb]

It really depends on what hte DLC is used for. If Bioware came out and said something along the lines of "we are doing an epilogue DLC because Indoc theory is true, and this was our plan". I would have major issues. That would be like the Prince of Persial fiasco to me, or what is currently going on with FF XIII. In that case, I, as a consumer, feel ripped off.

If they end up making DLC to respond to fan complaints, add characters and new levels, I am great with that. I love this universe, and like going on adventures within it. Both the Overlord and Shadow Broker DLC were terrific in Mass Effect 2, and missions of that calibre (or better) are imo worth the money.

In Dragon Age 2's case it even felt like they were responding to real issues people had with encounter design as well, those two missions were fun, challenging (on hard, unlike the rest of the game), and actually improved a lot of the issues I had.

Modifié par Calbeb, 03 avril 2012 - 05:56 .

[M2S SOLID JOSH]

these days the only companies that release full games and are great are platnium games and valve. i love these guys and not just for these reasons and wish more would do the same. if youre gonna make dlc wait a few months at least and put as much content as possible on release

[tetrisblock4x1]

Define a "complete" game. I know from experience that I'm never completely happy with anything I do. I often wonder about whether or not my resume could be a little bit better, or if I should have said this or that when meeting or socializing with people... and I know that there are a lot of creative people such as artists, singers, musicians who can never seem to leave well enough alone.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Just so everyone understands where some of us are coming from:

Some of us gamed a long time without DLC. Companies would have 100 ideas and only 75 of them would be used due to space and other limitations.

I know what some of you are thinking....."now we get all 100 ideas due to DLC". Well, thats not exactly true.

It used to be a game was made to be 100% complete from the start. Now companies can take 100 ideas put in 75 and leave some out for no reason at all except money. It's one thing to leave stuff due to limitations or to create a DLC after the creation of the original game.

It's a completely different story to spend the money and time during original development to make something that will be released later or day 1. That time and money we are paying for is suppose to go with the original game. Especially, when theres no limitations behind.

So in short: Context and principles.

How long you have been gaming really has nothing to do with it. Not being mean, just pointing out it is not that.

You can however base it on your principles and perception but only in the personal sense not broad one. i.e. In principle to you day one DLC sucks / in principle to me day one DLC is not a major issue these days. If you see what I mean. But context meaning history has nothing to do with it. I come from long gaming history.

Spoken by a true entitled gamer.  Notice I said "some of us".  If you don't see why it's relevant......then maybe you're rich or you don't pay for anything or something. 

But ppl who were used to getting "as much as possible to entice players to buy" and now see it being "make it interesting enough to charge for more later" are asking "When the **** did this happen?"

[Cainne Chapel]

really its all a matter of degrees.

At the end of the day just like with everything else people pay for, if you find it worth it you'll buy it, if not you wont.

I'm a bit of a ME-aholic so i tend to buy ME related stuff quite a bit (I even gots ME tattoos cuz i'm THAT awesome!)

But I do see both sides of the arguments and honestly Pro DLC and against DLC BOTH have valid points. Some companies handle it well, some companies dont, some are in the middle and so forth.

Either way I'm guilty of buying DLC and I will continue to do so with ones that intrigue and interest me.

[Shephard Vas Eleen]

I like DLC. It gives Bioware more creativity and allows the game to go from 30 hours in one play through to 50. I'm sure Bioware thought the game was complete when they released it but as a discriminating player it feels a little half baked. It should have been released in Summer but another delay would have pissed gamers off more than the ending.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Considering that John Riccitiello wants you to pay to reload...

[What a Succulent Ass]

Shephard Vas Eleen wrote...

but another delay would have pissed gamers off more than the ending.

I deeply, deeply doubt that. Fans don't mind waiting if it means a better game. Publishers are usually the ones that force studios to rush games (especially AAA games) out the door.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

really its all a matter of degrees.

At the end of the day just like with everything else people pay for, if you find it worth it you'll buy it, if not you wont.

I'm a bit of a ME-aholic so i tend to buy ME related stuff quite a bit (I even gots ME tattoos cuz i'm THAT awesome!)

But I do see both sides of the arguments and honestly Pro DLC and against DLC BOTH have valid points. Some companies handle it well, some companies dont, some are in the middle and so forth.

Either way I'm guilty of buying DLC and I will continue to do so with ones that intrigue and interest me.

This is the issue.  i'm not against DLC.  Creating more content....is good.  No way around that.  But manipulating the DLC system....unacceptable.

Modifié par Dude_in_the_Room, 03 avril 2012 - 06:20 .

[Gosia]

Illtis89 wrote...

What gets me is that no one's mentioned the glitches and bugs yet.

Examples: Jumpy conversations (throughout the game), Incomplete models ( if you look below the citadel's dance club you can see incomplete models), near the very beginning (another conversation bug) shepard's face is looking away from liara as he is talking to her (I found it quite funny, but a bit irritating too), last one I remember is a lot of sounds throughout the game register late (voices, sound effects, etc).

What's my point you ask? I'm gearing towards completeness, and the fact that the game most obviously feels rushed. I would have been willing to wait 1-2 more months or longer for them to produce a better quality game over what we got.

Yes it's hard not to agree. The fact that a game is complete does not only mean that it has all side plots, beginning, ending, and middle but also such small problems that may be irritating to a player were taken care of. Why did they rush so much to release it, why do they rush so much now to give new DLCs (about which we are reminded in the end of the game). If a game is good you don't have to advertise such things there will be people who will buy DLC just to prolong the fantastic game. Here, in ME3, the feeling is not about fantastic game (although i loved it, don't misunderstand me) but I'm left with bitter-sweet taste that it's obvious that it was rushed (unlike ME1), I have far fewer dialogue options which were replaced by cut-scenes or somebody is talking for me not giving me the choice to pick my own line of reasoning, I have fewer side quests etc. - this adds up to the feeling of incompleteness too.
It may be a bit beside the point but not entirely: how many of you have noticed the way fem Shep is sitting in her dress? I think the idea of giving her a feminine dress finally was a great one, but that is also a sign that a game was rushed and some things weren’t taken care of. It’s not a thing that makes you unable to play the game it’s simply very irritating. And instead of getting new DLCs asap I would really like them to take care of such minor issues so that the game I got looked and played the way it should. It's of course totaly subjective point of view.

Modifié par Gosia, 03 avril 2012 - 06:26 .

[Inxentas]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Define a "complete" game. I know from experience that I'm never completely happy with anything I do. I often wonder about whether or not my resume could be a little bit better, or if I should have said this or that when meeting or socializing with people... and I know that there are a lot of creative people such as artists, singers, musicians who can never seem to leave well enough alone.

This is a tough question because the answer is subjective. For me, ME1 without DLC is a complete game. The DLC doesn't answer any questions that arise in the main game, they are just an arena type of thing and an extensive sidemission. In relation to ME3, the only thing these DLC change is the name of the Batarian terrorist and some non-crucial dialogue. Not much is missed if you skip on ME1 DLC.

Enter ME2. Notice the inventory is gone. Now ME1's inventory was a cluttered mess, but it allowed you to modify your weapons to a specific playstyle. Anyone remember frictionless materials (heatsinks) and the radioactive rounds (poison status effect)? That was completely stripped in ME2, guns became unlocks instead of inventory-based items that could not be modded. You could buy more weapons through DLC but the vanilla game feels bare in the weapons department when played vanilla. It's debatable whether or not LotSB and Arrival affect the main story in such a way, that it's hard to imagine this content as optional. Arrival canonicly happens, while LotSB is referenced in ME3, including whether or not you, the player, was present. Oh, and Kasumi / Zaeed? They offer extra content and interesting character arcs. They are new and completely optional, and only mildly touch upon the main story. I don't consider them to be mandatory for completeness. You will miss out on very, very interesting story stuff if you skip ME2 DLC (Arrival, LotSB) and without a few weapon packs, weapon choice feels very incomplete. I know most moddable effects where moved to the 'ammo powers' but they where character-specific, non moddable.

Enter ME3. Finally, our weapons are moddable again. The vanilla game offers a TON of weapons that can be modified and upgraded, effectively removing the inventory while keeping a deep level of gun modding. This feels complete again, it does right what ME1 did wrong, and did what ME2 didn't do at all. ME1 set a precedent which makes ME2's weapon system feel 'incomplete' without some $$$ packs. It's simply a matter of expectation; in an action-RPG I expect a relatively deep weapon system in the vanilla game. In a pure action game packed with dozens of default weapons I expect weapon pack DLC.

Any precedent set by a game that's only accessable through $$$ DLC in it's sequel will feel like incompleteness. Again, this is just my interpretation of what a complete story-driven RPG should encompass. Opinions will differ.

Modifié par Inxentas, 03 avril 2012 - 10:55 .