319 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

Saunders1 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

You did get a complete game. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Just because you did not like the ending does not mean you were sold an incomplete product.

I'm not a fan of the endings and would love to see DLC that provides a more satisfying conclusion to the game. But if that DLC ever does get released, Bioware has every right to charge for it.

Umm...no they don't lol.  Are you serious?  Its because of statements like that that make sure we will always pay more than the RIDICULOUS 60$ before tax for games.  Your OK with paying upwards of 70-80$ and up for one game?  NO game is worth that.  Please tell me you are not OK with this and that you're joking.  When in video game history was it ever OK to do that before this generation?  IT WAS NEVER OK BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER DONE.  There were no after market fixes.  Games capped at 50$.  You got what you got and were damn happy about it.  EVERYTHING that would be considered DLC today was already included in the finished game and that is HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO FU**ING BE.  This generation of gaming almost makes me ashamed to call myself a gamer.

Umm have you been gaming for a while? Realistically speaking games have pretty much stayed the same price for decades now.  When I was a kid I was paying $50 for NES games I recall, which was in the late 80's early 90s which, given inflation is a little more than what we pay now for games.  Granted games jumped up $10 but gaming has always roughly stayed teh same no matter what inflation does ($50 back in the 80's was worth more than $50 is now)

The fact that you think $60 is ridiculous is pretty telling, but thats beside the point.  Expansion packs which were what DLC could be considered has been around for years.  Granted DLC allows for Micro upgrades rather than BIG huge expansions but seeing as its not necessary I have no problem with bonus guns, armor and equipment etc, Its not like they're totally game changing here.  They merely extend the length of the game to a certain subset of people.  In fact I'd be amazed if more than 50% of people who buy a game even buy DLC.

The reason IT WAS NEVER DONE, was because they didn't have a standardized avenue to deliver more content outside of a NEW GAME or expansion pack.  Now with the prevalence of high speed internet and connected gaming, DLC is easier to deliver than it was heck even 5 years ago.

its silly and well.. downright wrong to think that stuff that is DLC would always be part of the game, that simply isn't true.  Even now a days thats not true.  sure sometimes its stupid (like Capcom with S x T) but other times DLC is worthwhile like LOTSB,

I think you're getting a little too worked up over the wrong thing Saunders.

[Pallando]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
Sorry but it still does not work. You are not getting a new pie by buying DLC to improve an element of the game. It is the same pie meaning 95% the same minus the cherry and the cherry being the DLC. If you did not like the pie what good will it do you to buy the same pie again with a cherry on top? They are not going to remake the entire game (pie) for you and especially not for free.

The apple pie is not the game. The game is the menu. The dessert is part of the menu. You get a complete menu, but the dessert is not what was advertised. It's tainted. They promised a cheesecake but you got a stinky apple pie. 

You'd leave without getting a proper dessert ? Good for you. However you can't say that those who are disappointed but want to give the chef a second chance are wrong. 

Anyway, as I said, the point is that if people start paying more for what was advertised, you're going to pay twice your wine if it's tainted...

[AlanC9]

Saunders1 wrote...

There was no additional content because because there didn't need to be.  The game was finished.

And ME3 was finished. You just don't like how they finished it.

[Breakdown Boy]

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.

[Cainne Chapel]

Saunders1 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Saunders1 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

You did get a complete game. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Just because you did not like the ending does not mean you were sold an incomplete product.

I'm not a fan of the endings and would love to see DLC that provides a more satisfying conclusion to the game. But if that DLC ever does get released, Bioware has every right to charge for it.

Umm...no they don't lol.  Are you serious?  Its because of statements like that that make sure we will always pay more than the RIDICULOUS 60$ before tax for games.  Your OK with paying upwards of 70-80$ and up for one game?  NO game is worth that.  Please tell me you are not OK with this and that you're joking.  When in video game history was it ever OK to do that before this generation?  IT WAS NEVER OK BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER DONE.  There were no after market fixes.  Games capped at 50$.  You got what you got and were damn happy about it.  EVERYTHING that would be considered DLC today was already included in the finished game and that is HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO FU**ING BE.  This generation of gaming almost makes me ashamed to call myself a gamer.

In the old days there was no such thing as additional content, it is not the same. It was not all this content should be in game, in fact it would be more like none of this content would ever be in game using that principle. There would be no DLC, no expansion packs just the core game and that was it.

There was no additional content because because there didn't need to be.  The game was finished.  Additional per say was perfect grounds for a sequel.  Another full fledged stand alone game.  Yes just the core game and that was it.  Perfect as is.  There is no need to make games end up costing upwards of 70-80$ and up.  Its absurd.  DLC is crap.  Just delay the release date (which happens all the time) and put what would be DLC in the damn game and give us the damn finished product FOR 60$.

You do realize even in gaming things get cut for a myriad of reasons right? Just like in movies, TV shows, etc?  and games DID have additional content, they were called expansion packs, large enough to add more into the game but not big enough to warrant a WHOLE new game.

That in essence is what DLC is.  Oh and little things just for fun, like costumes, etc.

as for the $70-80 argument... you dont HAVE to buy the DLC.  Its not like its forced on you at knife point.  Half the games I play I dont buy DLC, the games I thoroughly enjoy? Guess what! I do, my decision.

and DLC or not doesn't constitute as the game being finished I mean if that were the case nothing would ever get released as the devs would keep "adding" things to it.

Granted you may not like DLC, but saying games are unfinished without it... is well... silly

[Vormaerin]

You are simply wrong. There has always been DLC. The difference is that in the old days, they bundled four or five DLCs together and called it an expansion pack. What do you think Tales of the Sword Coast was? Paid for additional content. Throne of Bhaal: paid for additional content.

The only difference is now they can deliver additional content in smaller doses.

[Pallando]

Han Shot First wrote...

Why should any DLC that expands upon the endings be free?

Because you don't pay twice when you get tainted wine, for example.

Han Shot First wrote...

Any DLC that alters the existing ending is an extra that was made only out of fanservice. As such, Bioware has every right to charge for it.

Yet, when you see how much EA spends on marketing (much more thant on actual development), a free DLC would be a better marketing strategy than a lot of things they have done...

And I think that what people fear is that a paying ending is the first step towards Capcom's strategy.

Vormaerin wrote...

You are simply wrong. There has
always been DLC. The difference is that in the old days, they bundled
four or five DLCs together and called it an expansion pack. What do
you think Tales of the Sword Coast was? Paid for additional content.
Throne of Bhaal: paid for additional content.

The only difference is now they can deliver additional content in smaller doses.

... and the price-per-content is higher. 10$ for a 2-hour DLC against 30$ for a 30-hours expansion...

Modifié par Pallando, 02 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[Aetius5]

The reason you should want dlc is to extend and add life to a game, not to add closure to an incomplete or open end.

[Saunders1]

@Cainne I kinda see where you're coming from but I am viewing it from a perspective of "I don't like the way the video game industry is heading " constantly nickel and diming fans to death. Releasing crappy buggy game ending freeze games like this one. Constant DLC...hell Capcom was charging fans for costumes and difficulty changes. Unacceptable. Now gamers get items depending on which store you buy from. So how do we get those items that we missed out on? We have to buy them when they are already finished and in the game. They are picked out and we have to buy them to have the complete game ON TOP OF 60$. What if you don't have internet? Those fans are screwed out of a complete experience. Want to meet a Prothean? That's pretty damn story relevant.."Well you'll have to pay an extra 10$". ON DAY ONE!? Unacceptable. You see where I'm coming from with this?

@Alan At what point on any post I've done on THIS thread did I mention I didn't like how it ended.

[Dragoonlordz]

Saunders1 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Saunders1 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

You did get a complete game. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Just because you did not like the ending does not mean you were sold an incomplete product.

I'm not a fan of the endings and would love to see DLC that provides a more satisfying conclusion to the game. But if that DLC ever does get released, Bioware has every right to charge for it.

Umm...no they don't lol.  Are you serious?  Its because of statements like that that make sure we will always pay more than the RIDICULOUS 60$ before tax for games.  Your OK with paying upwards of 70-80$ and up for one game?  NO game is worth that.  Please tell me you are not OK with this and that you're joking.  When in video game history was it ever OK to do that before this generation?  IT WAS NEVER OK BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER DONE.  There were no after market fixes.  Games capped at 50$.  You got what you got and were damn happy about it.  EVERYTHING that would be considered DLC today was already included in the finished game and that is HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO FU**ING BE.  This generation of gaming almost makes me ashamed to call myself a gamer.

In the old days there was no such thing as additional content, it is not the same. It was not all this content should be in game, in fact it would be more like none of this content would ever be in game using that principle. There would be no DLC, no expansion packs just the core game and that was it.

There was no additional content because because there didn't need to be.  The game was finished.  Additional per say was perfect grounds for a sequel.  Another full fledged stand alone game.  Yes just the core game and that was it.  Perfect as is.  There is no need to make games end up costing upwards of 70-80$ and up.  Its absurd.  DLC is crap.  Just delay the release date (which happens all the time) and put what would be DLC in the damn game and give us the damn finished product FOR 60$.

Those games had good and they had bad endings, what your left with is you would have bought ME3 with the aspect you disliked but no recourse to improve your impressions of it through DLC. The fact is like Han said you did get a full product, the product itself is the core game which you recieved, whether you like the game or not. Those of us who like the games however are very much willing to pay for additional content to extend it's life and our experience of it. As I also said in the old days what your principle would mean is no additional content and the core game is without any DLC not inclusive of it. You seem to want content created after included rather than reality of you would not have it in first place if stuck to traditional games of the past which you keep referring to.

Don't get me wrong I am very much a fan of the old days and how it used to be but I am also a fan of extending the life of the games I buy by paying smaller amounts than buying a separate complete new title each time. I am not being mean towards you or anything I am just explaining how I see it vs how you see it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[Cainne Chapel]

But the delivery method is also different.

DLCs now are more of a spur of the moment purchase like buying things at the register at a grocery store.

and not all Expansions for games were 30 hours long believe you me. and even now not all 10 dollar expansions are 2 hours.

See the whole point of DLCs is really to find that sweet spot that people go "oh? thats cheap, i'll buy that" because $10 is easier to rationalize sitting on your couch than $30 even if its 5x the content.

personally I only like things to be $10 if they're worthwhile, like LOTSB I can forgive as it was frikken awesome, Horse armor on the other hand? Not even $.50 from me!

But then again I have been known to spend a few bucks here and there on my PSN avatar image and for my "outfits" for my XBL avatar....

I guess there ARE degrees.

[Cainne Chapel]

Saunders1 wrote...

@Cainne I kinda see where you're coming from but I am viewing it from a perspective of "I don't like the way the video game industry is heading " constantly nickel and diming fans to death. Releasing crappy buggy game ending freeze games like this one. Constant DLC...hell Capcom was charging fans for costumes and difficulty changes. Unacceptable. Now gamers get items depending on which store you buy from. So how do we get those items that we missed out on? We have to buy them when they are already finished and in the game. They are picked out and we have to buy them to have the complete game ON TOP OF 60$. What if you don't have internet? Those fans are screwed out of a complete experience. Want to meet a Prothean? That's pretty damn story relevant.."Well you'll have to pay an extra 10$". ON DAY ONE!? Unacceptable. You see where I'm coming from with this?

@Alan At what point on any post I've done on THIS thread did I mention I didn't like how it ended.

I get  ya man, I do.  I just have a different view because well... being a corporate shill myself I dont mind how companies run and make money.

I've been a salesman since i was 14 so *shrug* I get it.

As for the missed items, being a completionist, yeah it bugs me, but damn if we dont get a metric ton of weapons in the game as is, So much so i'm happy even without the AT12 or the Indra sniper.

As for the prothean I dont mind that either because it was originally announced as an N7 edition character, so I always figured it'd be released later as a DLC if at all. I bought the N7 edition so I was happy regardless, I got my prothy. 

AS for not having internet and being screwed out of the full experience....welcome to 2012 I guess.  This isn't just a gaming thing either, if you dont have the internet or an internet connected system, you ARE missing out on a lot.  Nothing they can do about that.  Thats like complaining that systems and accessories are too expensive *shrug* luxury items!

[Saunders1]

Pallando wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Why should any DLC that expands upon the endings be free?

Because you don't pay twice when you get tainted wine, for example.

Han Shot First wrote...

Any DLC that alters the existing ending is an extra that was made only out of fanservice. As such, Bioware has every right to charge for it.

Yet, when you see how much EA spends on marketing (much more thant on actual development), a free DLC would be a better marketing strategy than a lot of things they have done...

And I think that what people fear is that a paying ending is the first step towards Capcom's strategy.

Vormaerin wrote...

You are simply wrong. There has
always been DLC. The difference is that in the old days, they bundled
four or five DLCs together and called it an expansion pack. What do
you think Tales of the Sword Coast was? Paid for additional content.
Throne of Bhaal: paid for additional content.

The only difference is now they can deliver additional content in smaller doses.

... and the price-per-content is higher. 10$ for a 2-hour DLC against 30$ for a 30-hours expansion...

YOU SEE HAHAHA...OMFG!  This right just validated everything Pallando and I where trying to get at.  Do all of you see that link?  That's what's going to become the norm.  "Oh you want to see the real ending?...Well that'll cost you an extra 10$ on top of 60$.  HOLY...MOTHER OF...WTF!? IS GOING ON HERE?  F**K YOU CAPCOM!  
So now we have to pay to see an ending?  HAHAHA...AHH holy S**T. 
So let's go to a movie and WAIT... lights come on.  "Would you like to see the ending folks!  That'll be an extra 3$"  WOW!  F**KING BULLS**T!

Modifié par Saunders1, 02 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Saunders1 wrote...

Pallando wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Why should any DLC that expands upon the endings be free?

Because you don't pay twice when you get tainted wine, for example.

Han Shot First wrote...

Any DLC that alters the existing ending is an extra that was made only out of fanservice. As such, Bioware has every right to charge for it.

Yet, when you see how much EA spends on marketing (much more thant on actual development), a free DLC would be a better marketing strategy than a lot of things they have done...

And I think that what people fear is that a paying ending is the first step towards Capcom's strategy.

Vormaerin wrote...

You are simply wrong. There has
always been DLC. The difference is that in the old days, they bundled
four or five DLCs together and called it an expansion pack. What do
you think Tales of the Sword Coast was? Paid for additional content.
Throne of Bhaal: paid for additional content.

The only difference is now they can deliver additional content in smaller doses.

... and the price-per-content is higher. 10$ for a 2-hour DLC against 30$ for a 30-hours expansion...

YOU SEE HAHAHA...OMFG!  This right just validated everything Pallando and I where trying to get at.  Do all of you see that link?  That's what's going to become the norm.  "Oh you want to see the real ending?...Well that'll cost you an extra 10$ on top of 60$.  HOLY...MOTHER OF...WTF!? IS GOING ON HERE?  F**K YOU CAPCOM!  
So now we have to pay to see an ending?  HAHAHA...AHH holy S**T. 
So let's go to a movie and WAIT... lights come on.  "Would you like to see the ending folks!  That'll be an extra 3$"  WOW!  F**KING BULLS**T!

How so? You never really get an "true ending" in the first place from that perspective. As all DLC extends the life of the product, it adds to it normally after the end of the core game therefore it becomes the new ending. However this does not mean you never got an ending. You did it was just an ending to the game unless you wanted to extend the life of the product in which you bought new content which adds to it. This has been the case for many years already. It is a bit late to be hopping mad now. Most people are very willing to extend and add to the product at the end, you still got your ending and there was no giant black message appearing on screen saying insert coin prior to the final cinematic. You got an ending but could choose to extend its life with new content "if you wished".

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[Phategod1]

Sure wait a year and get the GOTY edition problem solved.

[Dragoonlordz]

Phategod1 wrote...

Sure wait a year and get the GOTY edition problem solved.

I did that with Dragon Age Origins Ultimate Edition, it is a reasonable way to do it if do not like buying DLC separatly and figure there will be a vast amount of content developed during the years it is on sale. But DLC should exist, it should be paid for by those who wish  to pay for it and those who do not can wait a year or two and hope gets bundled with the product.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 08:16 .

[Gleym]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Umm have you been gaming for a while? Realistically speaking games have pretty much stayed the same price for decades now.  When I was a kid I was paying $50 for NES games I recall, which was in the late 80's early 90s which, given inflation is a little more than what we pay now for games.  Granted games jumped up $10 but gaming has always roughly stayed teh same no matter what inflation does ($50 back in the 80's was worth more than $50 is now)

The fact that you think $60 is ridiculous is pretty telling, but thats beside the point.  Expansion packs which were what DLC could be considered has been around for years.  Granted DLC allows for Micro upgrades rather than BIG huge expansions but seeing as its not necessary I have no problem with bonus guns, armor and equipment etc, Its not like they're totally game changing here.  They merely extend the length of the game to a certain subset of people.  In fact I'd be amazed if more than 50% of people who buy a game even buy DLC.

The reason IT WAS NEVER DONE, was because they didn't have a standardized avenue to deliver more content outside of a NEW GAME or expansion pack.  Now with the prevalence of high speed internet and connected gaming, DLC is easier to deliver than it was heck even 5 years ago.

its silly and well.. downright wrong to think that stuff that is DLC would always be part of the game, that simply isn't true.  Even now a days thats not true.  sure sometimes its stupid (like Capcom with S x T) but other times DLC is worthwhile like LOTSB,

I think you're getting a little too worked up over the wrong thing Saunders.

The problem with your logic here is that the games jumped up $10 in price, while the content dropped about 70%. Games today are tiny, content-wise. Those 10GB of disc space that a game takes up on your PC? 80% of that is sound files. Sound files, and maybe cutscenes. It's a ripoff, really, when you stop to think of the fact that just ten years ago games used to be ten bucks cheaper, and yet they lasted longer by far. You could beat ME3 in under a week with 100% Completion if you played a steady amount of hours and didn't skip dialogue and whatever else. Know what game you wouldn't be able to beat in the same way? Planescape: Torment. Or the Baldur's Gate series. Or the Icewind Dale series. Really, the only reason I'm excluding the first two Fallout games is 'cause of the fact that if you're smart and actually skillful you can beat them with relative ease (heck, record for beating FO2 was 5~10 minutes through pure player smarts). But I digress..

Point standing, if you're being charged more now for receiving less than you used to, it's a ripoff. That's just plain and simple.

[Cainne Chapel]

Gleym wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Umm have you been gaming for a while? Realistically speaking games have pretty much stayed the same price for decades now.  When I was a kid I was paying $50 for NES games I recall, which was in the late 80's early 90s which, given inflation is a little more than what we pay now for games.  Granted games jumped up $10 but gaming has always roughly stayed teh same no matter what inflation does ($50 back in the 80's was worth more than $50 is now)

The fact that you think $60 is ridiculous is pretty telling, but thats beside the point.  Expansion packs which were what DLC could be considered has been around for years.  Granted DLC allows for Micro upgrades rather than BIG huge expansions but seeing as its not necessary I have no problem with bonus guns, armor and equipment etc, Its not like they're totally game changing here.  They merely extend the length of the game to a certain subset of people.  In fact I'd be amazed if more than 50% of people who buy a game even buy DLC.

The reason IT WAS NEVER DONE, was because they didn't have a standardized avenue to deliver more content outside of a NEW GAME or expansion pack.  Now with the prevalence of high speed internet and connected gaming, DLC is easier to deliver than it was heck even 5 years ago.

its silly and well.. downright wrong to think that stuff that is DLC would always be part of the game, that simply isn't true.  Even now a days thats not true.  sure sometimes its stupid (like Capcom with S x T) but other times DLC is worthwhile like LOTSB,

I think you're getting a little too worked up over the wrong thing Saunders.

The problem with your logic here is that the games jumped up $10 in price, while the content dropped about 70%. Games today are tiny, content-wise. Those 10GB of disc space that a game takes up on your PC? 80% of that is sound files. Sound files, and maybe cutscenes. It's a ripoff, really, when you stop to think of the fact that just ten years ago games used to be ten bucks cheaper, and yet they lasted longer by far. You could beat ME3 in under a week with 100% Completion if you played a steady amount of hours and didn't skip dialogue and whatever else. Know what game you wouldn't be able to beat in the same way? Planescape: Torment. Or the Baldur's Gate series. Or the Icewind Dale series. Really, the only reason I'm excluding the first two Fallout games is 'cause of the fact that if you're smart and actually skillful you can beat them with relative ease (heck, record for beating FO2 was 5~10 minutes through pure player smarts). But I digress..

Point standing, if you're being charged more now for receiving less than you used to, it's a ripoff. That's just plain and simple.

as it is now it was then

You seem to live in the glory days that just because the game was older that they were longer back then.  Thats not always the case.  You claim price jumped by $10 we lost 70 of the content? 

FOr every planescape torment there was a 7UP:spot.  ALso just because a game is $60 now doesn't mean it is comparatively more expensive than it was back in the old days, dont forget in the US at least there's this thing called inflation.  The dollar now is weaker than it was 20 years ago comparatively speaking.

Sure you can beat ME3 in under a week, doesn't mean everyone does and it also doesn't mean every game had planescape length.  The average game now and then could be beaten in a few hours of solid game play, same holds true now.  For every Skyrim there's a CoD.

But for that matter, games dont NEED to be 100's of hours long, and ME has never even claimed to have the "lengthiest campaign" nor does it need to.  Length of campaign doesn't mean quality either.  I can think of tons of $50 garbage then and $60 garbage now.  

Onlyd ifference being with the advent of internet and high speed internet, its easier to find out which stuff is garbage.

Personally i LIKE the production values and care that goes into games now and the fact that gaming is no longer a basement hobby for nerds.  I personally feel thats a good thing.  Are there casualties? Sure, but its like that in ANY entertainment venue.  You just gotta weed out the good from the bad.  But nowhere do i think we've taking a 70% dip in quality.

So I'm not getting your argument, just because a game is arbitrarily long doesn't make it good and just because a game is short doesn't make it bad.

[kalle90]

Gleym wrote...
Those 10GB of disc space that a game takes up on your PC? 80% of that is sound files. Sound files, and maybe cutscenes.

Martin Sheen's pay is more than the entire budget for a game like Baldur's Gate, so it's logical why games cost more but have less content.

Yet especially with Elder Scrolls people are glamoring for fully voiced player characters, some wanted more voice actors for Shepard...

[Gosia]

Pallando wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Pallando wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Pallando wrote...

Oldbones2 also wrote...
And yes we all want a new one and maybe we are right to ask for one (because wow, it just sucks SO bad), but it isn't right for it to be free.

So if you get a stinky apple pie in a restaurant when you were told the desserts were fabulous and original, you have to pay twice if you decide to try again their desserts... ?

Irrelevant. No more relevant than those who made comments about cars.

Care to explain ?

If you got a stinky apple pie you would not wish to eat another pie that may be stinky from the same place. You would get a refund and go somewhere else. You are free to do so here, if think their game is stinky, sell it or return it and buy a different game. Else what your actually doing is sitting there eating the same stinky pie you hated in spite of the fact you hated it. You are not getting a new pie by paying for DLC, you have the same so called 'stinky' pie but paying for a cherry on top.

So the comparison is not irrelevant. It's just that you'd behave differently.
But if you know the chef is good, you might give him a second chance. You complain to the waiter and get something else instead of getting a refund. 
Do you know how wine is served in restaurants ? 
You taste it and if it's tainted (cork taint for example), you send it back and get another bottle. 

Anyhow, the point is that if you lower your expectations and are willing to pay for anything, industries will make profit with that. You don't mind a badly finished product as long as you can pay to fix it ? Companies are going to love that. Easy money.

You know Pallado that's exactly what I fear 

[Navasha]

Look, the cold hard fact is, that if all the programming and resources that went into DLCs was included in the full game from the start, the games would be $100 bucks on the initial purchase. Then just as many if not more people would be complaining that games are too expensive.

DLCs are a way of giving games a "base" model that people can still afford at "YESTERDAYS" prices while allowing people who want the full luxury model of the game to pay for the full price.

Haven't you ever wondered how games have remained relatively the same price for DECADES, while the price of every single other product out there has doubled or tripled?

[sorentoft]

Ending DLC should obviously be free (the ending is broken, in truth this would be more like a patch). However all DLCs should not be free. DLC like the Shadow Broker and Overlord is really good and worth their price. I hate small DLC like a gun that you can get through registering at a website or some nonsense like that or five weapons for 5$... Plain bad. But a DLC that includes a great story, hours of gameplay, new weapons and gimmicks to top it off for 20$ is a very good DLC.

Thing is that DLC allows for a company like Bioware to expand upon a game without EA poking them because they are not making enough money. And that's great. I would love a Jack DLC if the ending got fixed, but before it is I am not even going to consider it.

[Gosia]

Navasha wrote...

Look, the cold hard fact is, that if all the programming and resources that went into DLCs was included in the full game from the start, the games would be $100 bucks on the initial purchase. Then just as many if not more people would be complaining that games are too expensive.

DLCs are a way of giving games a "base" model that people can still afford at "YESTERDAYS" prices while allowing people who want the full luxury model of the game to pay for the full price.

Haven't you ever wondered how games have remained relatively the same price for DECADES, while the price of every single other product out there has doubled or tripled?

I really wouldn’t mind paying more or waiting longer for the game if only it was logical, coherent and had additional threads in the plot. I really hate it when a game finishes after 20 hours of play.

And btw Planescape Torment, and Baldur’s Gate… reminded me of good old gaming days. 

Modifié par Gosia, 02 avril 2012 - 11:27 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Gosia wrote...

Navasha wrote...

Look, the cold hard fact is, that if all the programming and resources that went into DLCs was included in the full game from the start, the games would be $100 bucks on the initial purchase. Then just as many if not more people would be complaining that games are too expensive.

DLCs are a way of giving games a "base" model that people can still afford at "YESTERDAYS" prices while allowing people who want the full luxury model of the game to pay for the full price.

Haven't you ever wondered how games have remained relatively the same price for DECADES, while the price of every single other product out there has doubled or tripled?

I really wouldn’t mind paying more or waiting longer for the game if only it was logical, coherent and had additional threads in the plot. I really hate it when a game finishes after 20 hours of play.

And btw Planescape Torment, and Baldur’s Gate… reminded me of good old gaming days. 

My playthrough lasted 45 hours, most older titles and games only took me less than 24 hours. Modern games in general are not always smaller, especially Biowares titles, Bethesda and most other RPG developers. They should not be free, neither should the ending DLC. DLC should continue to exist and it should continue to cost for the purpose of extend the game as it is optional and pay the developers for the extra work and resources took in creating it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 12:01 .

[SalsaDMA]

kalle90 wrote...

Gleym wrote...
Those 10GB of disc space that a game takes up on your PC? 80% of that is sound files. Sound files, and maybe cutscenes.

Martin Sheen's pay is more than the entire budget for a game like Baldur's Gate, so it's logical why games cost more but have less content.

Yet especially with Elder Scrolls people are glamoring for fully voiced player characters, some wanted more voice actors for Shepard...

They didn't NEED to hire Sheen. Or Freddie Prince Jr. Or.. and so on...

There's lots of talent out there that aren't established well known personaes. Hiring those 'Brand names' is just part of marketing costs, rather than 'real' production costs. They could have gotten talented 'unknowns' to do the voices and the results could have been as good (or in some cases better, even, as not all the ME voice acting is stellar) for far lesser costs.

On another note, I remember back in the old days, when I actually bought gaming magazines, one of the scoring criteria was called "Longevity". How long playing time you could get from a title was pretty important back then, as the price for a game, at the time, was considered pretty big for each title compared to money value back then.