319 réponses à ce sujet

[Robhuzz]

Oldbones2 wrote...

It is right to charge for the Alt ending DLC (if it gets made) because 1 DLC's cost money to make 2 you got exactly what you paid for.

Allow me to elaborate. You bought ME 3 on the basis that Casey Hudson and the ME team would give you their best effort and their vision for the final game. They did.

It sucked.

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.

Did we now? I remember being promised a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy that offered closure, I didn't see that anywhere.

[Inxentas]

As a programmer and writer of professional software, I still find DLC a dubious practice. I must admit I find the concept interesting, being able to modify the game after release, tweaking minor details, implementing constructive feedback... it has it's benevolent uses. 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.

I find this practice unfair, sickening, and it motivates me to not put any TRUST in these companies. It leads me to believe the pioneers of yesterday, are the talking suits of the present age. I find the archetype of talking suit far less respectable then that of a developer, and hence a small devil starts to rear it's head: not giving a flying **** about what happens to the company in the future. Condoning software piracy out of spite. And general displeasure on forums to boot.

Already amazed by their reasoning about 'artistic integrity' while ripping off Deus Ex endings, the blatant day-one DLC price bumps and the breaking of advertsing promises, I would rather compare games that allow high emotional investment with HIGHLY ADDICTING DRUGS that are readily available but way to expensive for the common man. That's right I said it; having an emotional masterpiece turned into the biggest bait-and-switch nonsense I have ever seen in the 8 years of my IT carreer, is truly saddening. I do believe however, it is up to BioWare to decide when and how to ruin their reputation.

When I heard the name BioWare a few years back, I would be struck with the compulsion to tell everybody how engaging their games were. They were all worth your buck. Whenever I hear that name now, I just shrug and think of the 1001 software developers that came and went before them. It just makes me a little sad to learn they too fell into the abyss of the modern gaming age.

/rant

[bigfootedfred]

rEApers - Haversting DLC money every cycle..

[Dragoonlordz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

Not up to you who they choose to use in their titles. If you want that level of control over production your need to  your own games.

[Dragoonlordz]

Robhuzz wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

It is right to charge for the Alt ending DLC (if it gets made) because 1 DLC's cost money to make 2 you got exactly what you paid for.

Allow me to elaborate. You bought ME 3 on the basis that Casey Hudson and the ME team would give you their best effort and their vision for the final game. They did.

It sucked.

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.

Did we now? I remember being promised a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy that offered closure, I didn't see that anywhere.

Satisfying is dependant on person, they do not owe you for such.

[Dragoonlordz]

These forums used to be a place where people came to talk about the games they loved now it is merely a place to whine about every single thing Bioware ever apparently do. Many people cba to even state any positives before they get just stuck like a broken record only ever saying negative things or moaning and it is getting quite tedious.

[Dragoonlordz]

bigfootedfred wrote...

rEApers - Haversting DLC money every cycle..

DLC is good for gamers, way to extend the life of the product at a cheaper price than buying an entire new game and it is always optional.

[RyuujinZERO]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

These forums used to be a place where people came to talk about the games they loved now it is merely a place to whine about every single thing Bioware ever apparently do.

That is because some of us have been here long enough to see the downward spiral.


Neverwinter Nights was a mediocre bit of storytelling but that wasn't the point. It was massively moddable and could be played online; you could create your own persistant world MMO-style servers, they gave us the tools to make our own fun and they let us do that; the level of modification was immense - KotOR and Witcher both use NWN's "aurora" engine. I spent years playing this. The game recieved 2 expansions over the years; both of which only cost aroudn twice as much as "from ashes", and added 2 entire campaigns lasting around 20-30 hours each, adding multiple new tilesets, monsters, spells, classes, skills and equipment.

Later on, when DLC started emerging, Bioware did a set of "premium packs" where they paid the cream of the NWN modding community to make DLC. Yeah they actually put forward monetary incentives to the community to expand the game, talk about community interaction.

But there was a problem... NWN gave us IMMENSE fun; but... you can't tax fun when players make their own.




Knights of the Old Republic was not moddable, but it was a grand piece of story telling and no doubt gave them practice at sci-fi writing we see in mass Effect. SW:KotR came as is, there were no expansions, no DLC you got the entire experience in a single package. It was still a good deal though the lack of modding made it a shorter experience, the setup didn't really lend itself to modding anyway.


Jade Empire I never played myself, but I've always heard good reviews of, many seem to think of it as Bioware's last untarnished game before the marketting rot set in.



Dragon Age was tauted as NWN's spiritual successor, it was moddable and had a community focus, and it was going to have persistant world multiplayer... but then EA came along and suddenly Multiplayer was dropped even though most of the coding was done; it was pretty obvious why: If players can make their own persistant world MMO's, they could have fun that they didn't pay EA for. Dragon Age also introduced the concept of cutting bits out of the original game and sticking them back in as DLC and even having in-game advertisments!




Mass Effect came out before Dragon Age, and the original had little or no DLC. But Mass Effect 2 quickly turned into a cash cow, with most of the story exposition being contained in DLC, novels and comics. A player who only played the core game would feel quite lost come ME3. And now we have Mass Effect 3... with it's massive amounts of unlock codes, unrelated merchanidse needed to unlock all the features, day 1 DLC and we have pretty good evidence that they chopped off part of the content; and they're trying to sell us the ending seperately

Oh, and modding? - Modding ME3 can get your account banned if origin detects the changes. Long gone are the days of making your own fun, you have to pay EA for the right to have fun - not to mention Origin at all; to play the game you have to authorise EA to watch over your shoulder like big brother to check you're being a double plus good citizen




Ever think maybe we have a valid reason to wear a tinfoil hat?

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 02 avril 2012 - 12:47 .

[Gosia]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

These forums used to be a place where people came to talk about the games they loved now it is merely a place to whine about every single thing Bioware ever apparently do.

That is because some of us have been here long enough to see the downward spiral.


Neverwinter Nights was a mediocre bit of storytelling but that wasn't the point. It was massively moddable and could be played online; you could create your own persistant world MMO-style servers, they gave us the tools to make our own fun and they let us do that; the level of modification was immense - KotOR and Witcher both use NWN's "aurora" engine. I spent years playing this. The game recieved 2 expansions over the years; both of which only cost aroudn twice as much as "from ashes", and added 2 entire campaigns lasting around 20-30 hours each, adding multiple new tilesets, monsters, spells, classes, skills and equipment.

Later on, when DLC started emerging, Bioware did a set of "premium packs" where they paid the cream of the NWN modding community to make DLC. Yeah they actually put forward monetary incentives to the community to expand the game, talk about community interaction.

But there was a problem... NWN gave us IMMENSE fun; but... you can't tax fun when players make their own.




Knights of the Old Republic was not moddable, but it was a grand piece of story telling and no doubt gave them practice at sci-fi writing we see in mass Effect. SW:KotR came as is, there were no expansions, no DLC you got the entire experience in a single package. It was still a good deal though the lack of modding made it a shorter experience, the setup didn't really lend itself to modding anyway.


Jade Empire I never played myself, but I've always heard good reviews of, many seem to think of it as Bioware's last untarnished game before the marketting rot set in.



Dragon Age was tauted as NWN's spiritual successor, it was moddable and had a community focus, and it was going to have persistant world multiplayer... but then EA came along and suddenly Multiplayer was dropped even though most of the coding was done; it was pretty obvious why: If players can make their own persistant world MMO's, they could have fun that they didn't pay EA for. Dragon Age also introduced the concept of cutting bits out of the original game and sticking them back in as DLC and even having in-game advertisments!




Mass Effect came out before Dragon Age, and the original had little or no DLC. But Mass Effect 2 quickly turned into a cash cow, with most of the story exposition being contained in DLC, novels and comics. A player who only played the core game would feel quite lost come ME3. And now we have Mass Effect 3... with it's massive amounts of unlock codes, unrelated merchanidse needed to unlock all the features, day 1 DLC and we have pretty good evidence that they chopped off part of the content; and they're trying to sell us the ending seperately

Oh, and modding? - Modding ME3 can get your account banned if origin detects the changes. Long gone are the days of making your own fun, you have to pay EA for the right to have fun




Ever think maybe we have a valid reason to wear a tinfoil hat?

I thought I was the only one seeing this, sad but true.

[Dragoonlordz]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

These forums used to be a place where people came to talk about the games they loved now it is merely a place to whine about every single thing Bioware ever apparently do.

That is because some of us have been here long enough to see the downward spiral.


Neverwinter Nights was a mediocre bit of storytelling but that wasn't the point. It was massively moddable and could be played online; you could create your own persistant world MMO-style servers, they gave us the tools to make our own fun and they let us do that; the level of modification was immense - KotOR and Witcher both use NWN's "aurora" engine. I spent years playing this

Later on, when DLC started emerging, Bioware did a set of "premium packs" where they paid the cream of the NWN modding community to make DLC. Yeah they actually put forward monetary incentives to the community to expand the game, rather than focusing on mass profit for themselves. Talk about community interaction.

But there was a problem... NWN gave us IMMENSE fun; but... you can't tax fun when players make their own.




Knights of the Old Republic was not moddable, but it was a grand piece of story telling and no doubt gave them practice at sci-fi writing we see in mass Effect. SW:KotR came as is, there were no expansions, no DLC you got the entire experience in a single package. It was still a good deal though the lack of modding made it a shorter experience, the setup didn't really lend itself to modding anyway.


Jade Empire I never played myself, but I've always heard good reviews of, many seem to think of it as Bioware's last untarnished game before the marketting rot set in.



Dragon Age was tauted as NWN's spiritual successor, it was moddable and had a community focus, and it was going to have persistant world multiplayer... but then EA came along and suddenly Multiplayer was dropped even though most of the coding was done; it was pretty obvious why: If players can make their own persistant world MMO's, they could have fun that they didn't pay EA for. Dragon Age also introduced the concept of cutting bits out of the original game and sticking them back in as DLC and even having in-game advertisments!




Mass Effect came out before Dragon Age, and the original had little or no DLC. But Mass Effect 2 quickly turned into a cash cow, with most of the story exposition being contained in DLC, novels and comics. A player who only played the core game would feel quite lost come ME3. And now we have Mass Effect 3... with it's massive amounts of unlock codes, unrelated merchanidse needed to unlock all the features, day 1 DLC and we have pretty good evidence that they chopped off part of the content; and they're trying to sell us the ending seperately




Ever think maybe we have a valid reason to wear a tinfoil hat?

They are a business, the business of creating games to sell. An industry which costs are spiraling upwards from CGI to required staff costs and time to develop also going up in cost. They have always been such, profit matters and goes towards further titles and DLC is one way to gain such profit during the life cycle of a development. They are not a charity and profit should matter to them. Hell you can buy Fable 2 in parts from start, middle and end separatly if feel the need to complain about sellng endings or starts or even middles. You do not need a tin foil hat, more like keep up with the times, there was positive elements to the old days of 80's and 90's gaming but there is also positives in this generation of gaming. In future say 15 years from now you will be looking back at this as bliss, but it was always going to go that way as new technology and costs go up to create products, the prices of the products and need to keep funding through the life of the product and development of new titles becomes even more necessary. The fact they have managed to keep retail price around the same for a decade despite the vast rising cost to develop, you can partially thank DLC for keeping that price down.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 12:55 .

[SalsaDMA]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

Not up to you who they choose to use in their titles. If you want that level of control over production your need to  your own games.

So? who cares who it is up to.

Using it as an argument for why prices of games should rise is silly as it's clear that there are cheaper alternatives that provide the same (or better) quality.

It's all about marketing, nothing else. And when it starts being about marketing costs, it stops being a production cost required to make the game.

Given the level of how deep business decisions contra design decisions run in EA, though, it shouldn't come as a surprise as it's hardly the only thing they did/do to add marketing stuff at the 'cost' of product quality.

[Dragoonlordz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

Not up to you who they choose to use in their titles. If you want that level of control over production your need to  your own games.

So? who cares who it is up to.

Using it as an argument for why prices of games should rise is silly as it's clear that there are cheaper alternatives that provide the same (or better) quality.

It's all about marketing, nothing else. And when it starts being about marketing costs, it stops being a production cost required to make the game.

Given the level of how deep business decisions contra design decisions run in EA, though, it shouldn't come as a surprise as it's hardly the only thing they did/do to add marketing stuff at the 'cost' of product quality.

Better=(subjective personal taste). This makes that element pointless to discuss.

The cost is their problem not yours, as such they decide who to use and there is no debate to have on this subject because of those two things. Like said if your want to pick how much they spend on VO or who they use then you have to resort to making your own because there is no other way for you to impose such decisions.

[RyuujinZERO]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They are a business, the business of creating games to sell. An industry which costs are spiraling upwards from CGI to required staff costs and time to develop also going up in cost. They have always been such, profit matters and goes towards further titles and DLC is one way to gain such profit during the life cycle of a development. They are not a charity and profit should matter to them. Hell you can buy Fable 2 in parts from start, middle and end separatly if feel the need to complain about sellng endings or starts or even middles. You do not need a tin foil hat, more like keep up with the times, there was positive elements to the old days of 80's and 90's gaming but there is also positives in this generation of gaming. In future say 15 years from now you will be looking back at this as bliss, but it was always going to go that way as new technology and costs go up to create products, the prices of the products and need to keep funding through the life of the product and development of new titles becomes even more necessary.

Moving with the times is one thing, but it's up to you to help shape that future. Bending over and "taking it" because "this is the future" is one way to guarantee that it will be the future and that is the only reason this period will look like bliss compared. 

[SalsaDMA]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

Not up to you who they choose to use in their titles. If you want that level of control over production your need to  your own games.

So? who cares who it is up to.

Using it as an argument for why prices of games should rise is silly as it's clear that there are cheaper alternatives that provide the same (or better) quality.

It's all about marketing, nothing else. And when it starts being about marketing costs, it stops being a production cost required to make the game.

Given the level of how deep business decisions contra design decisions run in EA, though, it shouldn't come as a surprise as it's hardly the only thing they did/do to add marketing stuff at the 'cost' of product quality.

Better=(subjective personal taste). This makes that element pointless to discuss.

The cost is their problem not yours, as such they decide who to use and there is no debate to have on this subject because of those two things. Like said if your want to pick how much they spend on VO or who they use then you have to resort to making your own because there is no other way for you to impose such decisions.

When they turn more and more assets of making a game into marketing assets, rather than using those money on improving the product, then it becomes the consumers problem. Eventually it leads to consumers just not caring about the products from that developer, which we are seeing a trend in happening already in regards to EA. For a token example at how bad consumer reputation can get, you only need to look at Ubisoft and their PC consumers. For the most part, people just don't bother anymore with Ubisoft PC-products. Is that the way you want for EA to go as well?

Hubris only leads one way. Down.

[wolfsite]

There is no problem with DLC.  The thing is people buy DLC and it has shown developers/publishers that DLC makes money.

Capcom is probably the worst for this as they sell cosutme packs, even colour palettes as DLC as well as selling content still locked on the Disc.

However you can't really fault a company because the consumer prooves that it is a good way to generate revenue.  That doesn't make a company evil, it is just a business decision to increase profits which is what a business requires to fund future projects.

[Vormaerin]

The idea that DLC is fundamentally different than expansion packs is ludicrous. With ME2, you had the option of buying gear packs, appearance packs, the two extra NPCs, Shadow Broker, and Arrival individually. In the old days, they would be bundled into 1-2 expansion packs. How is that better? It just means the content takes longer to get to us while they wait for enough to justify an xpac price point.   And you have to pay for everything even if you only want part of it.

Are you seriously trying to argue that selling Lair and Arrival is different than Baldur's Gate having "Tales of the Sword Coast" or BG2 having "Throne of Bhaal"? You are still paying extra for content. You are just getting less of it and slower the old way.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 02 avril 2012 - 01:02 .

[Dragoonlordz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

When they turn more and more assets of making a game into marketing assets, rather than using those money on improving the product, then it becomes the consumers problem. Eventually it leads to consumers just not caring about the products from that developer, which we are seeing a trend in happening already in regards to EA. For a token example at how bad consumer reputation can get, you only need to look at Ubisoft and their PC consumers. For the most part, people just don't bother anymore with Ubisoft PC-products. Is that the way you want for EA to go as well?

Hubris only leads one way. Down.

People will continue to pay across the board on all of EA's products. It is also nothing to do with you what they spend on marketting or assets. The money comes from EA not you just because bought ME, it comes from EA and a pool of resources across multiple outlets, investments, products and games on all formats of all kinds.

People still buy Ubisofts products, I bought a Ubisoft product only a month ago HoMM6 (PC). As a consumer you can choose to support it or not with your wallet but for each one of you who refuses to support DLC (which is what this thread is about), a million others will support it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 01:09 .

[nikki191]

Han Shot First wrote...

feliciano2040 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.

This is the exact type of opinions that validate the developers' tendency to abuse it's consumer base, "fans" are nothing more than walking ads with dollar-made bullseyes on their chests these days.

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

The game shipped with an ending. It just worked out that most of the fanbase didn't like the ending. Nevertheless, you were not sold an incomplete product.

If you watch a film in the theater that has a disappointing ending, do you then have a right to demand that the filmmakers reshoot the ending and release it on DVD, for free, production costs be damned? Because that is basically what people are doing by demanding that Bioware release DLC correcting the ending, without charging for it.

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.

i get what you are saying but that fails to take something into consideration, fan goodwill.. people are frustrated and annoyed with bioware and the ending. if they try to charge people who are already annoyed and frustrated you have probably lost them as a customer permanently

[digby69]

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.

Shakes head slowly

[Alex_SM]

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. 

[wolfsite]

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.

[Alex_SM]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

People still buy Ubisofts products, I bought a Ubisoft product only a month ago HoMM6 (PC). 

Ubisoft recently lost around 90% of PC sales. 

http://www.pcgamer.c...eath-of-reason/

[Dragoonlordz]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They are a business, the business of creating games to sell. An industry which costs are spiraling upwards from CGI to required staff costs and time to develop also going up in cost. They have always been such, profit matters and goes towards further titles and DLC is one way to gain such profit during the life cycle of a development. They are not a charity and profit should matter to them. Hell you can buy Fable 2 in parts from start, middle and end separatly if feel the need to complain about sellng endings or starts or even middles. You do not need a tin foil hat, more like keep up with the times, there was positive elements to the old days of 80's and 90's gaming but there is also positives in this generation of gaming. In future say 15 years from now you will be looking back at this as bliss, but it was always going to go that way as new technology and costs go up to create products, the prices of the products and need to keep funding through the life of the product and development of new titles becomes even more necessary.

Moving with the times is one thing, but it's up to you to help shape that future. Bending over and "taking it" because "this is the future" is one way to guarantee that it will be the future and that is the only reason this period will look like bliss compared. 

I plan on very much supporting it thanks, I like DLC. You can already buy games in parts these days and many do so, I gave one example already of such. Gaming is a hobby, as long as the product is fun and I can afford to keep it as a hobby then I shall continue to do so.

[Dragoonlordz]

Alex_SM wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

People still buy Ubisofts products, I bought a Ubisoft product only a month ago HoMM6 (PC). 

Ubisoft recently lost around 90% of PC sales. 

http://www.pcgamer.c...eath-of-reason/

PC sales are an extremely tiny portion of the gaming market (games not hardware element). I doubt they would shed any tears. Sooner or later they will find the ideal form of DRM they wish to use but in mean time they are not going to cry over PC sales as consoles do make vastly more money and this is coming from a PC gamer saying this.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 01:18 .

[Icinix]

I like DLC when they follow Expansion levels, or at least 1/3 the price for 1/3 a full blown expansion.

I don't like paying for small weapons and small armour packs, thats just annoying, but if a DLC really expands upon the game (like LotSB, Shale, Wardens Keep etc) then I have no issue, because they're about that price / size point for expansion levels.

I would rather of course have one or two full blown expansions than multiple pieces. But hey, I'll take what I can get.