236 réponses à ce sujet

[henkez3]

I just read an article on Gamespot that more or less hits the nail on the head when it comes to DLC. Now, I'm not directing this as jape at BioWare, or really at DLC, as you'll read in the article, DLC is great when it's done right. BioWare IS mentioned, not Dragon Age however, but Mass Effect and I couldn't agree more with Mc shea's opinion on it. I felt seriously left out on some of the story in ME3 because I didn't buy the comics and so on that were associated with the game. The problem isn't the existance of said comics, it's that their plots intertwines with the main game's plot. Again I'm not out to insult BioWare but perhaps they could find something to learn from the article with regards to DA3.

There are also other great points about the article and it largely deals with what Dark Souls did right with its DLC. It's a great read for consumer and developer alike.

http://www.gamespot....ts-you-6399923/

[Tommyspa]

I'd prefer all DLC to have plot/lore important details, I do not see it as a exploitation more than DLC without that. The DLC comes no matter what, why have an issue with it meaning something to the plot or lore. I'm less inclined to pay for something without importance than DLC with plot importance. If I gathered the gist correctly, anyway.

[Maria Caliban]

When Jack in the Box makes me pay 50 cents more for a large diet pepsi instead of a small one, that's *exploitation* of those who love diet pepsi the most. Also, it's disrespectful for businesses to charge people for extras!

Or gamers are whiners who are out of touch with how goods and services have been sold for decades now.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 novembre 2012 - 10:56 .

[henkez3]

Maria Caliban wrote...

When Jack in the Box makes me pay 50 cents more for a large diet pepsi instead of a small one, that's *exploitation* of those who love diet pepsi the most. Also, it's disrespectful for businesses to charge people for extras!

Or gamers are whiners who are out of touch with how goods and services have been sold for decades now.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

[Maria Caliban]

Did you not bother to read the article you linked?

It's an exploitative method of doing business that puts the financial burden on those who are most invested in the game...

There are more examples of how this disrespectful relationship has played out through the years...

[henkez3]

Yes I did. Can you point out the specifics? The article contain more sentences than those. Such as the one about on-disc DLC and selling season passes.

[Joe Hegarty]

I found the article interesting, though I didn't agree with it all. I think "petty cash grabbing" is very strong and in my experience that's really not the attitude any developer is using when making the content.

However, it's definitely a difficult one for devs and players alike. You want extra-content to be a good value-proposition, otherwise why would you buy it at all? But you also don't want people to feel left out if they don't play it. When I am really into a game/universe I love to get my hands on new content without waiting 2 - 3 years.

That's tricky line to walk if you need to avoid segmenting the community (MP game) and make sure you still have a solid story that makes sense between titles (SP game)

Not really my area, so just an opinion as a player.

Modifié par JoeHegarty, 21 novembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[ledod]

Maria Caliban wrote...

When Jack in the Box makes me pay 50 cents more for a large diet pepsi instead of a small one, that's *exploitation* of those who love diet pepsi the most. Also, it's disrespectful for businesses to charge people for extras!

Or gamers are whiners who are out of touch with how goods and services have been sold for decades now.

One's intrinsic enjoyment of said hypothetical large pepsi does not impede upon the utility provided by the small pepsi. When key plot points are removed from the small pepsi base game, one is affected by the existence of the large pepsi-plot dlc.

[Savber100]

I lost every ounce of respect for Gamespot after the Kane and Lynch 2 review and the scandal with the publisher/press relations.

[henkez3]

JoeHegarty wrote...

I found the article interesting, though I didn't agree with it all. I think "petty cash grabbing" is very strong and in my experience that's really not the attitude any developer is using when making the content.

However, it's definitely a difficult one for devs and players alike. You want extra-content to be a good value-proposition, otherwise why would you buy it at all? But you also don't want people to feel left out if they don't play it. When I am really into a game/universe I love to get my hands on new content without waiting 2 - 3 years.

That's tricky line to walk if you need to avoid segmenting the community (MP game) and make sure you still have a solid story that makes sense between titles (SP game)

Not really my area, so just an opinion as a player.

I agree. It's a very difficult line to walk. I personally felt very strange when starting up ME3 for the first time and my Shepard knew who Vega was while I had absolutely no idea, but that's not actually related to DLC. When it comes, to say, sebastian in DA2 I found the motivation for not including him in the first place a bit strange. You did the voicework, you designed him and made his quests before DA2 was launched but he still wound up as DLC? That's a bit strange, it felt like you didn't need to sell that "cut" content, as DLC. Perhaps this has been explained thoroughly here on the boards in which case I missed it and there is a perfectly reasonable explination, then I apologize for coming off as a bit harsh.

The ME games had some real gaps though, such as Kai Leng, again, had no idea who he was, but this is not related to either DLC or DA. You do feel really left out. ME2 and 3 did not feel like complete games out of the box.

On the other hand, I found Legacy and MoTA to be great additions to DA2 and I really feel like they are good examples of DLC. When it comes to armour and weapon packs, I think they're fine, it's just for single player, you either get them or you don't, there is really no detriment in not getting them. But selling truly important pieces of the overall main plot of any game is really bad I think.

[Direwolf0294]

I don't know if I can agree with the thing about ME2. While I certainly get where they're coming from and even feel that way myself sometimes, another part of me wants to point at that you can't just play ME1, skip ME2 and go straight to playing ME3 and expect to get the full story, and if you do and then complain about it everyone will call you an idiot, and it's a bit of a double standard not to apply the same line of thinking to DLC.

[Harlequin2]

I'm not really sure if Origins did it. Awakening was DLC and carried some main plot extension about the Darkspawn and characters that appeared in Dragon Age 2. But then again, it wasn't entirely important and the new player character in number two meant that it's understandable if you'd never met Anders before. Again, Witch Hunt carried a few plot points but I don't think they were essential.

As for ME3, I was pretty immersed into the DLC and extras, but I can understand people going from the end of ME2 into it and thinking "Hold on, I just saved the galaxy from the Collectors. Why am I in custody? And who is that guy I'm meant to know?" But as long as Dragon Age carries on with DLC like Awakenings, Legacy and MotA then I'm a happy bunny.

[samgurl775]

A lot of the DLC for Mass Effect is a perfect example of how not to do DLC. Things that are crucial to the plot (Shadow Broker, Arrival, Javik) shouldn't be DLC, they should be in the original game.

[Shevy]

I fully agree with him on things like "day one DLC". While the assumptions you can make may not be true, it has this bad aftertaste.
With the rest I think he was a little bit too harsh. Sure, there are "cash grab" DLC like map packs which force you indirectly to buy them because otherwise you lose a part of the gamer pool. Even worse if they are recycles of the predecessor's maps.

But in general DLC can add quality, if they are closed in themself and don't feel like being cut from the core game and leaving you feeling to miss something crucial to the main game. Legacy and MotA did it well, imo. They tested things ( stealth in MotA, better handling of the wave system in Legacy) and except the passiveness of Hawke in the end of MotA they were fun.

My personal favourites when it comes to DLC are Dark Souls Abyss and the "add-ons" for GTA IV.

[Asch Lavigne]

JoeHegarty wrote...

I found the article interesting, though I didn't agree with it all. I think "petty cash grabbing" is very strong and in my experience that's really not the attitude any developer is using when making the content.

However, it's definitely a difficult one for devs and players alike. You want extra-content to be a good value-proposition, otherwise why would you buy it at all? But you also don't want people to feel left out if they don't play it. When I am really into a game/universe I love to get my hands on new content without waiting 2 - 3 years.

That's tricky line to walk if you need to avoid segmenting the community (MP game) and make sure you still have a solid story that makes sense between titles (SP game)

Not really my area, so just an opinion as a player.

A tricky line indeed. And a valid point. Day 1 DLC bugs me, I don't hate it, but it irks me. Waiting forever is annoying too but so is like what Borderlands 2 is doing where DLC is coming out really fast after the game launched. As you said, its a fine line.

I also hate Season Passes. You plan all the DLC out? Great, then put it in the actual game. I feel that already knowing ahead of time what the DLC will be and how many there will be is kinda shady. I also never buy them because there has never been a game I've been interested in all the DLC for. Anyways, end of that tangent.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 22 novembre 2012 - 12:06 .

[Boss Fog]

samgurl775 wrote...

A lot of the DLC for Mass Effect is a perfect example of how not to do DLC. Things that are crucial to the plot (Shadow Broker, Arrival, Javik) shouldn't be DLC, they should be in the original game.

Javik was not essential to the plot in any way shape or form.  Being a prothean doesn't really matter since he really had zero knowledge on the catalyst/crucible.  All he was there for was to provide some insight on Prothean culture which only really effected Liara's opinion on the matter.

[henkez3]

franciscoamell wrote...

Harlequin2 wrote...

I'm not really sure if Origins did it. Awakening was DLC and carried some main plot extension about the Darkspawn and characters that appeared in Dragon Age 2.

Awakening is not DLC. It's an expansion which is something I fully support.

I agree, I prefer expansions to DLC, even to DLC such as Legacy and MoTA.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, the protheans were very important to ME and ME2's plots. They made us care about the protheans, why sideline it if not for more money?

So we shouldn't release DLC for stuff that people find interesting and care armor? Think clearly about the message you're sending with this current post, because what I interpret you saying is: "If it's something I want and care about, I don't want it to be a part of DLC."

If it's simply a perspective of "This is content I really want," it's not much of an argument against it being DLC. It makes sense for you to want as much as you can get for as little cost as possible, so I understand your perspective. How do you quantify whether or not something is "essential" to the game. I disagree that Javik is essential. I do agree that he's interesting. I'd prefer to make DLC people find interesting instead of uninteresting. So how do we reconcile this?


(And to everyone else, suggest a forum for this to move to. This isn't a DA3 thread, but I don't want to stop the discussion).

[Dominus]

(And to everyone else, suggest a forum for this to move to. This isn't a DA3 thread, but I don't want to stop the discussion).

Likely the best choice is Off-Topic. If it's not directly related to any specific BioWare game, there's the winner.

Modifié par DominusVita, 22 novembre 2012 - 12:22 .

[Adanu]

The article was written by Gamespot. That automatically invalidates anything it might say.

[upsettingshorts]

franciscoamell wrote...

Well, the protheans were very important to ME and ME2's plots. They made us care about the protheans, why sideline it if not for more money?

Game company releases DLC with compelling content:

WHY ARE YOU CHARGING US FOR THIS ESSENTIAL CONTENT?!  SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MAIN GAME!

Game company releases DLC with pointless content:

HOW DARE YOU CHARGE YOUR FANS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS?!  MAKE SOMETHING GOOD FOR DLC!

franciscoamell wrote...

Awakening is not DLC. It's an expansion which is something I fully support.

The practical differences are insubstantial and entirely based on volume.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2012 - 12:30 .