107 réponses à ce sujet

[Pyroninja42]

...So... Does anyone actually agree with this?

[Valmar]

I'd probably agree with it if it meant you instantly max-unlocked everything released in said DLC. I really don't like the RNG store.

[Mad Scientist]

This sounds like a troll but I'll bite anyway. Hell no, I wouldn't. $10/month is what MMO's cost nowdays and ME3MP is not even close to MMO standards. For starters, they'd have to get rid of RNG store.

[Badpanzer]

No.

[Bzilla]

Yes, if I got paid the $10/month.

[Tiby4u]

No I would not if we were talking about a full price game. Something like this would work with a free to play game. "Try out what we've got for free and if you like it we've got more for you and it costs 10$ a month." Something like that would be ok but a full price game and bi-monthly DLC for 10$ a month... everyone knows that would just mean the publisher asked the developer to either withhold content that they already have or to just ship the game before they were done with it and sell the rest as DLC. How else would they manage to churn out DLC twice a month, and I'm talking about serious meaty DLC like new characters, weapons, SP story missions, MP maps not different outfits, voices for characters or worthless stuff like that.

[N7Kopper]

No. I don't think we should either be forced to pay for stuff to keep a full multiplayer service, nor allowed to shortcut the RNG. The first splits the fanbase, the second is not RPGlike whatsoever.

[AlexMBrennan]

No. Paying a monthly subscription creates the worst possible incentives for the developers - rather than making fun content, they'll dig out all psychological tricks to make people keep playing.

As for the price (effectively, $5 DLC every fortnight), I might consider that if it was decent (determined by watching a complete let's play first since Bioware has proven untrustworthy).

Finally, I rather favour the "release when it's ready" model than forcing developers to push something out of the door every other week.

we should [not be] allowed to shortcut the RNG. [It] is not RPGlike whatsoever

Lol what? Where did you get that impression? Why should random drops be integral to role playing games?
Did you complain about the non-random quest rewards in BG? Or non-random loot in DA (e.g. AW sword from that cultist cave?). Would ME3 have been improved if fetch quests required you to endlessly farm respawning mobs?

Yeah, sure, randomized loot is very common and there's a reason for it - operant conditioning works better with random rewards: If the monkey gets food every time it pulls a lever, it will soon stop; on the other hand, if the monkey gets a reward some of the time it will keep pulling the lever indefinitely.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 06 février 2013 - 05:18 .

[HolyAvenger]

lolno

[metalharcos]

pay for dlc? it's a joke. EA puplished an incomplete game, didn't it?EA is a money-grubber company

[N7Dropout1]

This doesn't need constant updates. There are more than enough maps, kits, guns and enemies to enjoy for a good while longer. What BW should focus on after this next DLC is simply fixing the bugs, exploits and problems that have lingered and hurt the gameplay experience.

[SleepWalker]

No, but I would pay $5-10 for each DLC though.

[Chobbly]

alphapedia wrote...

No, but I would pay $5-10 for each DLC though.

If, when you bought the DLC:

• You got a level 1 in all the weapons and wargear in the DLC, even if UR.
• You got a single character card for all the new characters.

Then I'd be ok with that . Of course, I'd expect a statement from EA/Bioware about how long the MP servers will be kept going for (and a date), otherwise you wouldn't know how long you could access your purchased content for.

[Siegdrifa]

Not a god damn chance.

[Xeraphas]

$10 a year for one game is far better than once a month, and the answer is a resounding NO, unless the game had far fewer bugs than it currently does and a much better system of servers which has a way lower dropped players rate. $10 a month is more than the entire service for xbox, some pay channels, and even getting entire game systems. That equals to $120 a year. You can get the Wii for about that, or a used or refurbished Xbox 360. That is a bit high for any game. Remember also, this rent is not for an entire video game, as you claim it is mainly for dlcs. You can buy all dlcs in a year for less than that.

I would want a better store system if I am paying for it too. Often I can spend dozens and dozens of psp or equivalent credits on packs and get no weapon or weapon upgrade, and at the moment that is about the only major thing I have left to get.

OPS pack is totally USELESS right now. Not only does the game steal it more than half the time (credit it as used but provides no benefit.), but you never get enough of them from the store to balance out against how many missiles and Ammo resupply packs you get. Heck, I even get more medipacks than ops packs.

Regardless of what everyone says, the game is not balanced to the best of all possible sets of stats. If it were, there would be no rebalancing ever. No enemy faction would ever cheat. No weapon would ever be called op or perform better on average than all powers. All characters would have a relatively equal proportion of advantages to disadvantages. All enemy factions would be unique with unique strategies to combat them, not recent rebalancing to make factions more alike. And all weapons, powers, combos, characters, classes, bonus gears, and consumables would actually work and do so consistently.

If I paid rent, I would also expect to see more than a few small maps and horde mode, and probably new enemies eventually introduced.

[mrcanada]

Nope.

[unclemonster]

yes

[Ice Cold J]

 I think there's too much DLC as it is, so no way.

[Sir_Alan_]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Pay money for new bugs? You must be kidding...

[TheBMT]

If it was a story based Multiplayer DLC, then its a possibility.

I really like the Spartan Ops campaign in Halo 4. Each week the story gives a broader stroke to the Halo 4-Halo 5 story. Each week you have new missions to conduct that can be challenging. The infinite respawns not so much, but thats Halo for ya.

I could easily see missions being done with your squad on a weekly basis for a 10 week season. It would give players something to do to break up the monotony of the wave warfare, as well as give the weekly "story challenge" some actual visual identity.

Personally I would pay 20 bucks for a 50 mission, 10 week season for Halo 4 if they brought out a 2nd one. Same for a Mass Effect DLC on the same level. But if its for ME4, make it included in the purchase of the game, to get us hooked. As of now, I don't see something like that being incorporated into ME3.

[ElectroNeonPanda]

Yes!

Oh wait... no!

MMOs charge a $10-15/month sub fee to maintain persistent, developing worlds.  A couple of new character skins with a different mix of existing powers, and slightly stronger/weaker weapons/gear locked behind the terrible Store Lottery system isn't something I'd remotely consider throwing my money at.  

If they gave the current loot Lottery system a considerable overhaul I'd definitely reconsider that viewpoint though.  I can almost imagine the frenzied scrabbling of EA accountants gauging whether they'd make more money from monthly subs vs an intentionally broken store system. /toggle tinfoilhat off

Modifié par ElectroNeonPanda, 06 février 2013 - 06:50 .

[JuniorF30]

No

[Credit2team]

yes, gladly, would rather have adorable one time cost than a ridiculous droprate in packs, also would like consistency in DLC deployment

[neocodex]

Are you kidding? Yes.

(except if the additions aren't lame like volus merc kit etc and you buy the one you like, like microstuff, I would totally go for vanity stuff as well!)

[Digiderp]

No way.