59 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

On the day that Bioware forces you to buy dlc in order to play their games then I will be on board with your tirades. Until then, DLC is simply additional content. You may think my stance of "If you don't like it don't buy it" is dismissive of your complaints, to which I say it is. DLC is a thing, it is not going away despite your complaints. Almost every game these days has dlc, it is a staple and viable way for game producers to make more money off of their products. I do however understand were you are coming from, and can relent that making crucial story in dlc to be a sucky situation for people who don't like dlc. 

I personally like DLC as it gives me more of the game I love, I don't see myself as being exploited. You obviously don't like dlc, so what do you want me to say? What answer could I give that would satisfy you? The only answer is: If you don't like DLC then don't buy it. There is no other answer to give to your stance.

As for your stalking rant, that is absurd, I don't come to the forums to single you out. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've even acknowledged you in the last month.

Modifié par Eterna5, 06 juin 2013 - 03:17 .

[FlamingBoy]

Well thats just not true, you have posted counter posts to mine as recently as a few days. Stalking "rant" was intended to metaphorical, you single me out as being "cheap" way to often, simply put your trying to label me, well I label you as a corporate shill.

However I am both impressed by the actual effort you made an effort (unfortunately you still fall in the trap of making it about me) that actually constitutes as a defense. So I will reward you in classical Eterna fashion and give you 5 or so sentences (I know its not 2 but I just can't stand to be that cowardly).

[brian t]

What I didn't like has the fact of day 1 DLC that should have either been included in the original game or be free to download but then again this is EA we are talking about and all they care about is money and release dates IMO I mean they did win the worst company for the 2nd year in a row that really pathetic

Modifié par brian t, 06 juin 2013 - 03:46 .

[Eterna]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Well thats just not true, you have posted counter posts to mine as recently as a few days. Stalking "rant" was intended to metaphorical, you single me out as being "cheap" way to often, simply put your trying to label me, well I label you as a corporate shill.

However I am both impressed by the actual effort you made an effort (unfortunately you still fall in the trap of making it about me) that actually constitutes as a defense. So I will reward you in classical Eterna fashion and give you 5 or so sentences (I know its not 2 but I just can't stand to be that cowardly).

I don't think I've ever implied that you were cheap before now, and even then I said you being cheap was a possibility, not a fact. I said because you're either cheap or feel exploited.

I'm making it about you because I assume you're bringing your opinions on the matter to the discussion and not just typing things for no reason. I don't think I'm labelling you either, I know absolutely nothing about you to even make a label to begin with. 

I'm also not sure why you get so offended when I don't endulge you with paragraphs, I just naturally try to keep my posts short. It has nothing to do with me trying to grind your gears. 

[JMTolan]

Surprised this is still here.

Most available points have been made. the crux of it is the newness factor, something that is usually adjusted for with the release of a GOTY/Complete edition, something many expected but seems to be not happening. No, it's not the same money/value ratio as the full game, but it's also not required, and they've put out a very substantial amount of DLC for free--including Extended Cut, which, lest we lose track of perspective, was basically a month or two of free work they gave to players. It might not feel like that, but it wasn't cranked out in a week in between something else. It was their project, and then they gave it to us. That's on top of all of the free multiplayer DLC, something we didn't expect and they weren't required to do. I'm frankly surprised they didn't charge for multiplayer DLC, as that's what most games use DLC for. There's probably some of that cost being covered by the paid DLC too.

At the end of the day, calling it unacceptable and yelling at them will not change the reality that is. Bioware is much better about DLC than many other companies (Yes, even non-MMOs), so you'd be better served complaining to someone who's more of a problem or just taking up the cause of being anti-DLC in general. Neither of those are really tasks for this forum, though.

-Tolan

[voteDC]

JMTolan wrote...

Surprised this is still here.

Most available points have been made. the crux of it is the newness factor, something that is usually adjusted for with the release of a GOTY/Complete edition, something many expected but seems to be not happening. No, it's not the same money/value ratio as the full game, but it's also not required, and they've put out a very substantial amount of DLC for free--including Extended Cut, which, lest we lose track of perspective, was basically a month or two of free work they gave to players. It might not feel like that, but it wasn't cranked out in a week in between something else. It was their project, and then they gave it to us. That's on top of all of the free multiplayer DLC, something we didn't expect and they weren't required to do. I'm frankly surprised they didn't charge for multiplayer DLC, as that's what most games use DLC for. There's probably some of that cost being covered by the paid DLC too.

To be fair they gave the Extended Cut for free in an attempt to stem the tide of bad PR, warrented or not, that they were recieving. I'm grateful that they did so but I'm not kidding myself that it was done out of pure altruism.

That's the same with the multi-player DLC. Do you believe it would have been free beyond the first pack if EA had not been making a large amount of money from the micro-transactions. There was one guy on the xbox.com forums who had spent over £100 ($154 USD) on in-game packs.

Don't kid yourself that the multi-player packs were free out of the goodness of EA's heart. They were free because EA were making money from them another way.

[Guanxii]

 Reclaimer?

[MrStoob]

Some were better value than others with ME DLC.

Leviathan was a good'un, new characters, new areas, lore expanding, spooky, and some baddy killing to boot.

Omega felt a bit flat to me, wasn't much meat to it. Disappointing, considering the potential of expanding Aria's character or Omega's history. The female turian was ultimately utterly pointless.

Citadel. While I enjoyed it, I bawked a bit at the price considering it was basically fan service, with dodgy fan-fiction-esque plot lines and 'knowing' dialogue from all the characters.

Just my view of course.

I'm not entirely happy with being sold 'the whole story'. DLC/add-ons used to just add extra maps/levels/monsters/whatever but now, they are being used to sell us the story that was supposed to be told in the first place. I only read about it, but the Final Fantasy one was laughable, where they sold the 'real ending' as DLC, or one of the Capcom beat'em'ups where they sold 'DLC' which was present, complete and working from the disc on release, you just had to pay to release it. Not to mention the recent Metro ******-take, selling the hardest difficulty level for 5 bucks, when the official website says that this is the way it's supposed to be played!

Jimquisition and AngryJoe both have good pieces on this kind of practice.

[Jukaga]

Why all the tears over 50-60$ worth of DLC? I have 300 hours logged in ME3 with all the DLC. I got my money worth. think of the last time you went to the movies, didn't you come out $30-$40 poorer? And that for a 2 hour experience that you can't revisit. I usually wait for GOTY editions because I want to play a complete game from the start, knowing that wouldn't be the case with ME3 I bought the game for $19.99 and spent another $80 or so to get all the DLC. (I got the ME2 DLC I was missing as well.) Add up all the hours spent in the MEU and it must be approaching 500-600 hours. I'd say I got my money's worth.

[Cainne Chapel]

As a person that has played ME1 2 and 3 upside down sideways, backwards and forwards to the tune of near 1000hrs between all 3 at this point.

Any and all money i've spent on the 3 games (including ALL DLC on 3 different platforms) is well spent to me....so I dont see the argument personally.

Do I like paying for DLC and would prefer it be much cheaper? Of course! I'd also prefer gas be much cheaper and the cost of living to go down too... but those aren't things that are going to change over night and are much more of a neccessity than more virtual fun wouldn't you agree?

DLC is ALWAYS optional, sure it may be WANTED, but at the same time how else would they get you to buy it if it wasn't something you WANTED to play? They always have the straddle that line when it comes to DLC, compelling enough to warrant a purchase and priced at a point where they will turn a profit. So while i can complain about the price, i have and will continue to buy DLC for the games I enjoy as long as the price is within my comfortable range.

But as others have said, I'd wait until maybe a sale goes on or what not, but arguing the merits of DLC will change nothing in this day and age because, well, its part and parcel of a lot of games now. Heck the games I enjoy i actually Look FORWARD to DLC.

[Urdnot Amenark]

JMTolan wrote...

ME3 is the worst offender? Pardon me while I laugh hysterically.

-Tolan

(Also, DCUO, Star Trek Online, and pretty much almost every other FTPMMO would like your attention.)

Meanwhile, a lone Mage rides Shadowmere with horse armor.

[Modius Prime]

My problem with the DLC is the fact that it even exists. Mass Effect is a franchise that is driven by the story and its characters which, in combination with the cinematic feel, made it the successful franchise it is today. A lot of the DLC for Mass Effect: 3 that BioWare released actually felt very essentially to the overall experience of the game. For example: you will never get sufficient background information about the Protheans - the ancient race behind the technological advancements of all space-faring species in the galaxy - without From Ashes DLC; you will still get a headache during the ending of the game without Leviathan DLC; you will never know what happens to your friends on Omega (plus, it is awkward how Aria is just 'sitting' in Purgatory and she hints at her Omega re-conquest); and you will still feel the sting of the ending if you do not purchase Citadel. If BioWare actually made a game that was complete in itself, then they would not need to even make DLC because it would be successful. DLC should be an extension of a game that is already complete. In games like Skyrim, I buy some of the DLC because the DLC I did not buy weren't needed for a complete experience. I understand how making DLC allows them to experiment with new things, but the vanila game should already be good and there should be enough production time where you can fully implement your ideas into the game. Sadly with EA being in charge, I don't see much of that happening; it is incredible how little development time was put into the final game, despite EA knowing how much fans cared about it and all of the hype. The only reason why I even bought the DLC was because EA was feeding off of my passion for the characters that BioWare made; I just wanted five more minutes with each of the characters (I didn't give them my $ for nothing.). It's depressing for me to realize that videogames are being monopolized, and how only our money really matters. Sometimes I feel like companies make incomplete games just to make us pay more. When I ask for a cake with strawberrys, they feel the need to charge me extra for the strawberrys that I already paid for.

Modifié par Modius Prime, 07 juin 2013 - 07:15 .

[Dieb]

Replacing the timing belt cost me more than my 90s car itself would, today.

[masleslie]

Although I sympathize with the OP the bottom line is that whatever we may think your argument is not with Bioware but with the video game industry. Most games these days have a range of optional DLC at similar prices to the ME3 DLC after the initial release. Bioware are only doing what is common practice for other game producers.

It seems unlikely that the situation will change any time soon so if you are not happy with that the only solution is don't buy it. But don't hold your breath waiting for the whole industry to change because you have a grievance with their pricing.

[Dieb]

In case you were referring to me, this was not at all intended as spam/destructive nonsense.

What I'm saying is, that prices are hardly ever solely linked to just the quality or "yield" of a product - which is how the OP seems to explain why the pricing is apparently "unacceptable".

[Cainne Chapel]

Modius Prime wrote...

My problem with the DLC is the fact that it even exists. Mass Effect is a franchise that is driven by the story and its characters which, in combination with the cinematic feel, made it the successful franchise it is today. A lot of the DLC for Mass Effect: 3 that BioWare released actually felt very essentially to the overall experience of the game. For example: you will never get sufficient background information about the Protheans - the ancient race behind the technological advancements of all space-faring species in the galaxy - without From Ashes DLC; you will still get a headache during the ending of the game without Leviathan DLC; you will never know what happens to your friends on Omega (plus, it is awkward how Aria is just 'sitting' in Purgatory and she hints at her Omega re-conquest); and you will still feel the sting of the ending if you do not purchase Citadel. If BioWare actually made a game that was complete in itself, then they would not need to even make DLC because it would be successful. DLC should be an extension of a game that is already complete. In games like Skyrim, I buy some of the DLC because the DLC I did not buy weren't needed for a complete experience. I understand how making DLC allows them to experiment with new things, but the vanila game should already be good and there should be enough production time where you can fully implement your ideas into the game. Sadly with EA being in charge, I don't see much of that happening; it is incredible how little development time was put into the final game, despite EA knowing how much fans cared about it and all of the hype. The only reason why I even bought the DLC was because EA was feeding off of my passion for the characters that BioWare made; I just wanted five more minutes with each of the characters (I didn't give them my $ for nothing.). It's depressing for me to realize that videogames are being monopolized, and how only our money really matters. Sometimes I feel like companies make incomplete games just to make us pay more. When I ask for a cake with strawberrys, they feel the need to charge me extra for the strawberrys that I already paid for.

None of the DLC is NEEDED there's a difference between wanting and needing.  DLC  if done right SHOULD make you WANT it.

Besides if everything EVERYONE could EVER think of were in a game... well no games would ever be released now would they?  From Ashes/Citadel/Leviathan and Omega are not needed to enjoy ME3.  Just like Kasumi/Zaeed/Arrival/etc were needed to enjoy ME2.  Or the 2 DLCs for ME1 were needed to enjoy ME1.

All they provide is additional detail and exposition to a game one may have already finished (especially considering we are talking about DLC that came out months and months later in the case of Leviathan/Citadel/Omega).  But The base game is still fully understandable without the extras, those are just there for people who want, well, MORE of it.

[Gromnir]

The OP is going to be really upset when he realizes he can't buy a used copy of the DLC or sell his copy of it when he's done playing.

I think a big reason why game companies are pushing DLC (as opposed to purchased expansion disks) is because of the used games market. This is also why you're seeing things like the online passes that come free with a new purchase.

Games are still incredibly cheap forms of entertainment. I've been gaming for a long time, and the price of new games hasn't gone up that much while the amount of content has increased exponentially. I will agree that DLC doesn't usually give nearly as much bang for the buck as the original game (even at new/full price), which is why I choose to purchase DLC only for my favorite games to extend the content on a game that has already proven itself.

[gisle]

I think DLCs offer more saturated content than the main game. Think of the stupid fetch quests, Reaper evading mini-game and all that; none of that is in DLC. To add to that, DLCs sell to a portion of the game owners, which means the market is much smaller than for the main game, that meaning they'd have to price it higher to get a similar revenue. To add to that, people buy DLC at this price, and many of us will still do, meaning they can sell it this high. I'm not going to skip interesting game content to make a political stand over what's practically lunch money.

That's my opinion. I do not find it unacceptable. Don't take disagreements as personal attacks, please, for they're not. I do agree, however, that the industry has some issues to sort out, but DLC isn't at the root of it.

Modifié par Gisle-Aune, 10 juin 2013 - 08:43 .

[emanziboy]

FlamingBoy wrote...

When dlc is about leviathan (the orgin of the reapers), protheans (the previous cycle hence orgin of "US!"), About the citadel which has more character interactions than the entirety of the main game.

It is no longer opitional it becomes essential, hence it is exploitative, and yes perhaps one day it will become a legal issue. Its extrodinary what people will defend especially considering they have a close personal relationship with bioware, even more so when they want to appear unbiased....

If you buy and play  Mass Effect 1, the only way you can find out how the Reaper War ends, what happens to the characters, if the Genophage is cured, ect. is if you purchase Mass Effect 2 and 3. Using your logic, this means that ME2 and 3 were also exploitive. In fact, considering those games have information much more essential than any DLC, they are even more exploitive than any DLC they have ever released. What I'm trying to say is that your thesis needs work.

As far as the pricing goes, paying a total of $60 over the course of a year for DLC is not the same as paying $60 all at once for a full game. Not even close.

[voteDC]

Had Mass Effect ended with the first game then that would have been okay, as everything you needed to know and understand the world presented was contained within.

Shepard leaves at the end, sure of the ability to find a way to stop the Reapers when they return. The thing is with the end of the first game we have no idea when that may be. It could have happened long after Shepard died of old age.

Yet still that point is an inconsequential one. Mass Effect 1 is a self-contained story.

Mass Effect 2 broke this to a small extent with Mass Effect: Galaxy. There was this history between two of the main characters that you couldn't learn about in the main game. What saved Mass Effect 2 however was that it too was a fairly self-contained story, indeed a bit too self-contained to be honest.

The third game had the unenviable task of trying to wrap up everything that people wanted to know. They wanted to know more about the Protheans and the history of the Reapers (Something I could have lived without to be honest). Those two things tended to dominate discussions that I saw.

So it really isn't hard to see why people are upset about the two biggest pieces of backstory they wanted to see reduced to DLC.

[chemiclord]

There's one of two ways this can go:

1) The current model where game cover prices stay static and DLC is used to make up the difference of skyrocketing production costs...

2) Or gamers accept they're going to have to spend $90-$100 U.S. dollars up front for their games.

Yeah, I don't think (2) is going to happen anytime soon, so (1) is really the only option available.

[chemiclord]

Well... I suppose there is a third option:

3) Gamers start lowering their expectations, accept not always getting the coolest graphics and sounds with the latest advancements in voice over and cinematic quality... *snerk* *laughing*

Okay... I'm sorry... I can't finish that sentence with a straight face.

[voteDC]

I don't know. At least you can have a conversation with those gamers. Unlike the people who feel they need to resort to sarcasm because they've run out of points to make.

[Cainne Chapel]

Could be the other way though, just massive amounts of sequels released to explain more and more stuff in the universe

Honestly I have no big issue with DLC, I buy DLC for games I enjoy and if its content I want. If it doesn't meet those criteria I don't. Granted they have a thin line to tow with DLC, I mean if they spend extra resources making it, they gotta put stuff in they hope their players want otherwise what would be the point? It'd be money better spent on making another sequel or game.

But really DLC is no different than expansion packs back in the old days, its just that now, depending on the DLC it can be bite sized pieces or not. Do some games go overboard? Heck yeah, but some give enough content that I feel its worth it from time to time.