750 réponses à ce sujet

[StarLitStranger]

I have no problem with DLC. I have no problem with Day 1 DLC... because usually there is time between when the game is finished and when it comes out. Now for games like DA2... it is so obvious that Day 1 DLC was made and then cut out of the game to make extra money.
The release date for Inquisition is going to be tested... that is for sure so if they release part of what SHOULD have been included or something they just threw in to make extra bucks I'll be upset.

I have no problem with DLC only exploitation. These are your fans and they deserve better. I know EA is a big company that is out to make a profit and I know games are extremely expensive and risky to make. Still....



I am going to pre-order and probably get the collectors edition so I don't have to feel like crap about giving in.

Modifié par StarLitStranger, 23 décembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[Star fury]

StarLitStranger wrote...

I have no problem with DLC. I have no problem with Day 1 DLC... because usually there is time between when the game is finished and when it comes out. Now for games like DA2... it is so obvious that Day 1 DLC was made and then cut out of the game to make extra money.
The release date for Inquisition is going to be tested... that is for sure so if they release part of what SHOULD have been included or something they just threw in to make extra bucks I'll be upset.

I have no problem with DLC only exploitation. These are your fans and they deserve better. I know EA is a big company that is out to make a profit and I know games are extremely expensive and risky to make. Still....



I am going to pre-order and probably get the collectors edition so I don't have to feel like crap about giving in.

Do people really think that it's possible to make a DLC in three weeks before the game went to gold? Even after the Prothean DLC fiasco?

www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3s-prothean-character-unlockable-without-dlc-pc-only/

[Maverick827]

leaguer of one wrote...

You want to pay for day one dlc?

I'd like to not have to pay for anything in life, but that's not very realistic, is it?

What about DLC makes you feel like it should be free?

[Guns]

Maverick827 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

You want to pay for day one dlc?

I'd like to not have to pay for anything in life, but that's not very realistic, is it?

What about DLC makes you feel like it should be free?

It's not that it should be free DLC, it shouldn't be DLC in the first place.

Modifié par Guns, 23 décembre 2013 - 07:04 .

[azerSheppard]

Wow there are people here defending day one dlc. My god what has happened to gamers? Really what the actual ****ign **** happened to you all?

The very idea of DAY1DLC goes against any and all practice of entertainment media.

DLC can definetly be "good" or "worth the money". Don't misunderstand, it just leads to abuse like we see today. Pre-ordering a game only to pay another 10-20€ for a dlc or season pass. The fact that companies operate on this system is understandable, since all the care about are profits. But the fact that consumers are dumb enough to defend this practice ... willingly throwing away their money... this is beyond me.

[Vandicus]

Star fury wrote...

StarLitStranger wrote...

I have no problem with DLC. I have no problem with Day 1 DLC... because usually there is time between when the game is finished and when it comes out. Now for games like DA2... it is so obvious that Day 1 DLC was made and then cut out of the game to make extra money.
The release date for Inquisition is going to be tested... that is for sure so if they release part of what SHOULD have been included or something they just threw in to make extra bucks I'll be upset.

I have no problem with DLC only exploitation. These are your fans and they deserve better. I know EA is a big company that is out to make a profit and I know games are extremely expensive and risky to make. Still....



I am going to pre-order and probably get the collectors edition so I don't have to feel like crap about giving in.

Do people really think that it's possible to make a DLC in three weeks before the game went to gold? Even after the Prothean DLC fiasco?

www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3s-prothean-character-unlockable-without-dlc-pc-only/

Considering the DLC Javik had a radically different role from the original cancelled Javik, where he was basically the main focus point of the game, I don't exactly see the problem with him. Were all his assets generated in the 6 week period before official release? No, because he had already had things developed previously for him that they could still use. Bioware's 1st day DLC is generally made of stuff that they had already done work on but then decided didn't work out as originally implemented. Another example would be Shale, who was originally to be acquired in Redcliffe.  If they did not do the work after the game has gone gold, then the character and other aspects would be incomplete.

[Maverick827]

Guns wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

You want to pay for day one dlc?

I'd like to not have to pay for anything in life, but that's not very realistic, is it?

What about DLC makes you feel like it should be free?

It's not that it should be free DLC, it shouldn't be DLC in the first place.

Why not?

[Sylvius the Mad]

azerSheppard wrote...

Wow there are people here defending day one dlc. My god what has happened to gamers? Really what the actual ****ign **** happened to you all?

The very idea of DAY1DLC goes against any and all practice of entertainment media.

DLC can definetly be "good" or "worth the money". Don't misunderstand, it just leads to abuse like we see today. Pre-ordering a game only to pay another 10-20€ for a dlc or season pass. The fact that companies operate on this system is understandable, since all the care about are profits. But the fact that consumers are dumb enough to defend this practice ... willingly throwing away their money... this is beyond me.

The prices of games today are not high enough to sustain quality game development.  We need to pay more for games.

I happily paid $160 (2012 dollars) for a new game in 1986.  Why games today are expected to sell for only a third of that I do not know.

[addiction21]

azerSheppard wrote...

Wow there are people here defending day one dlc. My god what has happened to gamers? Really what the actual ****ign **** happened to you all?

The very idea of DAY1DLC goes against any and all practice of entertainment media.

DLC can definetly be "good" or "worth the money". Don't misunderstand, it just leads to abuse like we see today. Pre-ordering a game only to pay another 10-20€ for a dlc or season pass. The fact that companies operate on this system is understandable, since all the care about are profits. But the fact that consumers are dumb enough to defend this practice ... willingly throwing away their money... this is beyond me.

Please oh great one can you follow me around and make sure I live correctly. God forbid some anonymous jerk on the internet disagrees with what I spend my money on and calls me dumb.

While you are at it can you show me these written rules for the practices of entertainment media. Apparently I agreed to them but I forget doing so. Mind helping me out?

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The prices of games today are not high enough to sustain quality game development.  We need to pay more for games.

I happily paid $160 (2012 dollars) for a new game in 1986.  Why games today are expected to sell for only a third of that I do not know.

Right there with ya.  I would much rather pay a lot more for a game that caters more to my tastes (like DA:O) than pay less for a game designed to appeal to more mainstream interests.

And I really don't understand the problem with Day 1 DLC.  That presupposes that any and all content developed prior to game release should be part of the base game, and is owed to customers.  That's nonsense.

[L. Han]

Are people still trying to justify DLCs?

It's shameless cash grabbing, especially if the content they are making you pay for is already complete within the game disc. It is quite easy to sniff out if you even remotely paying any attention.

I somewhat understand that BioWare/EA has to be able to reach quotas to keep backers and investors interested in the business.

The problem I mostly have with this is the way they are handling these DLC practices. Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

But as for now, it is just a method of getting people to pre-order games.

EDIT: 

Also, Origin is still ratehr unstable, removing access to your DLCs now and then. Do we need to add more to the list?

Modifié par Rickets, 23 décembre 2013 - 08:30 .

[Maverick827]

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

[ghostzodd]

Rickets wrote...

Are people still trying to justify DLCs?

It's shameless cash grabbing, especially if the content they are making you pay for is already complete within the game disc. It is quite easy to sniff out if you even remotely paying any attention.

I somewhat understand that BioWare/EA has to be able to reach quotas to keep backers and investors interested in the business.

The problem I mostly have with this is the way they are handling these DLC practices. Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

But as for now, it is just a method of getting people to pre-order games.

EDIT: 

Also, Origin is still ratehr unstable, removing access to your DLCs now and then. Do we need to add more to the list?

I agree, Origin is not where it should be. Only reason EA made it was because they could not Buy Valve

[L. Han]

Maverick827 wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

Because it matters a whole lot if I can sit around in ignorance not knowing that they did something shifty.

Either be good at lying or be up front. We know that it's not usual for companies to be transparent, so the former is probably the better chice, Just don't try to be both.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maverick827 wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

Because in the case of Jahvik, 90% of the character was fully active with one line of code change? And that companions' interactions with him were fully on disc, suggesting the majority of scenes he was in were finished before the game went Gold?

You can say that's good, bad or indifferent, but it is evidence that does lead to that conclusion pretty easily. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:04 .

[Sanunes]

ghostzodd wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Are people still trying to justify DLCs?

It's shameless cash grabbing, especially if the content they are making you pay for is already complete within the game disc. It is quite easy to sniff out if you even remotely paying any attention.

I somewhat understand that BioWare/EA has to be able to reach quotas to keep backers and investors interested in the business.

The problem I mostly have with this is the way they are handling these DLC practices. Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

But as for now, it is just a method of getting people to pre-order games.

EDIT: 

Also, Origin is still ratehr unstable, removing access to your DLCs now and then. Do we need to add more to the list?

I agree, Origin is not where it should be. Only reason EA made it was because they could not Buy Valve

Your proof for that statement? What I read is Valve decided to be like EA and force all publishers and developers to sell DLC through their store or you aren't welcome to sell products on their service. So they decided instead of being open for the sake of gamers they decided to try and get more money from developers.  If EA really wanted more money in this arrangement they would have (in my opinion) pulled all their old games off Steam and not just the ones that had new DLC released.

[ghostzodd]

Sanunes wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Are people still trying to justify DLCs?

It's shameless cash grabbing, especially if the content they are making you pay for is already complete within the game disc. It is quite easy to sniff out if you even remotely paying any attention.

I somewhat understand that BioWare/EA has to be able to reach quotas to keep backers and investors interested in the business.

The problem I mostly have with this is the way they are handling these DLC practices. Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

But as for now, it is just a method of getting people to pre-order games.

EDIT: 

Also, Origin is still ratehr unstable, removing access to your DLCs now and then. Do we need to add more to the list?

I agree, Origin is not where it should be. Only reason EA made it was because they could not Buy Valve

Your proof for that statement? What I read is Valve decided to be like EA and force all publishers and developers to sell DLC through their store or you aren't welcome to sell products on their service. So they decided instead of being open for the sake of gamers they decided to try and get more money from developers.  If EA really wanted more money in this arrangement they would have (in my opinion) pulled all their old games off Steam and not just the ones that had new DLC released.

this is my proof

http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6394880/

http://www.pcgamer.c...te-newell-says/

Ubisoft has there own gaming client and still has there games on Steam. You can buy it diectly from them or get it from steam it does not matter still opens Uplay. Example, AC3 is on steam but opens up the Uplay application. EA was just to short sighted they should have just done what Ubisoft is doing with Valve, Building they're own gaming client up but still have new EA games on steam.

Modifié par ghostzodd, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:15 .

[Sanunes]

ghostzodd wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Your proof for that statement? What I read is Valve decided to be like EA and force all publishers and developers to sell DLC through their store or you aren't welcome to sell products on their service. So they decided instead of being open for the sake of gamers they decided to try and get more money from developers.  If EA really wanted more money in this arrangement they would have (in my opinion) pulled all their old games off Steam and not just the ones that had new DLC released.

this is my proof
http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6394880/

FYI Ubisoft has there own gaming client and still has there games on Steam. Example; AC3 is on steam but opens up the Uplay application. EA was just to short sighted they should have just done what Ubisoft is doing with Valve.

That attempt to purchase Valve was after Origin launched.


Gabe Newell in 2011 saying its up to Valve to bring back EA - 

IGN Article in 2011 when Dragon Age 2 was pulled after new DLC was released

Of course they never made the real details public, but I think both companies are both at fault for not finding some sort of compromise.

Modifié par Sanunes, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:15 .

[ghostzodd]

Sanunes wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Your proof for that statement? What I read is Valve decided to be like EA and force all publishers and developers to sell DLC through their store or you aren't welcome to sell products on their service. So they decided instead of being open for the sake of gamers they decided to try and get more money from developers.  If EA really wanted more money in this arrangement they would have (in my opinion) pulled all their old games off Steam and not just the ones that had new DLC released.

this is my proof
http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6394880/

FYI Ubisoft has there own gaming client and still has there games on Steam. Example; AC3 is on steam but opens up the Uplay application. EA was just to short sighted they should have just done what Ubisoft is doing with Valve.

That attempt to purchase Valve was after Origin launched.


Gabe Newell in 2011 saying its up to Valve to bring back EA - 

IGN Article in 2011 when Dragon Age 2 was pulled after new DLC was released

Of course they never made the real details public, but I think both companies are both at fault for not finding some sort of compromise.

 I agree, Valve was having to much of a kung fu grip and EA is short sighted. But like I said they should have just done what Ubisoft is doing with Valve. Slowly build up They're own client and still allowing EA games on Steam, but the games launch  a modified Origin application.

Modifié par ghostzodd, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:22 .

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

Because in the case of Jahvik, 90% of the character was fully active with one line of code change? And that companions' interactions with him were fully on disc, suggesting the majority of scenes he was in were finished before the game went Gold?

You can say that's good, bad or indifferent, but it is evidence that does lead to that conclusion pretty easily. 

That was the case for Kasumi as well. It's not a casue it was cut. It's a case it  was mostly unfinished.His personal interaction with you and his mission where not finished before the game whent gold.

[leaguer of one]

Rickets wrote...

Are people still trying to justify DLCs?

It's shameless cash grabbing, especially if the content they are making you pay for is already complete within the game disc. It is quite easy to sniff out if you even remotely paying any attention.

I somewhat understand that BioWare/EA has to be able to reach quotas to keep backers and investors interested in the business.

The problem I mostly have with this is the way they are handling these DLC practices. Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

But as for now, it is just a method of getting people to pre-order games.

EDIT: 

Also, Origin is still ratehr unstable, removing access to your DLCs now and then. Do we need to add more to the list?

You missed that fact day one dlc like Shale and Zaeed had no extra cost?

[leaguer of one]

Quyk Sylvyr wrote...

You know, the "Day 1 DLC" in DA2 was actually part of a pre-order bonus. I guess I don't see anything wrong with offering a pre-order bonus as a reward for those that are willing to pay full price before the game even comes out, and then offering an alternative method for those that didn't pre-order.

It's an issue if the number of copies of a game that has it is restracted to one country and a few copies. The proper way shoulf be like Shale's dlc. You buy it new and you get aditional content for no extra cost.

[billy the squid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

Because in the case of Jahvik, 90% of the character was fully active with one line of code change? And that companions' interactions with him were fully on disc, suggesting the majority of scenes he was in were finished before the game went Gold?

You can say that's good, bad or indifferent, but it is evidence that does lead to that conclusion pretty easily. 

And the fact it was only available with the collector's edition and not the normal one. That should indicate to anyone, who isn't completely deluded, that it's an incentive to push people to buy an upgraded version of the game, rather than just the normal one.

Modifié par billy the squid, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:30 .

[leaguer of one]

billy the squid wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

Because in the case of Jahvik, 90% of the character was fully active with one line of code change? And that companions' interactions with him were fully on disc, suggesting the majority of scenes he was in were finished before the game went Gold?

You can say that's good, bad or indifferent, but it is evidence that does lead to that conclusion pretty easily. 

And the fact it was only available with the collector's edition and not the normal one. That should indicate to anyone, who isn't completely deluded, that it's an incentive to push people to buy an upgraded version of the game, rather than just the normal one.

Which is why The Javik dlc was the wrong way to do dlc. Would people be upset if it was done like Zaeed's and Shale's dlc?

[billy the squid]

leaguer of one wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Rickets wrote...

Can't they at least pretend that this was something developed outside the main game's development?

How do you know that it wasn't?

Because in the case of Jahvik, 90% of the character was fully active with one line of code change? And that companions' interactions with him were fully on disc, suggesting the majority of scenes he was in were finished before the game went Gold?

You can say that's good, bad or indifferent, but it is evidence that does lead to that conclusion pretty easily. 

And the fact it was only available with the collector's edition and not the normal one. That should indicate to anyone, who isn't completely deluded, that it's an incentive to push people to buy an upgraded version of the game, rather than just the normal one.

Which is why The Javik dlc was the wrong way to do dlc. Would people be upset if it was done like Zaeed's and Shale's dlc?

By and large I don't think it would be, if like those, it was free with every new copy of the game and I didn'tr have to pre order it. I could go and pick up DAO a month after release, new, for £25 and still get the DLC free, that I'd be willing to accept. 

Pay gating it behind the collectors editions or pre ordering to gain access. No, any publisher can go cram it up their arse, unless they have a seriously good track record behind them for me to even consider pre ordering.