750 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

"As far as the 'complete game experience' argument goes, I look at it this way: if I play the base game and don't notice anything missing, then I've got the 'complete' game experience. This is why even though I'm not a big fan of Day 1 DLC (or most other DLC in general), it doesn't bother me enough to make a big deal of it if a game has it. I've yet to play a game that has DLC that I've decided to pass on and feel like there's a glaring hole there."

Hi there, blocked off Zaeed and Javik's rooms.

[Trank 209]

Paying for day one DLC is completely stupid. If any company releasing day one DLC and expects me to happily pay for it is not a smart person. Just release it for free if its not even over an hour or two long(Though keep in mind its about quality not quanitity). Or all it is a companion or a gun or a room. It's downright stupid. Now if you want to charge for something like Dragon Age: Awakening then cool, that makes sense. Or even Normandy Crash Site, or Shadow Broker those things have real content in them and ADD content in not FILL content in.

Good DLC = Content that ADDS content. Bad DLC = Content that FILLS in.

This is a simple thing i think game companies not only NEED to think about it in this way but they got to start wanting to think this way, overall their fanbase will be happier, and companies will be surpised just how a happy fanbase can get them a lot of money and not have to resort to bull**** tactics to get money.

Modifié par Trank 209, 04 janvier 2014 - 03:57 .

[Cyonan]

Trank 209 wrote...

Paying for day one DLC is completely stupid. If any company releasing day one DLC and expects me to happily pay for it is not a smart person. Just release it for free if its not even over an hour or two long(Though keep in mind its about quality not quanitity). Or all it is a companion or a gun or a room. It's downright stupid. Now if you want to charge for something like Dragon Age: Awakening then cool, that makes sense. Or even Normandy Crash Site, or Shadow Broker those things have real content in them and ADD content in not FILL content in.

Good DLC = Content that ADDS content. Bad DLC = Content that FILLS in.

This is a simple thing i think game companies not only NEED to think about it in this way but they got to start wanting to think this way, overall their fanbase will be happier, and companies will be surpised just how a happy fanbase can get them a lot of money and not have to resort to bull**** tactics to get money.

Normandy Crash Site barely added 15 minutes worth of content. It's also actually free if you buy the game new.

[AlanC9]

Trank 209 wrote...
Good DLC = Content that ADDS content. Bad DLC = Content that FILLS in.

What's the difference between adding and filling?

[addiction21]

AlanC9 wrote...

Trank 209 wrote...
Good DLC = Content that ADDS content. Bad DLC = Content that FILLS in.

What's the difference between adding and filling?

Something totally arbitrary that shifts from buyer to buyer. 

[wrdnshprd]

Ninja Stan wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

i understand your points.. but im sorry.. i just fundamentally disagree with them.  for one, i have a hard time believing that project management isnt shooting for the day 1 release day when it comes to this kind of content.  of course they are.  therefore they PLANNED for this content to be released on day 1 so it can be released alongside the "original" game.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. This content is planned to be released as DLC.

The part you seem to not be getting is that they planned it to be DLC. If they wanted it in the base game, they would have planned for it to be in the base game. The DLC content is content intended for sale separately, though they might include it with the base game as a package to promote pre-orders or Week 1 purchases.

you have to understand, from a consumer's point of view.. day 1 DLC that you actually have to pay extra for is not "extra" content... i am basically having to pay extra just to get the entire game.. even if you say that its not "important" to the overall story for the "original" game..

Nope. That's you looking at it differently. The "entire game" is the base game. That's the complete-in-itself game experience they're releaseing, and you can complete the game and story with just that product, and it will have a beginning, middle, and end. Done.

DLC is additional, optional content that is neat, but completely unnecessary for the completion of the base game. If you see the DLC content as "part of the base game experience," then the marketing is working. If the DLC content makes you want to have that content, then the devs are doing their jobs correctly.

you still have to make it worth the money if you want it to sell well.. so, at the very least its some decent side quest content that im not going to get even though i paid a full $60 for the title, maybe more if i bought the collector's edition.  again, from the consumer's point of view.. that SUCKS.. yes, its first world problems.. but you are going to tick off your fans with this sort of practice.. especially in an  economy where money is tight.

If money is that tight, then don't buy the DLC. But also, don't expect that content for free just because you think it's part of the "complete game experience" you feel entitled to. The "complete game experience" is in the base game. Anything else is extra and a bonus, which you can (usually) get as part of a pre-order. The consumer will naturally want more content for less money, but the market seems accepting of the amunt of content in modern videogames for the price at which they're selling (individual gamers's tolerances and preferences notwithstanding).

that all being said.. if you were to make it "free", as long as you buy the game new, i can completely understand that.  for one, you guys dont get money from used game sales so this practice makes sense..  and even if you did, most of us understand the concept of used.  but charging an extra $10 on top of the original 60 is bullocks.. no matter how you slice it.

I disagree, but then, I'm a gamer that doesn't mind the concept of DLC, paid DLC, or DAy 1 DLC. It doesn't change the criteria I use to decide whether to buy a game. Heck, sometimes I'll buy DLC for a game I like and never get to it, but I'm okay with that because I'm supporting the company and the franchise with my dollars. Other times, I'll really want the DLC, but don't think it's worth the money they're charging, in which case, I wait for a sale or live without it. But if I don't want the DLC, or don't like the game enough, I simply won't buy the DLC. Me disagreeing with a game company's decision doesn't change their prerogative to make that decision.

its not about money being tight.. i am in a VERY fortunate position.  i have a job that i love and i get paid pretty decently to do it.  but i also realize that the economy sucks for a LOT of people, and having to shell out $70 to get the FULL experience is not exactly going to win you any positive publicity points. especially when other companies with smaller budgets seem to be able to release their games without having to resort to the day 1 DLC nonsense without too much of a problem.

and though i DO agree that DLC overall is a GOOD thing (i just prefer them in one large expansion to smaller $10 bits).. i fundamentally disagree with charging $60 for the game.. and then, ON THE SAME RELEASE DAY adding additional content for another $10.  im sorry, but if i pay $60 for the game, i expect the ENTIRE game.. not most of it.. and even if the day 1 DLC is "bonus" material, its still content im not able to experience even though i paid a full $60 (possibly more) for your title.  in my opinion, that is a practice that nickel and dimes your customers.  why?  because even though in your eyes its "additional" content.. to me, it doesnt feel that way.  it feels like you are seperating content just to make a quick buck.. especially when you very easily could have made it "free" as long as we bought the game new (like you've done in the past). 

[Trank 209]

Filling in would be like what EA did with Kingdoms of Amualur, if you didn't buy a new copy with the game then you didnt have access to like 6 quests, and these quests were in the original game, in the regular world, not a part of a new world or place. So now you have to buy it if you didnt get it day one. Thats BULL****. Thats called filling in. Adding would be if they added a new place to go to or whatever, then it would be fine to release to those who got a new copy for free and charge for it, for those who didnt. Cause it would have actual content. Also Normandy Crash Site is fairly cheap.

[Ninja Stan]

wrdnshprd wrote...

its not about money being tight.. i am in a VERY fortunate position.  i have a job that i love and i get paid pretty decently to do it.  but i also realize that the economy sucks for a LOT of people, and having to shell out $70 to get the FULL experience is not exactly going to win you any positive publicity points. especially when other companies with smaller budgets seem to be able to release their games without having to resort to the day 1 DLC nonsense without too much of a problem.

and though i DO agree that DLC overall is a GOOD thing (i just prefer them in one large expansion to smaller $10 bits).. i fundamentally disagree with charging $60 for the game.. and then, ON THE SAME RELEASE DAY adding additional content for another $10.  im sorry, but if i pay $60 for the game, i expect the ENTIRE game.. not most of it.. and even if the day 1 DLC is "bonus" material, its still content im not able to experience even though i paid a full $60 (possibly more) for your title.  in my opinion, that is a practice that nickel and dimes your customers.  why?  because even though in your eyes its "additional" content.. to me, it doesnt feel that way.  it feels like you are seperating content just to make a quick buck.. especially when you very easily could have made it "free" as long as we bought the game new (like you've done in the past). 

Then you have a very different expectations on what "the entire game" means, and you are likely to be disappointed by most game companies for the next few years.

[Trank 209]

"Then you have a very different expectations on what "the entire game" means, and you are likely to be disappointed by most game companies for the next few years."

Wow... i cant believe this is how you responded to what he just said there.

I don't give a damn what game it is, and how much it costs, THE ENTIRE GAME better be in there. Day one DLC is downright dirty and just an attempt in making those who are ignorant enough to buy it, well.. buy it. Fallout 3 has great DLC and at a reasonable price, Beth spent months working hard on that content. But even without it, the game feels more than just filled to the brim with content, Beth put out that extra content as a way of thanking their fans for playing their game. And you say it takes months for them to make this so called DLC when the game is being shipped and all that. Ok, how about spend more time into this DLC you're making and make it worth our money and put more time in to it and release it a few months afterwords. Its so sad that this is actually being supported, you people are going to ruin the great that video games are. Just like DRM will and is, day one DLC is helping ruin it more.

Its sad that there was a time where 10 people would work on a game, or even 30-50 like the first Baldurs Gate game. That game still holds up today. You know why, because the people at Bioware at that time put nothing but their love for video games into that game. Day one DLC only proves that the developers feel their game isn't enough, and if that's the case, then its time to work for those to work harder.

I bet if any of you or anyone in general supports day one DLC doesn't even understand what its like to play a game that feels FULL. Like Neverwinter Nights 1 was, like Icewind Dale, like whatever game. You're lying to everyone and yourself if you think that if Baldurs Gate 2 had day one dlc back in the day and that you had to pay $10 bucks that you wouldn't have been angry.

As cheesy or even too serious i may be getting to others you read this, but i hope that one day when i have my company or i what ever company im working for that makes games that i will be able to protest and speak out against these practices. Look at the people who make The Witcher, they have already gone and said The Witcher 3 will be DRM and BULL**** free. The Witcher 1 and 2 have sold MILLIONS of copies. Millions! There is no need to try and brainwash us and have us pay for a weapon or a gun on a release date when it should have been released into the game.

Modifié par Trank 209, 04 janvier 2014 - 03:04 .

[IllusiveManJr]

Okay

[Il Divo]

Trank 209 wrote...

Its sad that there was a time where 10 people would work on a game, or even 30-50 like the first Baldurs Gate game. That game still holds up today. You know why, because the people at Bioware at that time put nothing but their love for video games into that game. Day one DLC only proves that the developers feel their game isn't enough, and if that's the case, then its time to work for those to work harder.

Sorry, it really doesn't. Baldur's Gate 1 lives and dies on the strength of its exploration and DnD 2.0 gameplay, and both are pretty laughable, especially compared to a game like Dark Souls or Skyrim.

I bet if any of you or anyone in general supports day one DLC doesn't even understand what its like to play a game that feels FULL. Like Neverwinter Nights 1 was, like Icewind Dale, like whatever game. You're lying to everyone and yourself if you think that if Baldurs Gate 2 had day one dlc back in the day and that you had to pay $10 bucks that you wouldn't have been angry.

The sensationalism is strong with this one. Why are you assuming what they would feel? Stan has told you how he feels.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 janvier 2014 - 03:45 .

[Billy-the-Squid]

Il Divo wrote...

Trank 209 wrote...

Its sad that there was a time where 10 people would work on a game, or even 30-50 like the first Baldurs Gate game. That game still holds up today. You know why, because the people at Bioware at that time put nothing but their love for video games into that game. Day one DLC only proves that the developers feel their game isn't enough, and if that's the case, then its time to work for those to work harder.

Sorry, it really doesn't. Baldur's Gate 1 lives and dies on the strength of its exploration and DnD 2.0 gameplay, and both are pretty laughable, especially compared to a game like Dark Souls or Skyrim.

And yet, Dark Souls sold 2 million copies and the devs were very pleased with it, to the point that the demand for it was so high they have gone for a PC development. Where as Resident Evil 6 sold 5 million and it was considered a failure by the pulisher... 5 million and it was still a failure. Let that one sink in. What the hell did they expect from a horror game? It's a niche market. Yet there is this overwhelming belief that if it's marketed well enough it can pull in millions of people on the strength of marketing alone. 

If anything that is where the problem of day 1 DLC stems, maximising a return on a product because the capital investment has outstripped the ability of the market to actually generate a return on the IP in question, hence the declining profit margin and the drive to monetize every aspect of the game. EA was selling premium access map packs for $50 on top of a game which has been so broken and shambolic that they are being sued by investors and investigated for securities fraud by a law firm. 

The size of a development team does not make or brake the game and neither does the size of the marketing budget. Outlandish expectantions and wildly over optomistic forcasts do however. 

Do you think Wasteland 2, Minecraft, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution or Payday 2 had hundreds of people working on it, with a marketing team sucking up milllions? No, and they still sold gangbusterlevels for the capital that they used to make the games. 

Payday 2 was profitable before it even hit the shelves for christ sake. Just on Pre orders. And people are eager to suck up the next DLC which is coming out 3 months after release. There was no need for day 1 dlc to get everyone to pre order or buy it new, in some desperate bid to pad out the revenue figures. The same with Dark Souls and Skyrim. 

The current mindset is, that every IP must be a blockbuster, with blockbuster levels of investment and the associated returns. Or it's a flop. There is currenty no middle ground with publishers who are driving the current AAA bubble and pevert any good idea like microtransactions (Forza 5 I'm looking at you), DLC (Capcom is by far the most vile offender in this case) and pre order bonuses (Alien's Colonial Marines)

[Eurypterid]

SwobyJ wrote...


Hi there, blocked off Zaeed and Javik's rooms.

Did I miss a sign on the door that said "Zaeed's room. Access through DLC only"?

*edit* I'm actually being serious here, as I had the Zaeed DLC from the beginning and haven't played through ME3 yet. So was there actually some indication in-game that these were areas that were blocked off but could somehow otherwise be accessed?

But the main point is, did the game from a story point of view seem incomplete without them? I somehow doubt I'd have missed Zaeed if he weren't there.

*second edit* To illustrate my point from DA2: I don't own the Sebastian DLC. Having played through the game, I got absolutely no feeling that there's some character missing, some content missing, or that the game was incomplete because I didn't have that DLC.

Modifié par Eurypterid, 04 janvier 2014 - 05:39 .

[In Exile]

Trank 209 wrote...
I bet if any of you or anyone in general supports day one DLC doesn't even understand what its like to play a game that feels FULL. Like Neverwinter Nights 1 was, like Icewind Dale, like whatever game. You're lying to everyone and yourself if you think that if Baldurs Gate 2 had day one dlc back in the day and that you had to pay $10 bucks that you wouldn't have been angry.

NWN1 is one of the most loathed Bioware games of all time. Back when the OC was released, it was the same rage as with DA2 from DA:O. And when you read how the OC came toghether, it's really hard to justify saying that it was a "complete" experience given under the kind of pressures the OC was made and the serious cuts that were made to it. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 05:43 .

[In Exile]

Tequila Cat wrote...
Do you think Wasteland 2, Minecraft, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution or Payday 2 had hundreds of people working on it, with a marketing team sucking up milllions? No, and they still sold gangbusterlevels for the capital that they used to make the games. 

Those games didn't sell very much. They're made on the cheap by private companies, though, which makes a huge difference. Let's take Project Eternity, which rocked them all as a kickstarter. It had less than 100,000k. The private company part is pretty important - the ROI there has to be "what the owners are happy with" and not "better than a bond" (for example) to justify the product's existence like with a public company. 

[Billy-the-Squid]

In Exile wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...
Do you think Wasteland 2, Minecraft, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution or Payday 2 had hundreds of people working on it, with a marketing team sucking up milllions? No, and they still sold gangbusterlevels for the capital that they used to make the games. 

Those games didn't sell very much. They're made on the cheap by private companies, though, which makes a huge difference. Let's take Project Eternity, which rocked them all as a kickstarter. It had less than 100,000k. The private company part is pretty important - the ROI there has to be "what the owners are happy with" and not "better than a bond" (for example) to justify the product's existence like with a public company. 

Payday 2 sold 1.8 million in less than 3 months, and while it was developed by a private copmpany it was published by a public company. Considering that it was deemed profitable based solely on it's pre order numbers, makes me think that driving every game to a AAA mrkt budget is more push on EA and like publisher's part than the investors. Considering BF4 has highlighted the potential pump and dump stock fraud application on high profile AAA games, it seems that EA and other publishers use these blockbuster games as a way to boost stock prices, rather than because the game actually warrants that lvl of capital investment. 

It also highlights that investors do indeed expect a rate of return to be the pivotal point in stock purchase, obviously (that's what I look for as well when I make purchases), but how it's actually derived is no concern of theirs. That's an internal company problem which the Likes of EA, capcom etc seem to be failing to deliver without banking on these massive projects which require 100's of millions in investment. That's a kind of risk that I, as an investor would be caggy about if a company's ability to generate a consitent revenue and so dividend return is based on a handful of 3/4 IPs.

Which calls into question the lvls of capital investment in a single project actually being warranted, considering smaller projects such as Dead Space 1 (not 3) a proportionally developed Tomb Raider, Dark Souls will have required and generate a proportionally similar if not better rate of return (ratio) without the risk involved in such a high profile IP failure like BF4. What we see with BF4 is a direct result of when the IP doesn't suceed. 

We're not talking about the return in £, rather the %return in terms of capital invested on a single project and the ability to diversify the risk in the company's IP portfolio by using multiple projects to safeguard against IP techincal failures like BF4's

[Cyonan]

Eurypterid wrote...

Did I miss a sign on the door that said "Zaeed's room. Access through DLC only"?

*edit* I'm actually being serious here, as I had the Zaeed DLC from the beginning and haven't played through ME3 yet. So was there actually some indication in-game that these were areas that were blocked off but could somehow otherwise be accessed?

But the main point is, did the game from a story point of view seem incomplete without them? I somehow doubt I'd have missed Zaeed if he weren't there.

*second edit* To illustrate my point from DA2: I don't own the Sebastian DLC. Having played through the game, I got absolutely no feeling that there's some character missing, some content missing, or that the game was incomplete because I didn't have that DLC.

The rooms are just locked if you don't have them, although if you played Dragon Age: Origins that had one in it. If you don't own Warden's Keep the guy literally gives you the quest for it and then the game tells you that you need to pay in order to actually do it.

In Exile wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...
Do you think Wasteland 2, Minecraft, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution or Payday 2 had hundreds of people working on it, with a marketing team sucking up milllions? No, and they still sold gangbusterlevels for the capital that they used to make the games. 

Those games didn't sell very much. They're made on the cheap by private companies, though, which makes a huge difference. Let's take Project Eternity, which rocked them all as a kickstarter. It had less than 100,000k. The private company part is pretty important - the ROI there has to be "what the owners are happy with" and not "better than a bond" (for example) to justify the product's existence like with a public company. 

Minecraft has sold 13.5 million copies on PC.

How is that not "selling very much"?

[Dutchess]

Cyonan wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

Did I miss a sign on the door that said "Zaeed's room. Access through DLC only"?

*edit* I'm actually being serious here, as I had the Zaeed DLC from the beginning and haven't played through ME3 yet. So was there actually some indication in-game that these were areas that were blocked off but could somehow otherwise be accessed?

But the main point is, did the game from a story point of view seem incomplete without them? I somehow doubt I'd have missed Zaeed if he weren't there.

*second edit* To illustrate my point from DA2: I don't own the Sebastian DLC. Having played through the game, I got absolutely no feeling that there's some character missing, some content missing, or that the game was incomplete because I didn't have that DLC.

The rooms are just locked if you don't have them, although if you played Dragon Age: Origins that had one in it. If you don't own Warden's Keep the guy literally gives you the quest for it and then the game tells you that you need to pay in order to actually do it.

Not just Warden's Keep either. I had a random encounter trigger for Return to Ostagar. Pay to revive the old unconscious dude and continue.

[Eurypterid]

Cyonan wrote...

The rooms are just locked if you don't have them, although if you played Dragon Age: Origins that had one in it. If you don't own Warden's Keep the guy literally gives you the quest for it and then the game tells you that you need to pay in order to actually do it.

Yes, I remember Dragon Age's situation and that's actually a prime example of the developer learning their lesson, IMO. That was pretty brutal and there were a lot of complaints about DLC being thrown in your face in-game like that and as far as I'm aware, BioWare didn't do it that way again.

[hoorayforicecream]

For those who believe that in the concept of a "complete game"... I have three questions.

#1. If you have played it, do you consider KOTOR 2 a complete game?
#2. Do you think that Obsidian and LucasArts owe the purchasers of KOTOR 2 the actual ending content that was on the disc but never finished?
#3. If Obsidian had hypothetically been given the additional budget to actually finish the unfinished ending content that was on the disc under the condition that it would be paid day 1 DLC, would you also take them to task for it?

Keep in mind that there are no circumstances in which would you ever be able to get this finished content at no additional cost. You would either have to pay for it, or you would get the game as it was when it was shipped.

Just for clarity's sake, if you haven't played KOTOR 2 before this is what I am referring to: There was a massive amount of ending content that was unfinished and unpolished left on the disc, but unaccessible to the players because it was unfinished. Obsidian ran out of time and budget, so they cut that content. Later, the modding community managed to cobble together an unofficial patch that fixed many of the bugs in the game, as well as restored to playability most of the cut (though unfinished) content.

The only way that content would have ever seen the light of day officially and professionally done would be through additional budgeting, which the team was not given. In a similar situation today, it would most likely have come instead as paid DLC. Since such things were unavailable back then, the content was cut and the players were just never officially given that content at all.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 04 janvier 2014 - 09:44 .

[Cyonan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

For those who believe that in the concept of a "complete game"... I have three questions.

#1. If you have played it, do you consider KOTOR 2 a complete game?
#2. Do you think that Obsidian and LucasArts owe the purchasers of KOTOR 2 the actual ending content that was on the disc but never finished?
#3. If Obsidian had hypothetically been given the additional budget to actually finish the unfinished ending content that was on the disc under the condition that it would be paid day 1 DLC, would you also take them to task for it?

Keep in mind that there are no circumstances in which would you ever be able to get this finished content at no additional cost. You would either have to pay for it, or you would get the game as it was when it was shipped.

Just for clarity's sake, if you haven't played KOTOR 2 before this is what I am referring to: There was a massive amount of ending content that was unfinished and unpolished left on the disc, but unaccessible to the players because it was unfinished. Obsidian ran out of time and budget, so they cut that content. Later, the modding community managed to cobble together an unofficial patch that fixed many of the bugs in the game, as well as restored to playability most of the cut (though unfinished) content.

The only way that content would have ever seen the light of day officially and professionally done would be through additional budgeting, which the team was not given. In a similar situation today, it would most likely have come instead as paid DLC. Since such things were unavailable back then, the content was cut and the players were just never officially given that content at all.

I would rather them abandon the content like they did. Day 1 "real ending" DLC would pretty much ensure I never buy that game and I'd probably be wary about buying other games from them a well, as that crosses the line for me.

I've not played KotoR 2, so I don't know what sort of ending we ended up getting but if it's an actual ending then the game does offer the complete game experience for the cost. It might have been rushed, but it does give you everything the game has to offer as it was at launch(plus patches) as well as a story that has a beginning -> middle -> end.

If they did day 1 ending DLC, then suddenly you aren't getting everything and your base game story only has beginning -> middle -> pay extra for the ending.

I don't get too caught up on content that was cut and not released, because to be honest it happens quite a bit. If it's not there then it's not there, and we should be focusing on what is there to determine if it's the complete game experience or not.

[hoorayforicecream]

Cyonan wrote...

I don't get too caught up on content that was cut and not released, because to be honest it happens quite a bit. If it's not there then it's not there, and we should be focusing on what is there to determine if it's the complete game experience or not.

Almost all DLC, paid or otherwise is content that was cut during production and would not be released otherwise. People who buy into the myth of the "complete game" refuse to believe that.

[Cyonan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

I don't get too caught up on content that was cut and not released, because to be honest it happens quite a bit. If it's not there then it's not there, and we should be focusing on what is there to determine if it's the complete game experience or not.

Almost all DLC, paid or otherwise is content that was cut during production and would not be released otherwise. People who buy into the myth of the "complete game" refuse to believe that.

I assume you have actual legitimate evidence of this?

[Il Divo]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

I don't get too caught up on content that was cut and not released, because to be honest it happens quite a bit. If it's not there then it's not there, and we should be focusing on what is there to determine if it's the complete game experience or not.

Almost all DLC, paid or otherwise is content that was cut during production and would not be released otherwise. People who buy into the myth of the "complete game" refuse to believe that.

Pretty much this. If there is any game where the cut content sticks out like crazy, it's KotOR 2, no matter how much I loved it. A dlc model might have allowed all this to be restored.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:48 .