750 réponses à ce sujet

[Skorm777]

Darth Death wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

But how does your solution solve anything? Assuming we do want to accept your interpretation where Bioware is behaving less than ideally, what's stopping them from selling the same content much later? Or simply not releasing the content period, since fans will demand it be attached to the base game? Getting Javik a month or two months later does not imply that Javik was made after the fact.

I also liked how skyrim's dlc was handled after its release, as an example.

Yeah, I like how Bethesda blatantly lied or exaggerated about many features in the game as well; and how they dummed everything down, so in every dungeon within the game we could do the same animal stone, or animal claw puzzle. 

My favorite parts about Skyrim dlc were all the reused textures with new names, and the incclusion of stories that will be made irrelevant since your part in them will either be ignored or decided for you in the next game. 

I'm not suggesting Bioware has done right on their dlc either, but praising Bethesda given the massive flaws just because their dlc release time was later, just shows hows childish you are. 

[Dutchess]

Skorm777 wrote...

renjility wrote...

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

All you idiots wanting Day One DLC are making my head hurt.

They should only start to consider D1DLC when there's not a single bug in the main game, as far as I'm concerned.

Programmers fix bugs. Animators, graphical designers, writers, and other specialised developers create dlc. Therefore what you're saying is just angsty fan whining; you're in the right place unfortunately. 

Yeah, and the programmers don't work on D1DLC, certainly. Considering I've just encountered several nasty bugs upon replaying DAO, they could have spent their time differently. Same goes for ME3. Time to develop D1DLC, yet the face import bug took week to fix after release.

Modifié par renjility, 22 décembre 2013 - 07:23 .

[AlanC9]

renjility wrote...
Time to develop D1DLC, yet the face import bug took week to fix after release.

Was the face import bug known before release? What percentage of faces fail?

Not that not knowing lets Bio off the hook. That would just mean they needed more testing.

[MDCT506]

OP, and others, kindly do not speak for me. I can do that just fine, thank you.

I say do the Day 1 DLC. Hell, do the week 1, month 1, and month 2 DLCs too. More content, more options. If I like the look of what's in it, I'll get it. If don't like what I see, I won't get it. Nobody's twisting my arm to buy it. If that means I miss out on something, then I guess I miss out. Of course, if It isn't worth the money to me in the first place, then I don't really miss out on much, do I?

I'm not an investor in the game or the company, I'm a consumer. As such, they don't owe me anything but what's advertised on the box (when there's a box to advertise on at least) when I buy it. If I don't get that, I believe I have a reason to take issue with the company, but not before.

If I get free stuff, great, I'm not gonna complain but I don't feel compelled to demand it as if it were actually mine in the first place.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

Darth Death wrote...
Day one dlc creates the impression of content being cut out to be sold separately. If the content (dlc) is ready at release it shouldn't have a separate price tag on it. Release the dlc along with the game. It depends when the dlc is being made, way after or before release.      

But how does your solution solve anything? Assuming we do want to accept your interpretation where Bioware is behaving less than ideally, what's stopping them from selling the same content much later? 

Note the italed. Delaying the content would solve the problem if the problem is some folks feeling angry about their belief that content is being cut out to be sold separately. Whether the belief is true doesn't change the feeling. Hard luck for everyone else since they now have to wait for the content, of course.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 décembre 2013 - 08:50 .

[Maverick827]

Maybe BioWare can get around this faux problem by announcing the DLC months early with the back story of how they tried and tried and were finally able to convince EA to give them additional funding for some cool DLC and that it might be ready at launch, but then say it isn't and release it a week into the game.

[addiction21]

Maverick827 wrote...

Maybe BioWare can get around this faux problem by announcing the DLC months early

Then that time and money should be spent on the core game

Maverick827 wrote...

 with the back story of how they tried and tried and were finally able to convince EA to give them additional funding for some cool DLC

Again it wouldn't matter that should of been added to the main game or DLC given for free. (notice how it should always be free not matter what. The only acceptable DLC is free)
It wouldn't matter if said DLC would never exist and that funding would never be added to the main game anyway.

Maverick827 wrote...

and that it might be ready at launch, but then say it isn't and release it a week into the game.

Bioware would be liars then.

It all boils down that it should not exist, be free, or wait some arbitrary amount of time to make some people happy.

[Dutchess]

AlanC9 wrote...

renjility wrote...
Time to develop D1DLC, yet the face import bug took week to fix after release.

Was the face import bug known before release? What percentage of faces fail?

Not that not knowing lets Bio off the hook. That would just mean they needed more testing.

It should be known, considering the rather essential part of importing a Shepard through the trilogy. Isn't that the whole point of bug testing?  I don't know what percentage of the faces failed. Did it not happen in all cases? From what I gathered it appeared to be a widespread problem, so I thought it was pretty much universal. My Shepard did not import correctly at all either. 

[Navasha]

If I was back in college right now, I would so want to write my thesis on the "Age of Entitlement meets the Gaming Industry."

What, if any, difference is there in these statements:
A) I just bought a computer game and had to pay $10 bucks extra for DLC content that came out on the same day. They should have to make that AFTER the game is released.
I just bought a car and had to pay $500 extra for leather seats instead of cloth ones. The leather was available on the same day! They should have been included in the car in the first place.
C) I just bought an iPad! However, I had to pay separately for a carrying case. It was available at the SAME time too, Why wasn't the carrying case included in the price of the iPad.

Modifié par Navasha, 22 décembre 2013 - 09:35 .

[Sanunes]

addiction21 wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Maybe BioWare can get around this faux problem by announcing the DLC months early

Then that time and money should be spent on the core game

Maverick827 wrote...

 with the back story of how they tried and tried and were finally able to convince EA to give them additional funding for some cool DLC

Again it wouldn't matter that should of been added to the main game or DLC given for free. (notice how it should always be free not matter what. The only acceptable DLC is free)
It wouldn't matter if said DLC would never exist and that funding would never be added to the main game anyway.

Maverick827 wrote...

and that it might be ready at launch, but then say it isn't and release it a week into the game.

Bioware would be liars then.

It all boils down that it should not exist, be free, or wait some arbitrary amount of time to make some people happy.

The problem with the DLC/Expansion/Day 1 DLC arguement is that its two different ideologies combating with one another and neither side will ever win. Now I don't agree with all of BioWare's choices, but I don't agree with many choices by other game developers either.

[addiction21]

Sanunes wrote...

The problem with the DLC/Expansion/Day 1 DLC arguement is that its two different ideologies combating with one another and neither side will ever win. Now I don't agree with all of BioWare's choices, but I don't agree with many choices by other game developers either.

And I understand that. Its the people that no matter what is done with DLC if its not free its wrong and you must be a idiot, fanboy, sycophant, etc  for accepting it.

Not even a hour ago I just ought the DAO ultimate edition for 10 bucks off of steam because I didn't have most of the DLC so it was cheap enough and want to add it to my current playthru. That I might not ever get to but that's a different discussion.

I treat all DLC like the games themselves. If I think its worth the money I buy it.

[cjones91]

Navasha wrote...

If I was back in college right now, I would so want to write my thesis on the "Age of Entitlement meets the Gaming Industry."

What, if any, difference is there in these statements:
A) I just bought a computer game and had to pay $10 bucks extra for DLC content that came out on the same day. They should have to make that AFTER the game is released.
I just bought a car and had to pay $500 extra for leather seats instead of cloth ones. The leather was available on the same day! They should have been included in the car in the first place.
C) I just bought an iPad! However, I had to pay separately for a carrying case. It was available at the SAME time too, Why wasn't the carrying case included in the price of the iPad.

It's not really entitlement(that word is sorely overused by the way)to expect a full product.If I pay 60+ dollars for a game then I better get all of it and just 75-95 perecent of it.Of course most game companies have abused DLC over this generation of games and it looks like next gen will be even worse.

[cjones91]

Cowboy Saunter wrote...

Ah i hope theres day one DLC for sure.because i find it interesting

Yes,the amount of PR and double speak regarding Day 1 DLC is always fun to see.

Modifié par cjones91, 22 décembre 2013 - 10:28 .

[Hiemoth]

cjones91 wrote...

Navasha wrote...

If I was back in college right now, I would so want to write my thesis on the "Age of Entitlement meets the Gaming Industry."

What, if any, difference is there in these statements:
A) I just bought a computer game and had to pay $10 bucks extra for DLC content that came out on the same day. They should have to make that AFTER the game is released.
I just bought a car and had to pay $500 extra for leather seats instead of cloth ones. The leather was available on the same day! They should have been included in the car in the first place.
C) I just bought an iPad! However, I had to pay separately for a carrying case. It was available at the SAME time too, Why wasn't the carrying case included in the price of the iPad.

It's not really entitlement(that word is sorely overused by the way)to expect a full product.If I pay 60+ dollars for a game then I better get all of it and just 75-95 perecent of it.Of course most game companies have abused DLC over this generation of games and it looks like next gen will be even worse.

Except you are getting 100 % of the game you paid for. If you buy one of the DLCs, then you are getting 100 % of that DLC. The DLC brings addition to the base game for you paid the original price and which can be played through without any difficulties on its own.

I do not quite understand how, despite the developers stating it time and time again, that those parts removed from the game due to time constraints would be left to the floor of the cutting room if they were not published as a DLC. Thus, and this should be repeated constantly, you are not actually losing anything if you buy the game without a DLC. You are only getting additional things if you buy the DLC.

[cjones91]

Hiemoth wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Navasha wrote...

If I was back in college right now, I would so want to write my thesis on the "Age of Entitlement meets the Gaming Industry."

What, if any, difference is there in these statements:
A) I just bought a computer game and had to pay $10 bucks extra for DLC content that came out on the same day. They should have to make that AFTER the game is released.
I just bought a car and had to pay $500 extra for leather seats instead of cloth ones. The leather was available on the same day! They should have been included in the car in the first place.
C) I just bought an iPad! However, I had to pay separately for a carrying case. It was available at the SAME time too, Why wasn't the carrying case included in the price of the iPad.

It's not really entitlement(that word is sorely overused by the way)to expect a full product.If I pay 60+ dollars for a game then I better get all of it and just 75-95 perecent of it.Of course most game companies have abused DLC over this generation of games and it looks like next gen will be even worse.

Except you are getting 100 % of the game you paid for. If you buy one of the DLCs, then you are getting 100 % of that DLC. The DLC brings addition to the base game for you paid the original price and which can be played through without any difficulties on its own.

I do not quite understand how, despite the developers stating it time and time again, that those parts removed from the game due to time constraints would be left to the floor of the cutting room if they were not published as a DLC. Thus, and this should be repeated constantly, you are not actually losing anything if you buy the game without a DLC. You are only getting additional things if you buy the DLC.

Except for the fact that games had content ripped from them in order to be sold later on.I have no problem with DLC but if it was blatantly removed in order to make money then I will call a spade a spade.Also explain the fact that some games have over 50 pieces of content removed way before the game is in production.Because there are some devs who quite frankly have abused DLC to the point where it's only natural for people to be skeptical of their excuses.

Modifié par cjones91, 22 décembre 2013 - 10:30 .

[Heimdall]

cjones91 wrote...

Except for the fact that games had content ripped from them in order to be sold later on.

That's a more a gross misconception that detractors like to throw around whether the content could have been down by the certification date or not.

Putting aside something for later development to focus on the core game is not ripping out finished content.

[cjones91]

Lord Aesir wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Except for the fact that games had content ripped from them in order to be sold later on.

That's a more a gross misconception that detractors like to throw around whether the content could have been down by the certification date or not.

Putting aside something for later development to focus on the core game is not ripping out finished content.

Seriously?Do I have to mention every game that Capcom has made where content was either locked onto the disc or ripped out entirely in order to make a buck?What do you call difficulty levels being removed from the game in order to sell as DLC?

[Maverick827]

cjones91 wrote...

Except for the fact that games had content ripped from them in order to be sold later on.I have no problem with DLC but if it was blatantly removed in order to make money then I will call a spade a spade.

No, you're calling a hammer a spade because you have no idea what a spade actually is.

[cjones91]

Maverick827 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Except for the fact that games had content ripped from them in order to be sold later on.I have no problem with DLC but if it was blatantly removed in order to make money then I will call a spade a spade.

No, you're calling a hammer a spade because you have no idea what a spade actually is.

Again...basic game features are now being removed and sold as Dlc.I'm just calling it like it is.

[addiction21]

cjones91 wrote...

Seriously?Do I have to mention every game that Capcom has made where content was either locked onto the disc or ripped out entirely in order to make a buck?What do you call difficulty levels being removed from the game in order to sell as DLC?

Seriously? Do I have to point out Capcom is the extreme end and acting as if that is the norm for DLC is naïve?

I did so I guess I had to.

[cjones91]

addiction21 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Seriously?Do I have to mention every game that Capcom has made where content was either locked onto the disc or ripped out entirely in order to make a buck?What do you call difficulty levels being removed from the game in order to sell as DLC?

Seriously? Do I have to point out Capcom is the extreme end and acting as if that is the norm for DLC is naïve?

I did so I guess I had to.

Of course it isn't the norm,but to act like every game developer removes content because of production costs is doubly naive.

Modifié par cjones91, 22 décembre 2013 - 11:09 .

[addiction21]

cjones91 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Seriously?Do I have to mention every game that Capcom has made where content was either locked onto the disc or ripped out entirely in order to make a buck?What do you call difficulty levels being removed from the game in order to sell as DLC?

Seriously? Do I have to point out Capcom is the extreme end and acting as if that is the norm for DLC is naïve?

I did so I guess I had to.

Of course it isn't the norm,but to act like every game developer removes content because of production costs is doubly naive.

Except you argue as if its the norm.

Cut, leftover, "removed" content has been there longer then you want to believe.  Leftover code for content that was never in the main game has existed long before DLC ever happened (KoToR 2 being the go to example in this case) . Its a fact of development that there is work done on content that never makes it to the main game  but its more efficient to not remove

Knowing a fact is not being "doubly naïve" Acting like you know something and being wrong in every way is just being ignorant. Programmers don't just snap their fingers and code is seamlessly incorporated or removed. Nor can they "just fix everything because there are more programmers"

And content does absolutely get removed or at least stopped because of production costs. Shale caused more problems and was left on the cutting room floor but thankfully extra funding was provided to finish that bit.

[cjones91]

addiction21 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Seriously?Do I have to mention every game that Capcom has made where content was either locked onto the disc or ripped out entirely in order to make a buck?What do you call difficulty levels being removed from the game in order to sell as DLC?

Seriously? Do I have to point out Capcom is the extreme end and acting as if that is the norm for DLC is naïve?

I did so I guess I had to.

Of course it isn't the norm,but to act like every game developer removes content because of production costs is doubly naive.

Except you argue as if its the norm.

Cut, leftover, "removed" content has been there longer then you want to believe.  Leftover code for content that was never in the main game has existed long before DLC ever happened (KoToR 2 being the go to example in this case) . Its a fact of development that there is work done on content that never makes it to the main game  but its more efficient to not remove

Knowing a fact is not being "doubly naïve" Acting like you know something and being wrong in every way is just being ignorant. Programmers don't just snap their fingers and code is seamlessly incorporated or removed. Nor can they "just fix everything because there are more programmers"

And content does absolutely get removed or at least stopped because of production costs. Shale caused more problems and was left on the cutting room floor but thankfully extra funding was provided to finish that bit.

I know how game development works and how things tend to get cut because of either time or resources.But how am I wrong when there is precedence for games having content removed solely for the sake of making a quick buck?The recent Metro game is a clear example of what happens when core game features are removed in order to be sold as DLC and if you think that's bad then just wait until the next gen fully comes around.

Modifié par cjones91, 22 décembre 2013 - 11:51 .

[addiction21]

cjones91 wrote...

I know how game development works and how things tend to get cut because of either time or resources.But how am I wrong when there is precedence for games having content removed solely for the sake of making a quick buck?The recent Metro game is a clear example of what happens when core game features are removed in order to be sold as DLC and if you think that's bad then just wait until the next gen fully comes around.

No you have made it clear you think you know how development works. You say you know but then argue as if its all like Capcom or Metro.

Your "precedence" is ignoring the many more examples of how its not done that way so you can pretend that is the only way DLC comes about.

Why should I wait till the next gen? I have been hearing this tripe all thru last gen that "DLC is bad because its DLC and reasons"

Like I have already said I will buy what I want if I believe its worth my money. Watching children making ignorant assumptions using extremes and double standards as to why they should get it for free I will continue to mock.