15809 réponses à ce sujet

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I'd call it an expansion, at least in today's day and age. Ten years ago maybe not so much. But it is a meaty chunk of content that's more than worth the asking price. Certainly when you compare it to other game's DLCs which charge more for much less...not naming names...

[Wolven_Soul]

I'm reasonably certain that this is the case with the Dragon Age community pre-DAI, as well.

 

And the Mass Effect community pre-ME3 too, for that matter. But it's a gold mine, so it doesn't matter what we think.

 

 

My position is that its inclusion is crass and depressing, largely because the new microtransaction centered business models are crass and depressing. Yes, it's an added feature, but one that would undoubtedly be better expressed in a dedicated game (and it's not like there aren't plenty of MP only games that are a lot better than the tacked on MP mode in Bioware's games). I also think it's a slippery slope. Not every game needs an online component. The more ubiquitous this stuff becomes, the more tempted they're going to be to tie the two modes up together like they did in ME3 (though they walked that little disaster back quickly enough). And how long is it gonna last? The single player experiences in these games are going to long outlive the MP scene, I'll tell you that right now.

 

A sprawling, well-executed single player game is a worthy endeavor all on its own. I'd like more developers and players to recognize and reinforce that. Seems like every damn game from the past several years just ends up getting a MP mode added on for no reason whatsoever beyond selling selling loot boxes for $1.99 (I mean, Bioshock 2 of all things had a MP mode). It's just unnecessary.

 

Uggh, why'd ya have to go and remind us of Bioshock 2's MP.  Man that was bad.  Not as bad as DA:I's though.  I full agree with you, in a SP driven RPG game, the lack of a feature like MP is a good thing.

[slimgrin]

I'd call it an expansion, at least in today's day and age. Ten years ago maybe not so much. But it is a meaty chunk of content that's more than worth the asking price. Certainly when you compare it to other game's DLCs which charge more for much less...not naming names...

 

It's meaty story content, but it's not an expansion, because CDPR are the ones channeling the past here, and in the past an expansion meant more gameplay changes. The only reason I'm stubborn on this is CDPR has been lazy on the gameplay side of things for TW3, and I'm afraid they think adding new story content alone is enough. They streamlined alchemy and the skill trees to begin with. I think they owe it to fans to expand the gameplay along with story.

[Wolven_Soul]

+++1

The practice of using microtransactions always leaves a sour taste. It's sole purpose is to exploit those fans who have no will power and those who will throw their money at a company with no question. Of course, it is their choice, but it's much like putting a liquor store next door to a rehab--no one forces them to buy it, but the shady owner knows he can nab the weak ones.

I remember reading a poster saying he'd already spent a few hundred bucks in ME3's MP not even a few months after launch. It just feels like a greasy practice.

 

100% agree.  Microtransactions are not, and will not ever be something that should be in a game that you have to pay full price for.  It's simply downright disgusting and harmful to the gaming industry period.  Because there are always going to be people weak willed enough to throw money at things like this.  They know it, and thus are always gonna do it.  

 

Call it a choice all that you want to, but anyone who has done their research knows that a game that has microtransaction is more often than not designed in some way or form that makes you want to buy them.  The game is harder than it should be or you have to grind for ludicrously long times to get money or resources to buy something, or it takes a long time to level up.  

 

Yeah, it's a choice, but such games are clearly designed to urge you into making that choice the developer's way.  Which is why CDPR is king among developer's in my mind.  Not so much because their game is so good, but because of the way they treat their fans, they have drawn a line in the sand and refuse to treat the people who buy their products in this way.

 

I really hope they are able to hold strong to those principles.  The day may come when they no longer do, but for now, they are what other developer's should strive to be.

[Elhanan]

Paid DLC = Paid Expansions that are Down Loaded Content.

[Seraphim24]

They did it for marketing buzz. In the same way they pushed "16 Free DLCs" at a time when people were thinking potentially far more substantive content. CDPR is very good at playing on gamers attitudes.

 

I thought their take on DRM is pretty interesting, I'm not knocking the company or anything I've played all TW games, but when TW2 came out they were trying to give really hardcore DRM and sending our warnings about how important it was to get the disc copy or something then all of a sudden it was around TW3 time sending out a letter "This is DRM free, DRM is bad, aren't we good at how we don't care about DRM?" They even went so far as to put a joke in the game somewhere or something about it.

 

In fairness though, they aren't the only company that's good at marketing buzz... can think of a few others closer to home.

 

Anyway DLC makes more sense to me, I just asked about it at all because nothing really made sense... they just released TW3 and suddenly they were pushing out stuff that was greater in content than all of TW3 I'm just like that's just logically impossible from a development standpoints it would seem...

 

I am not saying I think HoS is an expansion or not, I havn't played it yet so I can't make a call on that, but I don't think you need to make big alterations to the gameplay for it to be considered an expansion.  

 

The expansions to games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights can not be called anything but expansions, but they certainly didn't change the gameplay at all as I recall.  I would also point to expansions to games like Starcraft and Warcraft.  Definitely expansions, definitely didn't change gameplay.  

 

I am not really sure what differentiates between expansion and DLC, but I don't believe it is gameplay changes.

 

It's really just size.. I mean something like some Valkyria Chronicles DLC which I wanted was like literally 3 missions or something it's such a tiny bite.

 

Something back in the day like Lord of Destruction for Diablo 2, based on the amount of gameplay changes and new ways to play and such, provided arguably around 50-60 hours of playable experiences.

 

< 10 hours at a reasonable pace seems to me definitely DLC... even things like DA: Awakening are probably around 14-15 hours taken at a reasonable pace and maybe replaying a few choices differently, definitely <5 hours non-speed running, like, that's DLC.

[Elhanan]

And here we go:

http://www.eurogamer...ave-multiplayer

[Wolven_Soul]

It's meaty story content, but it's not an expansion, because CDPR are the ones channeling the the past here, and in the past an expansion meant more gameplay changes. The only reason I'm stubborn on this is CDPR has been lazy on the gameplay side of things for TW3, and I'm afraid they think adding new story content alone is enough. They streamlined alchemy and the skill trees to begin with. I think they owe it to fans to expand the gameplay along with story.

 

I am not saying I think HoS is an expansion or not, I havn't played it yet so I can't make a call on that, but I don't think you need to make big alterations to the gameplay for it to be considered an expansion.  

 

The expansions to games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights can not be called anything but expansions, but they certainly didn't change the gameplay at all as I recall.  I would also point to expansions to games like Starcraft and Warcraft.  Definitely expansions, definitely didn't change gameplay.  

 

I am not really sure what differentiates between expansion and DLC, but I don't believe it is gameplay changes.

[FKA_Servo]

And here we go:

http://www.eurogamer...ave-multiplayer

 

I already knew that CDPR was capable of making questionable design choices. I did play their first two games, after all.

 

Do you think this a gotcha or something? It's as bad an idea for Cyberpunk as it was for Dragon Age.

[Wolven_Soul]

I already knew that CDPR was capable of making questionable design choices. I did play their first two games, after all.

 

Do you think this a gotcha or something? It's as bad an idea for Cyberpunk as it was for Dragon Age.

 

I dunno, Cyberpunk is a shooter, and shooters and MP go together like peanut butter and jelly.  It worked for ME, it could work for Cyberpunk.

 

I hope they are not seriously considering some kind of MP for TW3 though.  Unless....hey....maybe they are thinking of making Gwent a MP thing.  That could be really cool actually, for those of us that enjoy it.

[FKA_Servo]

I dunno, Cyberpunk is a shooter, and shooters and MP go together like peanut butter and jelly.  It worked for ME, it could work for Cyberpunk.

 

I hope they are not seriously considering some kind of MP for TW3 though.  Unless....hey....maybe they are thinking of making Gwent a MP thing.  That could be really cool actually, for those of us that enjoy it.

 

I think that ME's MP is just as extravagantly unnecessary as DA's.

 

That's also a two year old article, though. With any luck, they've come to their senses since.

[Dread-Reaper]

They did it for marketing buzz. In the same way they pushed "16 Free DLCs" at a time when people were thinking potentially far more substantive content. CDPR is very good at playing on gamers attitudes.

They didn't play anyone when they were talking about the Free DLCs though, they said it would be little things, not hours of free content. 

[Elhanan]

An bit more updated article:

http://www.gamespot....w/1100-6424517/

[KBomb]

They did it for marketing buzz. In the same way they pushed "16 Free DLCs" at a time when people were thinking potentially far more substantive content. CDPR is very good at playing on gamers attitudes.

Marketing buzz? Wait, you mean to convince me that a company is utilizing marketing? A marketing move that is beneficial to both company and player? Well, I cannot believe a company would stoop to such practices!

 

Of course it was part of marketing. Why wouldn't it be? They're selling a product. It was a great call to make and I don't feel "taken for a ride", I feel pretty damn good about buying their product and getting 16 free dlc's that other companies are bundling and selling. All companies use marketing "ploys", the difference is that some companies make you want to shower after being exposed to them--this isn't one of those times. 

 

As for the bolded, I am quite happy with the dlc offered and was happy when they announced each one of them. Where the Cat and Wolf play has an excellent little story with it. If people were expecting CDPR to give out full blown story content free, then that is hardly CDPR's fault, when they have certainly not promised anything of the sort. 

 

I fail to see how anything they have done in the offering of the 16 free dlc is questionable or wrong. I have certainly not lost anything.

 

 

 

And the one paid DLC I have played has been amazing and has everything I expect from paid content and far exceeds what I imagined it would be. 

 

United Servo Academy Choir, on 25 Oct 2015 - 9:48 PM, said:
I think that ME's MP is just as extravagantly unnecessary as DA's.

That's also a two year old article, though. With any luck, they've come to their senses since.

 

I don't know exactly what he is trying to prove with his articles. It's like he wants people to say, "I dislike MP and I love CDPR. Now that they are thinking of MP concepts, though, I hate them and they're wrong, wrong, and BAD!" It is such a silly thing.

[FKA_Servo]

I don't know exactly what he is trying to prove with his articles. It's like he wants people to say, "I dislike MP and I love CDPR. Now that they are thinking of MP concepts, though, I hate them and they're wrong, wrong, and BAD!" It is such a silly thing.

 

Going forward, I plan on adopting whatever the online forum equivalent of smiling and nodding is, whenever I figure out what it is.

 

At the end of the day, while I think it's pointless and I don't want to play it under any circumstances, I don't actually have an issue with MPs inclusion, per se, so much as the impression that the single player game is now primarily a vehicle for the MP and its inevitable RMTs. Which I feel is what ended up happening with ME3 (though god knows there are plenty of contributing factors to that debacle). It wasn't that bad in DAI, thankfully. I think the microtransactions are bull, but even those I can ignore easily enough. It's not even worth getting that mad about, because for every ammo box or whatever I don't buy, there are going to be 3 morons throwing real cash at it and yelling at me to "git gud," and I have no control over that.

 

What chaps my ass about MP in these games is that it inevitably insinuates itself into the singleplayer game. It did in a big way in ME3 before they walked it back, and it did in a smaller way in DAI (thankfully didn't go any further). I thought ME3 would have learned em, but I have no indication at this time that EA won't pull that again in a future game. If CDPR wants to put some dumb MP mode in their game, sure. As long it's actually for real separate from the real game and I can continue to completely ignore its presence, I'm less annoyed. Although I'd obviously be pleased if they left out the RMTs on principle, I guarantee that CDPR wouldn't be that altruistic.

[Dread-Reaper]

Going forward, I plan on adopting whatever the online forum equivalent of smiling and nodding is, whenever I figure out what it is.

That would be "K" or "Sure".

[Elhanan]

Simply pointing out that if one does not like MP, it is headed that way, too. As I do not play MP in most games, will not affect me much at all.

[Seraphim24]

They didn't play anyone when they were talking about the Free DLCs though, they said it would be little things, not hours of free content. 

 

Well it's kind of confusing though if nothing else.

 

TW3 is the TW3, we all agree on and understand that. TW2 is the TW2, and TW1 is TW1.

 

Then we have free DLC.. DLC which is what you normally pay for? But it's free? In 16 distinct chunks?

 

Then an expansion which they specifically clarify isn't DLC (which seems odd, no one was necessarily asking that question at the outset), plus another expansion or something that is much different in size but is also technically expansion.

 

Consequently, Exile's interpretation that it is kind of marketing buzzy thing seems the most correct one.

[Eelectrica]

Simply pointing out that if one does not like MP, it is headed that way, too. As I do not play MP in most games, will not affect me much at all.

Two different products and types of games. Cyberpunk is based on an MP tabletop game so could make sense that the video game also allows MP.

it could be good, could be bad too early to pass judgment either way.

I don't believe MP to be inherently bad. Some games it works others it doesn't. Am actually looking forward to co-oping D:OS enhanced with someone. Another game that appears to have seamlessly integrated MP with SP.

[panzerwzh]

Well it's kind of confusing though if nothing else.
 
TW3 is the TW3, we all agree on and understand that.
 
Then we have free DLC.. DLC which is what you normally pay for? But it's free? In 16 distinct chunks?
 
Then an expansion which they specifically clarify isn't DLC (which seems odd, no one was necessarily asking that question at the outset), plus another expansion or something that is much different in size but is also technically expansion.
 
Consequently, Exile's interpretation that it is kind of marketing buzzy thing seems the most correct one.

If every game developer could carry out similar "marketing buzzy" with such quality like TW3 and HOS I will be living in dreams!

[Dread-Reaper]

Well it's kind of confusing though if nothing else.

 

TW3 is the TW3, we all agree on and understand that. TW2 is the TW2, and TW1 is TW1.

 

Then we have free DLC.. DLC which is what you normally pay for? But it's free? In 16 distinct chunks?

 

Then an expansion which they specifically clarify isn't DLC (which seems odd, no one was necessarily asking that question at the outset), plus another expansion or something that is much different in size but is also technically expansion.

 

Consequently, Exile's interpretation that it is kind of marketing buzzy thing seems the most correct one.

They labelled them Free DLCs and Expansion because they believe DLCs to be small little things, like a new sword or armour set, which is what they gave. Anything substantial that offers hours of content is termed 'Expansion', they made this clear in several interviews before the game released.

[Morty Smith]

Remember when Cyberpunk started out as a singler-player experience? This sequel will suck,

[Eelectrica]

Remember when Cyberpunk started out as a singler-player experience? This sequel will suck,

They haven't got Cyberpunk 1 out the door yet. bit early to judge Cyberpunk 2 isn't it?

[Morty Smith]

Wait, I thought the upcoming game was the sequel. Are you telling me this game-series wasn´t even established as purely single-player yet?

[Akrabra]

Wait, I thought the upcoming game was the sequel. Are you telling me this game-series wasn´t even established as purely single-player yet?

Cyberpunk is a tabletop game they are turning into an PC RPG franchise. Can probably expect the first game in 2018/2019.