74 réponses à ce sujet

[Addictress]

In a controlled setting, a genie offers you a choice:

Three boutique lattes, or

Three nights of solid DLC gaming, of reasonable 8/10 quality.

Which do you choose?

[Elhanan]

Easy Peasy; DLC due to a dislike of coffee....

[thats1evildude]

The latter.

 

$15 is also the price of a movie ticket these days. I would dare anyone who paid admission to get into, say, Pixels to claim that their money was better spent on seeing that film than buying the Descent.

[Addictress]

Hmmm interestinggg

[Abyss108]

Despite how angry I get when I don't have my Latte, I've still gotta go with gaming. 

[Akrabra]

Both? Who says i can't have both?

[correctamundo]

DLC, ez=) Though I am heavily addicted to coffee. I would go for DLC even if it was black coffee that was offered ;-)

[Toasted Llama]

I didn't even know what a boutique latte was untill I read the comments, so DLC it definitely is :V

[LightningPoodle]

The drink.

[berelinde]

I would plug in my coffeemaker and settle in for an evening of gaming, of course! A bargain at twice the price.

 

Some other gaming companies offer budget-priced or free DLC because they can, and in consequence, some players write as if that should be the industry norm, but the fact remains that even at $15, the DLC are a steal. I've played JoH 4 or 5 times, Descent 3 times, and Trespasser twice. Where else can I find 60 hours entertainment for $45?

[vbibbi]

The latte.

 

$15 is also the price of a movie ticket these days. I would dare anyone who paid admission to get into, say, Pixels to claim that their money was better spent on seeing that film than buying the Descent.

Fixed that for you...

[AlanC9]

Where else can I find 60 hours entertainment for $45?

 

Well, you could pick up a full game or two for that price if you wait for a sale. Or a few months of Netflix. But yeah, other than that....

[vbibbi]

Seriously though, I don't mind paying extra for DLCs if they're worthwhile and expand upon the game. Not a fan of DLCs which are just cut content restored, so I'm glad Bio has stopped Day One DLCs and companion DLCs.

 

And for all of my complaints about DAI, at least the three DLCs did implement some feedback into them and addressed some of the issues. I say some because apparently they thought gears in the Deep Roads would be as much fun as shards. At least we didn't have to find every gear in order to open every door...

 

I completely dislike the outfit/gear DLCs though. Those seem like a blatant cash grab and should have been included in the main DLCs.

[AlanC9]

Seriously though, I don't mind paying extra for DLCs if they're worthwhile and expand upon the game. Not a fan of DLCs which are just cut content restored, so I'm glad Bio has stopped Day One DLCs and companion DLCs.

I've never really understood how this objection was supposed to work. When EA was doing Day 1 DLCs as part of the plan from the get-go, if they didn't have the DLC revenue that'd mean they'd make a different plan. If anything the base game would get smaller, not bigger, since now it would have to make its profit targets on its own rather than relying on the DLC to handle that.

Though I can certainly see abandoning the practice because gamers get butthurt about it, but that isn't the same thing. Anyway, now I guess we have MP microtransactions to carry that load.

[vbibbi]

I've never really understood how this objection was supposed to work. When EA was doing Day 1 DLCs as part of the plan from the get-go, if they didn't have the DLC revenue that'd mean they'd make a different plan. If anything the base game would get smaller, not bigger, since now it would have to make its profit targets on its own rather than relying on the DLC to handle that.

Though I can certainly see abandoning the practice because gamers get butthurt about it, but that isn't the same thing. Anyway, now I guess we have MP microtransactions to carry that load.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Day One DLCs were planned once the game deadline was approaching and the devs knew they couldn't fit everything in, so they opted to leave things out and continue working on it while the main game was being approved? Or that the extra revenue from Day One DLC helped provide more resources to develop more content? If it's the former I can understand that, although Bioware has been poor in communicating the logistics to fans and that could have helped reduce the outrage.

 

If it's the latter, then no I don't support them intentionally having DLC available for extra cost as soon as the main game is released, because that is really just an excuse for the company to get additional money for content that could have been in the base game. If there was content which was originally planned for the main game (Javik) and then by the time they realized they wouldn't be able to implement it by the deadline, they could have pushed the deadline back until they had enough time to complete everything. Instead, they kept the release date, and worked on the DLC content so that they could get double paid. It's not like they were rushing ME3 out for the Christmas shopping season.

 

Now JOH is different, as Bio has said that all work done on it was after the game was shipped, so while it might have been a cut area from the original game plan, it was cut far enough back in development that they didn't even get far enough to start working on it.

 

And yes, I support multiplayer taking the burden of microtransactions, as that is separate from the single player experience, so it doesn't disrupt my enjoyment of the main game. And some people buy games only for the multiplayer elements, so they are willingly going to contribute to microtransactions that single player fans dislike.

[Ava Grey]

Easy, DLC wins everytime. Three nights of entertainment beats three trips to the loo hands down.

 

 

 

Also I hate coffee.

[Abyss108]

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Day One DLCs were planned once the game deadline was approaching and the devs knew they couldn't fit everything in, so they opted to leave things out and continue working on it while the main game was being approved? Or that the extra revenue from Day One DLC helped provide more resources to develop more content? If it's the former I can understand that, although Bioware has been poor in communicating the logistics to fans and that could have helped reduce the outrage.

 

If it's the latter, then no I don't support them intentionally having DLC available for extra cost as soon as the main game is released, because that is really just an excuse for the company to get additional money for content that could have been in the base game. If there was content which was originally planned for the main game (Javik) and then by the time they realized they wouldn't be able to implement it by the deadline, they could have pushed the deadline back until they had enough time to complete everything. Instead, they kept the release date, and worked on the DLC content so that they could get double paid. It's not like they were rushing ME3 out for the Christmas shopping season.

 

Now JOH is different, as Bio has said that all work done on it was after the game was shipped, so while it might have been a cut area from the original game plan, it was cut far enough back in development that they didn't even get far enough to start working on it.

 

And yes, I support multiplayer taking the burden of microtransactions, as that is separate from the single player experience, so it doesn't disrupt my enjoyment of the main game. And some people buy games only for the multiplayer elements, so they are willingly going to contribute to microtransactions that single player fans dislike.

 

There's a large amount of time before the game comes out that would be wasted if it wasn't used to work on DLC. Writers aren't writing new content towards the end of the dev cycle, artists aren't drawing up the content, etc. All that stuff is in the game, it's just the testers who still have to work on it checking for bugs, and the programmers to fix those bugs. And then there's a period after the game goes Gold, that even those people can't work on the game.

 

Why not make DLC in that time?

[robertthebard]

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Day One DLCs were planned once the game deadline was approaching and the devs knew they couldn't fit everything in, so they opted to leave things out and continue working on it while the main game was being approved? Or that the extra revenue from Day One DLC helped provide more resources to develop more content? If it's the former I can understand that, although Bioware has been poor in communicating the logistics to fans and that could have helped reduce the outrage.

Why can't it be both? Game's "finished" and off for the process of being finalized, and the devs are sitting around with stuff that had to be cut because it wasn't finished by the deadline, so they package it up as DLC. No matter the scenario, you do realize that releasing that DLC helps with the profit margin, right?
 

If it's the latter, then no I don't support them intentionally having DLC available for extra cost as soon as the main game is released, because that is really just an excuse for the company to get additional money for content that could have been in the base game. If there was content which was originally planned for the main game (Javik) and then by the time they realized they wouldn't be able to implement it by the deadline, they could have pushed the deadline back until they had enough time to complete everything. Instead, they kept the release date, and worked on the DLC content so that they could get double paid. It's not like they were rushing ME3 out for the Christmas shopping season.
 
Now JOH is different, as Bio has said that all work done on it was after the game was shipped, so while it might have been a cut area from the original game plan, it was cut far enough back in development that they didn't even get far enough to start working on it.
 
And yes, I support multiplayer taking the burden of microtransactions, as that is separate from the single player experience, so it doesn't disrupt my enjoyment of the main game. And some people buy games only for the multiplayer elements, so they are willingly going to contribute to microtransactions that single player fans dislike.

Pretty sure I answered most of this in the first part of this post.

[Tidus]

Depends on the DLC and is it available for PS3?   Its hard prying a coffee cup out of my hands.. In fact I have a steaming cup of coffee  next to me.

[Darkly Tranquil]

It's $25 in Australia, and I can buy five coffees for that much. I do love my coffee... It's a tough call.

[LinksOcarina]

Any form of DLC is where I would put disposable income.

 

I also don't drink coffee. 

[AlanC9]

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Day One DLCs were planned once the game deadline was approaching and the devs knew they couldn't fit everything in, so they opted to leave things out and continue working on it while the main game was being approved? Or that the extra revenue from Day One DLC helped provide more resources to develop more content? If it's the former I can understand that, although Bioware has been poor in communicating the logistics to fans and that could have helped reduce the outrage.

The latter is more likely the case for Bio games after DA:O, when Day 1 DLC was formal and declared EA policy; it's not credible that production plans would have been drawn up in ignorance of that policy. In the case of DA:O it's the former, though. Bio's been pretty clear that Shale would have simply been cut if it hadn't been for DLC, since they simply couldn't finish in time for release.
 

If it's the latter, then no I don't support them intentionally having DLC available for extra cost as soon as the main game is released, because that is really just an excuse for the company to get additional money for content that could have been in the base game. If there was content which was originally planned for the main game (Javik) and then by the time they realized they wouldn't be able to implement it by the deadline, they could have pushed the deadline back until they had enough time to complete everything.

I'm not sure "could have" and "excuse" make any sense there. Why would EA put money into a feature except in anticipation of profit? Sure, EA could theoretically keep pumping money into the game until any feature you like gets made. But they wouldn't do that. Why should they? If you want more stuff in the plan, you need to be able to anticipate more revenue coming in.

[d1ta]

DLC. Since I cant stand coffee

[diaspora2k5]

DLC. Coffee is great but there's nothing wrong with DLC that's actually good.

[MrMrPendragon]

I mean the base game is already 80 dollars. That's already 20 dollars more than what it should be.

 

Now I gotta spend 15 more dollars for DLC? Yeah sure it might be good and  I'll enjoy it, but not totally, because I paid 15 bucks for it.