Loving and putting up with are separate things. I actually haven't had issues with ME games and dlc. I think every dlc I bought was worth the money. There are a great many games where added content ended up being much smaller than its cost would indicate.
true for bioware games. Da2 me3 and DaI are different games with all the story dlc.
it sucks we pay BUT at least already all base games from bioware are a value for money since they are long enough AND have great replaybility
Damn. You know I've been playing with the idea of not buying games with micro transactions, day one dlc or exstensive pre-order policies and i think i will have to stop being a little ****** and actually following through with it.
So i am making a promise to myself, i won't purchase games with micro transactions in them including the new Mass Effect. I love Mass Effect but i wont support games with content thats created to squeeze money out of the costumer or locked behind pay walls in a fully priced game, charge more for the game if you like, as i would gladly have paid more for games of higher quality but this messing up the creative vision a team might have.
Games should be about creating something that you are passionate about or using the medium to say something, not about coporate greed or annually pooping out a new game like youre a Starbucks or McDonald's selling slop and charging extra for the foam. Money is a means to an end and not the end, money should be used to reward the devs for their passion and commitment to creating the game they want without paying lip service to the coporations or fans, it should be used as a sign of faith and love that the devs are inspired by to create something amazing, not because it got greenlit but because a 12year old kid somewhere in the world just played something he or she will remember when they are 80.
The problem of ME3 was that each DLC was expanding core narrative, which should be included in the vanilla. And this problem has continued with the DAI, they have made those collosal zones, and then they gave you meaningful expansions trhu few DLCs.
It began way before... Witch Hunt (DA:O) LotSB/Arrival (ME2) and Legacy (DA2): all of them are definitely tied to the core narrative..
Love's got nothing to do with it, it's simply a necessary aspect of modern games. Personally, I'd just prefer to pay 120$ up front for everything, but the average consumer will not, ergo microtransactions. I think Bioware games are bargain when you consider most 60$ games provide you with a 5-10 hour singleplayer campaign, and only gain value for the consumer who enjoys multiplayer (which I'm not.)
... I think Bioware games are bargain when you consider most 60$ games provide you with a 5-10 hour singleplayer campaign, and only gain value for the consumer who enjoys multiplayer (which I'm not.)
I'm guessing you're referring to things like CoD? I'm obviously playing the "wrong" games:
Divinity: Original Sin ~80 hrs
Pillars of Eterminty: ~100 hrs
Witcher 3: ~200 hrs
That's ignoring things like XCOM, Civ V or Total War games that have almost infinite replayability (I've clocked ~1500 hrs in Civ V for instance)
I avoid MT mostly. Most of the stuff I've gotten in ME MP are bought with game credits, not real money. However, I could not avoid it for mmos though I limited what I want to buy per month.
That said, I was watching a vid the other day and could not help but chuckled as someone calculated how much it would cost buying gold cards just for cosmetic armor helms, not weapons or anything, just the helmets. It amount to $1,100, if the person is very lucky in the random loot. It's that or spending 600 over hours grinding for the points, only if the person is a good player. Anyway, it seems fans of the game couldn't resist the accessories and the money flowed. If true, some company just raked in half a mil in a week. I can't see other devs not wanting to do the same.
I avoid MT mostly. Most of the stuff I've gotten in ME MP are bought with game credits, not real money. However, I could not avoid it for mmos though I limited what I want to buy per month.
That said, I was watching a vid the other day and could not help but chuckled as someone calculated how much it would cost buying gold cards just for cosmetic armor helms, not weapons or anything, just the helmets. It amount to $1,100, if the person is very lucky in the random loot. It's that or spending 600 over hours grinding for the points, only if the person is a good player. Anyway, it seems fans of the game couldn't resist the accessories and the money flowed. If true, some company just raked in half a mil in a week. I can't see other devs not wanting to do the same.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone spending real money on fluffery has more money than sense.
Games should be about creating something that you are passionate about or using the medium to say something, not about coporate greed or annually pooping out a new game like youre a Starbucks or McDonald's selling slop and charging extra for the foam. Money is a means to an end and not the end, money should be used to reward the devs for their passion and commitment to creating the game they want without paying lip service to the coporations or fans, it should be used as a sign of faith and love that the devs are inspired by to create something amazing, not because it got greenlit but because a 12year old kid somewhere in the world just played something he or she will remember when they are 80.
They are.
Problem is, they are also commercial art. No matter what, that is their first prime motivator; to be passion projects that make money. So your stance is noble, but foolish, as a lot of games will follow through this, a lot of big games, at least.
I'm guessing you're referring to things like CoD? I'm obviously playing the "wrong" games:
Divinity: Original Sin ~80 hrs
Pillars of Eterminty: ~100 hrs
Witcher 3: ~200 hrs
That's ignoring things like XCOM, Civ V or Total War games that have almost infinite replayability (I've clocked ~1500 hrs in Civ V for instance)
Even within that comparison, much as I dislike CoD, someone could easily pack away endless hours into the multiplayer content, if they wanted to.
Love's got nothing to do with it, it's simply a necessary aspect of modern games. Personally, I'd just prefer to pay 120$ up front for everything, but the average consumer will not, ergo microtransactions. I think Bioware games are bargain when you consider most 60$ games provide you with a 5-10 hour singleplayer campaign, and only gain value for the consumer who enjoys multiplayer (which I'm not.)
WTF games are you buying?
A good RPG gets you 40-50 hours minimum in a single playthru
I dunno. Even looking at the Jade Empire/KotOR/Mass Effect 1 era, 40-45 hours was probably the absolute max I hit on a single playthrough and that's with overestimation.
I dunno. Even looking at the Jade Empire/KotOR/Mass Effect 1 era, 40-45 hours was probably the absolute max I hit on a single playthrough and that's with overestimation.
My Mass Effect games often break 50 hours. But then I do tend towards the completionist routes.
True enough, there's always going to be variability in playthroughs. I tend to avoid anything Mako-related like the plague for example. Regardless, something like Inquisition, with its emphasis on exploration, is likely to give a longer playtime than a game like Jade Empire (which took me barely 25 hours 1st playthrough). Zots allocation tends to be important on that end of the spectrum too.
Broadly-speaking, I'd argue any game with open world exploration is probably going to have a much longer play time than any game that's narrative focused, for a number of reasons.
Yeah I was speaking of non-RPG games...which is the majority of the market.WTF games are you buying?
A good RPG gets you 40-50 hours minimum in a single playthru
Even within that comparison, much as I dislike CoD, someone could easily pack away endless hours into the multiplayer content, if they wanted to.
Yeah - but they did specify that they weren't into multiplayer ... don't ask me about Team Fortress 2 or ME3:MP, that's all I'm saying 
InB4 flood of self righteous gamer te......nevermind, too late.
This is the natural result of new video game prices having stagnated at around $60 for a couple of decades despite the inflation rate having gone up ~100% (depending on region) and development budgets of AAA games having skyrocketed (GTA5's budget was around $265 million, for example, which is higher than any of the top 10 highest grossing films of 2014), and it will continue until the initial purchase price of games actually starts matching their market value.
Yet EA will probably get another worst company in America award because gamers are stupid and don't understand economics.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone spending real money on fluffery has more money than sense.
If it provides them comparable enjoyment to anything else they could've spent that money on, which is eminently possible, then purchasing it is a sensible decision.
I'll just keep voting with my wallet and avoiding F2P cancer.
I use to think voting with my wallet meant something. Then I realized that EA doesn't care if one person refuses to buy their games while they have a million blind sheep who line up every single time. Your refusal to buy their games unnoticed to have any kind of impact or spark to start an even larger protest. Then again, I'm jaded.
I use to think voting with my wallet meant something. Then I realized that EA doesn't care if one person refuses to buy their games while they have a million blind sheep who line up every single time. Your refusal to buy their games unnoticed to have any kind of impact or spark to start an even larger protest. Then again, I'm jaded.
Ah yes. Because everyone who likes something different from you is a blind sheep. 
I dunno. Even looking at the Jade Empire/KotOR/Mass Effect 1 era, 40-45 hours was probably the absolute max I hit on a single playthrough and that's with overestimation.
In fact I tend to consider all of them a little too short for their genre...
Ah yes. Because everyone who likes something different from you is a blind sheep.
duh, everyone in the developed world who spends disposable income on things they like but don't need is obviously a moron.
It began way before... Witch Hunt (DA:O) LotSB/Arrival (ME2) and Legacy (DA2): all of them are definitely tied to the core narrative..
indeed, but with each new game the ratio of plot related DLCs is increasing. I wouldn´t mind to have some ending DLC, like Arrival to be included at the end of DLC cycle, rather than to have several DLCs that are cut out of game and sold extra. That´s why for me personaly DA:O supperior with its DLC model to all other new BioWare´s games.
For example I believe that with ME3 there was a lot of missed opportunities, like rather to do DLCs that brings you to areas that you´ve always wanted to see. I would spend money for more DLCs on home planets of some species, instead of having butchered core of story.
I'm guessing you're referring to things like CoD? I'm obviously playing the "wrong" games:
Divinity: Original Sin ~80 hrs
Pillars of Eterminty: ~100 hrs
Witcher 3: ~200 hrs
That's ignoring things like XCOM, Civ V or Total War games that have almost infinite replayability (I've clocked ~1500 hrs in Civ V for instance)
indeed, but with each new game the ratio of plot related DLCs is increasing. I wouldn´t mind to have some ending DLC, like Arrival to be included at the end of DLC cycle, rather than to have several DLCs that are cut out of game and sold extra. That´s why for me personaly DA:O supperior with its DLC model to all other new BioWare´s games.
Of course DA:O is the game which has the smaller razio of core-narration DLC, but the highest one belongs to DA2 (where 1 DLC out of 2 is tied to the plot, and it would have probably been 2 out of 3 if they had released Exalted March). And ME2 is not very better than ME 3 considering that you had 2 plot related DLC out of 4 (i won't consider Zaeed and Firewalker because they were released for free). To be honest I would say that compared to DA2 and ME2 the third installations lowered the ratio, since after the day-1 DLC none of the other ME3 DLC was essential for the main plot. And for DA:I only Trespasser counts, while JoH and Descent are totally optional (unless the Titans won't have a big role in future games....)
On a side note, almost DA:O DLC were very overprized and short, both in gameplay and content, therefore I am not very fond of that model. 
On a side note, almost DA:O DLC were very overprized and short, both in gameplay and content, therefore I am not very fond of that model.
What's the difference between a $5 DLC that takes an hour to complete, a $10 DLC that takes two hours, or a $15 one that takes three?
Retour en haut