Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Used Games

1353638404144

Posts

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I have not lied about anything. You not liking what I have to say is not equivalent of it being a lie. Get over yourself.

    Ok, fine then. I've demolished every point you've had, disproved every statement you've made, and your response is 'get over yourself'. Have fun not buying or enjoying games, I guess.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    I have not lied about anything. You not liking what I have to say is not equivalent of it being a lie. Get over yourself.

    Ok, fine then. I've demolished every point you've had, disproved every statement you've made

    When? You've done nothing of the sort.
    Have fun not buying or enjoying games, I guess.

    There are plenty of games I'm going to buy and enjoy. They just won't have DLC, or they'll be used, because I'm a "pirate".

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Short, basic and hours longer and better are subjective. If I buy an RPG on the PS3 that has DLC, and I buy an RPG on the Wii, which is complete? The Wii version.

    Even if the Wii version has the same (no more, no less) on-disc content as the PS3 version? Again, we're back to this "it's incomplete because there's more out there, man!" philosophy. A game can be entirely complete without buying the DLC, and this is a fact you are ignoring.

    EDIT: And points made previously don't just go away because you wait a page or two.

  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I have not lied about anything. You not liking what I have to say is not equivalent of it being a lie. Get over yourself.

    Ok, fine then. I've demolished every point you've had, disproved every statement you've made

    When? You've done nothing of the sort.

    Well of course you wouldn't have seen it, it's all those parts of my posts that you cut out when you quote me, or just ignore in your responses.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    And it's nearly always the former. At least it has been traditionally.

    New things like making multiplayer DLC (with a free activation for new purchases) changes that a bit...at that point yes, used buyers are getting an "incomplete" game. But all the rest of the DLC he's bitching about? The game is complete without it.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Christ, somebody *finally* makes a point that makes sense.

    Thank you.

  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited August 2010
    That's why a DD platform is so important for people who like story games. They're a bad fit the DLC model, and they're becoming less and less profitable on consoles.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Except for there can't ever be a truly 'complete experience', thinking that it can exist is a fallacy. There's only the experience you have, and whether it's good or bad. Later editions, sequels, etc., can always add or take away more. Technically you could say that the original theatrical editions of Star Wars were not 'complete', but they were sure a whole hell of a lot better.

    Basically I already addressed this with my super insightful 'a work is never completed, only abandoned' quote.

    edit:: that last line is MOSTLY sarcasm.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Or the third option, which fits most of the DLC released for narrative games, that "This DLC adds side events that have nothing to do with the main plot".

  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Any one find it hypocritical that THQ is blaming people who sell and buy used, is also the THQ that's business model is planed obsolescence?

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    lucek wrote: »
    Any one find it hypocritical that THQ is blaming people who sell and buy used, is also the THQ that's business model is planed obsolescence?

    Whut?

  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Or the third option, which fits most of the DLC released for narrative games, that "This DLC adds side events that have nothing to do with the main plot".

    Those don't exist, because he said so.

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Christ, somebody *finally* makes a point that makes sense.

    Thank you.

    So what happens when you have a game like Mass Effect 2, where they plan to release a storyline that bridges the gap between ME2 and ME3? It most definitely does not invalidate the "completeness" of 2, and they won't take away people from the ME3 team to make it. So your choice here is to have more exposition for a awesome story, or hold to your retarded principles and say something like "they should have held back ME2's release for a year to make it 'complete" or "well now they're taking away stuff from ME3, those bastards"

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    lucek wrote: »
    Any one find it hypocritical that THQ is blaming people who sell and buy used, is also the THQ that's business model is planed obsolescence?

    Whut?

    a few of the major companies, like thq or EA, operate on the idea of making a new version of a series every year, which usually invalidates the older one. Like the people who trade in the old madden to buy the new one every year

  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    lucek wrote: »
    Any one find it hypocritical that THQ is blaming people who sell and buy used, is also the THQ that's business model is planed obsolescence?

    Whut?

    They produce the same game over and over again and try to convince their "fans" that this years version is so much better that you might as well toss last years. And instead of shelving them or putting them in the circular file like THQ want's you to do, they sell them.

    I'm just saying they created a cycle that they are now calling unfair.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    So what happens when you have a game like Mass Effect 2, where they plan to release a storyline that bridges the gap between ME2 and ME3? It most definitely does not invalidate the "completeness" of 2, and they won't take away people from the ME3 team to make it. So your choice here is to have more exposition for a awesome story, or hold to your retarded principles and say something like "they should have held back ME2's release for a year to make it 'complete" or "well now they're taking away stuff from ME3, those bastards"

    Look at how much content was cut from KOTOR 2, simply because MS wanted it out the door in time for the holiday season.

    I'd rather see a game held back and have it all done, then have them say "Here's what we've got, we'll get the rest to you later."

    It seems half-assed to me.
    Except for there can't ever be a truly 'complete experience', thinking that it can exist is a fallacy. There's only the experience you have, and whether it's good or bad. Later editions, sequels, etc., can always add or take away more. Technically you could say that the original theatrical editions of Star Wars were not 'complete', but they were sure a whole hell of a lot better.

    I don't like Lucas' tinkering either, but I *am* glad, bad as it looks, that he put the scene with Han and Jabba in the hangar, because it's a little more character development for Han, and *does* add something to it.
    lucek wrote: »
    They produce the same game over and over again and try to convince their "fans" that this years version is so much better that you might as well toss last years. And instead of shelving them or putting them in the circular file like THQ want's you to do, they sell them.

    I'm just saying they created a cycle that they are now calling unfair.

    I hadn't thought of it that way, but when you put it that way, you're right.

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    So what happens when you have a game like Mass Effect 2, where they plan to release a storyline that bridges the gap between ME2 and ME3? It most definitely does not invalidate the "completeness" of 2, and they won't take away people from the ME3 team to make it. So your choice here is to have more exposition for a awesome story, or hold to your retarded principles and say something like "they should have held back ME2's release for a year to make it 'complete" or "well now they're taking away stuff from ME3, those bastards"

    Look at how much content was cut from KOTOR 2, simply because MS wanted it out the door in time for the holiday season.

    I'd rather see a game held back and have it all done, then have them say "Here's what we've got, we'll get the rest to you later."

    It seems half-assed to me.

    Did i say anything about KOTOR2? Yes MS rushed and the game suffered for it. Mass Effect 2, the game you didn't actually talk about, was released in January after the holiday rush because it was finished. Any and all DLC was developed after the game was done, you can ask Vsove, a guy who works for bioware on the mass effect games.

    Basically, if they had held back ME2 for the storyline DLC, they would have added something like 6 months or more to the dev time, not had enough people to start working on ME3, which would have further delayed its release day, costing them tons of money in the process. Basically your idea regarding DLC is retarded more often than not

    to use another example, half life 2 and valve. Should valve have never released HL2, because Episode 3 still hasnt come out, and therefore HL2 isn't "complete"? Or should they have done the less retarded thing and release HL2 was it was done, then produced more awesome half life stuff that acts as a bridge between HL2 and HL3?

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    By Tycho's definition, grocery stores are all kinds of pirating

    JKKaAGp.png
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Or the third option, which fits most of the DLC released for narrative games, that "This DLC adds side events that have nothing to do with the main plot".

    Those don't exist, because he said so.

    Those don't exist because adding stuff that has nothing to do with the main plot = your DLC won't sell.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    Did i say anything about KOTOR2?

    You brought up whether a game should be held back to include extra content that would be held back otherwise, and I gave you an example of one that should have been.
    ronzo wrote: »
    Yes MS rushed and the game suffered for it. Mass Effect 2, the game you didn't actually talk about, was released in January after the holiday rush because it was finished. Any and all DLC was developed after the game was done, you can ask Vsove, a guy who works for bioware on the mass effect games.

    Well *of course* he's going to say that!
    ronzo wrote: »
    Basically, if they had held back ME2 for the storyline DLC, they would have added something like 6 months or more to the dev time, not had enough people to start working on ME3, which would have further delayed its release day

    Better to have a complete game than 2/3 of one earlier, just so they can start on the sequel. How about actually focusing on the job at hand and doing it right?

    So grinding out games and cutting out content to get it out earlier is acceptable to you? Seems ridiculous to me.
    ronzo wrote: »
    to use another example, half life 2 and valve. Should valve have never released HL2, because Episode 3 still hasnt come out, and therefore HL2 isn't "complete"? Or should they have done the less retarded thing and release HL2 was it was done, then produced more awesome half life stuff that acts as a bridge between HL2 and HL3?

    Judging by some of the bitching I've seen from people waiting for it, yes.

  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Mass Effect 2 sans DLC is a complete game. You assume that all DLC is 100% essential. That isn't always the case.

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    how in the fuck do you define the end of something? I ask because i'm pretty sure its not a way that would make sense in the real world

    Does the fact that Episode 5 and 6 exist invalidate the completeness of episode 4 in star wars?

    edit: or any sequel ever?

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    No, because a sequel isn't a chunk of story, it's a story on its own.

    It's more akin to Peter Jackson filming a bunch of stuff for LOTR and saying "We're just going to put it on the DVD, rather than show it in the theatre". (Which he did)

  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    That's pretty different. Very few people want to watch a movie in a theater for longer than three hours.

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I recall certain content not making it into Oblivion because of restrictions

    simple as that. They had 4GB to stick on a disk, and they weren't even finished when they went beyond that amount of space

    JKKaAGp.png
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    No, because a sequel isn't a chunk of story, it's a story on its own.

    It's more akin to Peter Jackson filming a bunch of stuff for LOTR and saying "We're just going to put it on the DVD, rather than show it in the theatre". (Which he did)

    so how do you define a chunk of story? because I'm fairly certain that more than a few sequels don't stand on their own without the preceding story.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    That's pretty different. Very few people want to watch a movie in a theater for longer than three hours.

    Actually, it's more that very few theaters want to show a movie that's longer than three hours.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Incomplete-ness matters a whole lot more in a story game than it does in multiplayer. You're either stuck saying 'this DLC is like a directors cut -- you don't have to see it to get the complete experience' or you're stuck saying 'the 60$ story you bought wasn't actually the whole thing'.

    Or the third option, which fits most of the DLC released for narrative games, that "This DLC adds side events that have nothing to do with the main plot".

    Those don't exist, because he said so.

    Those don't exist because adding stuff that has nothing to do with the main plot = your DLC won't sell.

    So then the GTA IV DLC, all of the Oblivion DLC, most of the Mass Effect DLC and pretty much all of the Fallout 3 DLC other than Broken Steel didn't sell?

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    No, because a sequel isn't a chunk of story, it's a story on its own.

    It's more akin to Peter Jackson filming a bunch of stuff for LOTR and saying "We're just going to put it on the DVD, rather than show it in the theatre". (Which he did)

    so how do you define a chunk of story? because I'm fairly certain that more than a few sequels don't stand on their own without the preceding story.

    I think you're just trying to be obtuse.

    Do you take sell a book with chapters missing? No.

    Same thing.

    Happy?

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    No, because a sequel isn't a chunk of story, it's a story on its own.

    It's more akin to Peter Jackson filming a bunch of stuff for LOTR and saying "We're just going to put it on the DVD, rather than show it in the theatre". (Which he did)

    so how do you define a chunk of story? because I'm fairly certain that more than a few sequels don't stand on their own without the preceding story.

    I think you're just trying to be obtuse.

    Do you take sell a book with chapters missing? No.

    Same thing.

    Happy?

    Revised version of The Stand

    JKKaAGp.png
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    No, because a sequel isn't a chunk of story, it's a story on its own.

    It's more akin to Peter Jackson filming a bunch of stuff for LOTR and saying "We're just going to put it on the DVD, rather than show it in the theatre". (Which he did)

    so how do you define a chunk of story? because I'm fairly certain that more than a few sequels don't stand on their own without the preceding story.

    I think you're just trying to be obtuse.

    Do you take sell a book with chapters missing? No.

    Same thing.

    Happy?

    I could say the same thing about you being obtuse, since your position makes pretty much zero sense outside of your screwed up view of dlc.

    also i love how you keep avoiding directly addressing my arguments by bringing up new things

  • McGuffinMcGuffin Registered User
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »
    1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
    2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
    3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
    4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
    5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
    6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.

    1) Publishers release more content digitally
    2) Gamers pay more for less content on the disc.
    3) Publishers cripple features of games unless they're bought the way publisher wants.
    3) Gamers say "I'm not going to bother buying anything because the publishers are being greedy. (Which they are)
    4) Market collapses as games sales slide further and further down.
    5) Everyone loses.

    Except that everything I wrote is provable true and everything you wrote is tosh.

    Item 3 (your 2nd item 3 for some reason) is a particularly silly way to cut your nose off to spite your face.

    You know you really ought to look into some critical thinking classes, or read a book about it, because I'm going to guess you are quite young and if this is the way you think and argue, you aren't going to get on well in the world at large and certainly not very far in any company that values intelligent thought.

    I can heartily recommend the book Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert H. Thouless.

    You can get an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking which points out many common mistakes in thinking and debate.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Some developers do DLC properly as additional content.

    Some developers do DLC poorly by either removing content from a game, or else leaving a game partially unfinished intentionally and releasing DLC that finished it.



    Anyone insisting it is all either way is the silliest of geese.

    georgersig.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »
    McGuffin wrote: »
    1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
    2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
    3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
    4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
    5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
    6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.

    1) Publishers release more content digitally
    2) Gamers pay more for less content on the disc.
    3) Publishers cripple features of games unless they're bought the way publisher wants.
    3) Gamers say "I'm not going to bother buying anything because the publishers are being greedy. (Which they are)
    4) Market collapses as games sales slide further and further down.
    5) Everyone loses.

    Except that everything I wrote is provable true and everything you wrote is tosh.

    Item 3 (your 2nd item 3 for some reason) is a particularly silly way to cut your nose off to spite your face.

    You know you really ought to look into some critical thinking classes, or read a book about it, because I'm going to guess you are quite young and if this is the way you think and argue, you aren't going to get on well in the world at large and certainly not very far in any company that values intelligent thought.

    I can heartily recommend the book Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert H. Thouless.

    You can get an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking which points out many common mistakes in thinking and debate.

    I still get a hearty chuckle out of the claim that "gamers" would stop buying games simply because publishers are being "greedy".

    Yeah, those Modern Warfare 2 Map Packs just can't sell thanks to the iron discipline of "gamers".

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Do expansions from previous generations count? I mean, something like starcraft broodwar used the same engine and completely changed the ending of the original starcraft. But wait, thats a sequel so thats okay because thats where you define your arbitrary line where suddenly its a new game and not a "crippled game"

    Did you get angry about last gen games like Metal Gear Solid 3, where there were years between the different versions of the game? I mean, it was entirely possible to buy and beat MGS3 and think that it was a complete game. There suddenly being more content doesn't somehow invalid the original complete story

    and before you say "but they remove content from a finished game to sell it at launch, you still haven't show a single real example of it happening

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Some developers do DLC properly as additional content.

    Some developers do DLC poorly by either removing content from a game, or else leaving a game partially unfinished intentionally and releasing DLC that finished it.



    Anyone insisting it is all either way is the silliest of geese.

    the problem we are having is that some people consider the first and the second thing to be one and the same ( as in, its not additional content, the original game was unfinished if you ever put out dlc)
    also when has the second thing actually happened?

  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Brood Wars would never have sold if it was simply an addition to the story. It brought new balance changes and units to multiplayer.

  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
    2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
    3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
    4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
    5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
    6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.

    Geddit now?
    1)the money has been paid. 1 game 1 price tag no change to profits.
    2)only people with a legit copy of the game can use online play (at least in theory but that's a different issue),
    so that means 1 sale 1 set of upstream costs no change to profits.
    3)the publisher removes important parts of the game devaluing the game after a sale. the worth of a game is diminished.
    4)gamers have to sell games for less money. the worth of a game is diminished.
    5)the publisher gets paid again twice for one copy of a product. the worth of a game is diminished. publisher gets more money.
    6)Shops can't afford as many employees. put's gamers out of jobs
    7)with less disposable income gamers buy less games.
    8)Publisher wins, Gamer loses, Shop loses, Employees of shop loses, Publishers that aren't being greedy lose.

  • McGuffinMcGuffin Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    McGuffin wrote: »

    Well you picked on the smallest thing to try and support your position (and ignored all the rest that explained why you were wrong), but you were still wrong.

    So, just for the record, you seized on something small and completely misunderstood it to support your position. But it's OK. I think Matrias got it, and he's actually worth talking to.

    Oh, I'm cut to the very quick that you don't think I'm worth talking to.

    I do value your wrongness, if only because it throws all else that is right in the world into sharper focus.

    Shall I apologise like Matrias did for saying you're talking shit and we can be friends again?

    I expect you think you're buddies now and he can respect your contrary point of view and maybe you could have a beer together.

    {Bzzzt!} Boy are you wrong on that one too. :lol:

Sign In or Register to comment.