Yeah, I found Mafia 2 to be ok. Quite serviceable. It plays fine, although having to drive everywhere just cause they thought it would be cool to have a huge city kinda sucks. And the story is ok. The problem is that every single beat is taken from better mobster media. By the time I got to REDACTED I just figured I'd turn it off and watch Goodfellas again.
Got Majesty 2, damn you steam stop selling games I want at these low, low prices! With this my "to play" list on steam is at 26 games, if I add the ones on gog it is at 30+. Just started on my new job this week, which while it means I will finally be able to pay for all these games my gaming time got severely cut down. :?
Work to afford games but have no time to catch up on your backlog or DON'T work and get through your backlog in time for the next big sale when even welfare could let you...afford games...
Why am I still working with 30+ games in my backlog!?
I got stuck right in. RTS's aren't really my thing, broad strategy isn't my thing, but this is my thing. The tutorials and mission narration are done by Faux Connery with his best Highlander, everything's bright and bold and sharp, you can pause whenever you want, quicksave whenever you want and there's very little bloody micromanagement.
For anyone not familiar with the USP, it's an approachable town builder/RPG where you recruit heroes, upgrade them and do quests, but it's all accomplished through indirect control. Want someone to clear out that bear cave? Drop a bounty on it large enough to attract the especially beefy heroes. Want your clerics to use mana potions? Research them and sell them at the market, netting yourself a handy extra revenue stream. Everything's about the flow of money - you need to dump a ton of it into progressing through the objectives, but also need to build a sound economy and well-equipped adventurers to keep it all ticking over. One thing I liked - the more money you give to your heroes for doing quests, the more you'll reap back when they splurge it all on shiny new stuff.
I'd say it has quite big crossover potential - and it feels like a 'proper' PC game too. You can disable the intro movies in the options!
Yeah but a few missions in you still have an opening build order to get some clerics to start clearing out stuff while your mages hang back to skill up to level explodeworld.
In short: if you played Mafia, Don't play mafia 2.
If you didn't play mafia you will enjoy mafia 2.
I did some digging, because I could not understand why the game I had most wanted for years, felt cut up and in finished.
Turns out it is cut up and unfinished. Not going into details, large portions of the game were gutted and returned as extra content. The free roaming portion of the game, accessible after you beat Mafia 1, wasn't in Mafia 2, but digging into the files reveiled art and missions that definatly proved it was there. The story gutting pissed off the studio head writer enough he quit.
To me, after Mafia 1, I couldn't enjoy it. Why show me the car compactor and tell me I could get money if money was never a factor? Well its for the free roam missions you have to buy silly! Oh and we aren't going to give you the entire 4 mob boss setup, you only get two, and after you pay for that, we might give you the rest for more cash down the road.
Look, its fun, but its obvious how they cut up the story to reserve stuff for payed content, and combined with the stuff your got in the original game that I was so looking forward to, only to find I had to pay form it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Sonar on
I'm building a real pirate ship. Really. Wanna help? Click here!
caffron said: "and cat pee is not a laughing matter"
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
real post:
So I feel so dirty. I just cheated on steam and bought Dragon Age 2 for 20% off on D2D even though it's not a Steamworks title, which breaks my golden rule.
In short: if you played Mafia, Don't play mafia 2.
If you didn't play mafia you will enjoy mafia 2.
I did some digging, because I could not understand why the game I had most wanted for years, felt cut up and in finished.
Turns out it is cut up and unfinished. Not going into details, large portions of the game were gutted and returned as extra content. The free roaming portion of the game, accessible after you beat Mafia 1, wasn't in Mafia 2, but digging into the files reveiled art and missions that definatly proved it was there. The story gutting pissed off the studio head writer enough he quit.
To me, after Mafia 1, I couldn't enjoy it. Why show me the car compactor and tell me I could get money if money was never a factor? Well its for the free roam missions you have to buy silly! Oh and we aren't going to give you the entire 4 mob boss setup, you only get two, and after you pay for that, we might give you the rest for more cash down the road.
Look, its fun, but its obvious how they cut up the story to reserve stuff for payed content, and combined with the stuff your got in the original game that I was so looking forward to, only to find I had to pay form it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
real post:
So I feel so dirty. I just cheated on steam and bought Dragon Age 2 for 20% off on D2D even though it's not a Steamworks title, which breaks my golden rule.
The shame won't wash off
So you're reserved to not buy the complete pack when it's offered for 50-75% off on Steam in December? Just tell yourself you will to make yourself feel better.
Vicktor on
Origin: Viycktor
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
The only reason that DLC can be a bad thing for gamers is the price lock on the base game. If what would have been a $50 game was split into a $30 base with $20 in DLC, that would be awesome, since people with only a casual interest would be able to get it for much cheaper.
DLC is companies adapting to the market, like we keep saying that they need to do. If they can figure out how to get it right, it will benefit everyone, except for possibly the people who are getting way more value out of a particular game than what they put into the purchase, in which case they could certainly afford to subsidize it more. Again, though, that's just an artifact of the current price lock, in which you'll never pay more than $60 even for a game that will entertain you for hundreds of hours.
jothki on
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
real post:
So I feel so dirty. I just cheated on steam and bought Dragon Age 2 for 20% off on D2D even though it's not a Steamworks title, which breaks my golden rule.
The shame won't wash off
So you're reserved to not buy the complete pack when it's offered for 50-75% off on Steam in December? Just tell yourself you will to make yourself feel better.
pft like I was ever going to wait till December anyways. 20% off is pretty good, I just wish it was steamworks
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
I've only bought extra skin packs for Killingfloor. But thats because Tripwire are honest about it, they give all extra content away for free. I viewed buying the skin packs as a donation and a show of support for the developer, they've even said in the past that the extra funds allow them to stay open for business.
But this just reeks of scamming and penny pinching. I've never thought paying for DLC was a practice I want to support and now I'm certain of it.
Casual on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Yeah, I do give indie developers a fairer shake in all this, because most of them are pretty chill. And you know, since the games are so cheap and they're willing to push some crazier shit than so-called AAA developers. I'm eying the ridicu-awesome Magicka Vietnam expansion, and you know what? Probably will be my second DLC purchase. Vietnam for Bad Company 2, on the other hand? Pass.
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
The other thing about DLC that really fucks me off is needing to buy currency to buy something else with that currency, except the currency can only be used to buy that thing anyway. There's a little bit of reasoning for it consoles, but absolutely none on PC and it's why I haven't played any mass effect DLC yet. If I want to buy your content I will buy your content, not your intentionally priced currency made to take advantage of roundoff errors.
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
The other thing about DLC that really fucks me off is needing to buy currency to buy something else with that currency, except the currency can only be used to buy that thing anyway. There's a little bit of reasoning for it consoles, but absolutely none on PC and it's why I haven't played any mass effect DLC yet. If I want to buy your content I will buy your content, not your intentionally priced currency made to take advantage of roundoff errors.
fortunately bioware mitigates this by selling DLC funbucks in precise amounts that correlate to the exact cost of the DLC in dollars. no leftovers. :P
curly haired boy on
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
The other thing about DLC that really fucks me off is needing to buy currency to buy something else with that currency, except the currency can only be used to buy that thing anyway. There's a little bit of reasoning for it consoles, but absolutely none on PC and it's why I haven't played any mass effect DLC yet. If I want to buy your content I will buy your content, not your intentionally priced currency made to take advantage of roundoff errors.
fortunately bioware mitigates this by selling DLC funbucks in precise amounts that correlate to the exact cost of the DLC in dollars. no leftovers. :P
Requires 512MB video memory? Blimey, even Crysis doesn't need that. My 256MB graphics hardware (laptop) am cry.
My laptop has a gig of video memory.
I do not know why. On the other hand, not complaining.
Very nice, very nice. I do know why mine doesn't. Primarily a case of the olds. Kinda like me. ;-)
I know one person IRL with a laptop with a gig of video memory. And she doesn't game on it, at all. Well, except for Facebook games. She's partial to YoVille, apparently.
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
The other thing about DLC that really fucks me off is needing to buy currency to buy something else with that currency, except the currency can only be used to buy that thing anyway. There's a little bit of reasoning for it consoles, but absolutely none on PC and it's why I haven't played any mass effect DLC yet. If I want to buy your content I will buy your content, not your intentionally priced currency made to take advantage of roundoff errors.
fortunately bioware mitigates this by selling DLC funbucks in precise amounts that correlate to the exact cost of the DLC in dollars. no leftovers. :P
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
The other thing about DLC that really fucks me off is needing to buy currency to buy something else with that currency, except the currency can only be used to buy that thing anyway. There's a little bit of reasoning for it consoles, but absolutely none on PC and it's why I haven't played any mass effect DLC yet. If I want to buy your content I will buy your content, not your intentionally priced currency made to take advantage of roundoff errors.
fortunately bioware mitigates this by selling DLC funbucks in precise amounts that correlate to the exact cost of the DLC in dollars. no leftovers. :P
Games = A ripoff.
Pirates gets it free.
Legit Customers get frak.
*is heavily against Games unless they are free
See how that works?
Raiden333 on
0
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
DLC is only bad if it was content ready at launch (or something key to the game that has to be added after launch, story missions or something).
You shouldn't have to pay for what was supposed to be there in the first place.
But, if the devs thought of something cool to add that has no real bearing on the core game after the game was finalized/released (additional sidequests, crazy weapons) then... sure, DLC is cool as long as the prices are reasonable.
I'm pretty sure that the percentage of DLC these days which isn't at least conceived and planned prior to release of the game is pretty much nil. It may not always be stuff that was ready to be in the game on day one, but I don't think there's much if any DLC that originated with one of the devs sitting around a month after release day and saying, "Hey, you know what would be cool?" unless it's for a game with a market lifespan of years like WoW, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
What I'm saying is that even when they aren't holding back finished stuff to nickel and dime you later, they're always planning on additional premium content. But I could be wrong.
In any case a DLC debate seems like a good way for this thread to detour into bat country.
Gaslight on
0
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure that the percentage of DLC these days which isn't at least conceived and planned prior to release of the game is pretty much nil. It may not always be stuff that was ready to be in the game on day one, but I don't think there's much if any DLC that originated with one of the devs sitting around a month after release day and saying, "Hey, you know what would be cool?" unless it's for a game with a market lifespan of years like WoW, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
What I'm saying is that even when they aren't holding back finished stuff to nickel and dime you later, they're always planning on additional premium content. But I could be wrong.
In any case a DLC debate seems like a good way for this thread to detour into bat country.
If the Magicka team, pre release, said "Hey. Vietnam. That should be our big DLC", well, I'm more impressed with their insanity than ever.
Ok, just out of curiosity, I'm going to post a list of ways a company can make money off of used games. I've listed them in order of what I see as least to most severe. I would like people in favor of this to show me where they think the line should be drawn. Just quote me and add a line, or if that doesn't work, bold the ones you think aren't kosher or something.
A. Free DLC for new copies; something frivolous like armor or a custom skin
B. Free DLC for new copies; new areas/quests
C. Free DLC for new copies; new characters
D. Main game ends on cliffhanger, "Real Ending" of a game in DLC; which comes free if you buy it new (imagine Dead Rising's Overtime being day 1 DLC under this system)
E. Free DLC for new copies; things usable in multiplayer (like if you could only use an M16 in the next CoD game if you buy it new or pay for the DLC)
F. Multiplayer mode locked by default, free unlock code in new copies, or pay to download it.
G. License required to play game at all, license comes with all new copies or can be purchased online for used copies.
Bonus round: Where do you think the video game company execs would draw the line?
I will always draw the line at D. Anything below that, I don't care about.
DLC is only bad if it was content ready at launch (or something key to the game that has to be added after launch, story missions or something).
You shouldn't have to pay for what was supposed to be there in the first place.
But, if the devs thought of something cool to add that has no real bearing on the core game after the game was finalized/released (additional sidequests, crazy weapons) then... sure, DLC is cool as long as the prices are reasonable.
Not if having it as DLC actively lowers the price of the game. Then it's just a matter of deciding how much you want out of the game and how much you're willing to spend on it.
The developers of a game don't owe you anything. They're setting a price, and offering content to you for that price. If you want to complain that you feel that recently you've been being charged more for less content, then complain about that. DLC is only incidental to that.
Ok, just out of curiosity, I'm going to post a list of ways a company can make money off of used games. I've listed them in order of what I see as least to most severe. I would like people in favor of this to show me where they think the line should be drawn. Just quote me and add a line, or if that doesn't work, bold the ones you think aren't kosher or something.
A. Free DLC for new copies; something frivolous like armor or a custom skin
B. Free DLC for new copies; new areas/quests
C. Free DLC for new copies; new characters
D. Main game ends on cliffhanger, "Real Ending" of a game in DLC; which comes free if you buy it new (imagine Dead Rising's Overtime being day 1 DLC under this system)
E. Free DLC for new copies; things usable in multiplayer (like if you could only use an M16 in the next CoD game if you buy it new or pay for the DLC)
F. Multiplayer mode locked by default, free unlock code in new copies, or pay to download it.
G. License required to play game at all, license comes with all new copies or can be purchased online for used copies.
Bonus round: Where do you think the video game company execs would draw the line?
I will always draw the line at D. Anything below that, I don't care about.
Then I take it you never play computer games. F has been standard for probably decades, and it would be G if there was any way to actually verify it.
I'm pretty sure that the percentage of DLC these days which isn't at least conceived and planned prior to release of the game is pretty much nil. It may not always be stuff that was ready to be in the game on day one, but I don't think there's much if any DLC that originated with one of the devs sitting around a month after release day and saying, "Hey, you know what would be cool?" unless it's for a game with a market lifespan of years like WoW, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
What I'm saying is that even when they aren't holding back finished stuff to nickel and dime you later, they're always planning on additional premium content. But I could be wrong.
In any case a DLC debate seems like a good way for this thread to detour into bat country.
DLC these days = Pay USD9.99 to unlock pre-included stuffs.
Maou on
0
proyebatGARY WAS HEREASH IS A LOSERRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
How about this: If you don't like what a company is doing with their products, don't buy from them?
I'm pretty sure that the percentage of DLC these days which isn't at least conceived and planned prior to release of the game is pretty much nil. It may not always be stuff that was ready to be in the game on day one, but I don't think there's much if any DLC that originated with one of the devs sitting around a month after release day and saying, "Hey, you know what would be cool?" unless it's for a game with a market lifespan of years like WoW, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
What I'm saying is that even when they aren't holding back finished stuff to nickel and dime you later, they're always planning on additional premium content. But I could be wrong.
In any case a DLC debate seems like a good way for this thread to detour into bat country.
DLC these days = Pay USD9.99 to unlock pre-included stuffs.
*Sigh* Yes, thank you for this [strike]non sequitur[/strike] contribution. If you actually read my post you'll see that it isn't at all about the issue of completed content getting cut to be saved for DLC. I was talking about the notion that some DLC is just based on cool ideas the developers come up with after the game's release.
Posts
Kind of like Kingdom Keeper?
Work to afford games but have no time to catch up on your backlog or DON'T work and get through your backlog in time for the next big sale when even welfare could let you...afford games...
Why am I still working with 30+ games in my backlog!?
I enjoyed the game, for those thinking about it. Engaging story.
Yeah but a few missions in you still have an opening build order to get some clerics to start clearing out stuff while your mages hang back to skill up to level explodeworld.
In short: if you played Mafia, Don't play mafia 2.
If you didn't play mafia you will enjoy mafia 2.
I did some digging, because I could not understand why the game I had most wanted for years, felt cut up and in finished.
Turns out it is cut up and unfinished. Not going into details, large portions of the game were gutted and returned as extra content. The free roaming portion of the game, accessible after you beat Mafia 1, wasn't in Mafia 2, but digging into the files reveiled art and missions that definatly proved it was there. The story gutting pissed off the studio head writer enough he quit.
To me, after Mafia 1, I couldn't enjoy it. Why show me the car compactor and tell me I could get money if money was never a factor? Well its for the free roam missions you have to buy silly! Oh and we aren't going to give you the entire 4 mob boss setup, you only get two, and after you pay for that, we might give you the rest for more cash down the road.
Look, its fun, but its obvious how they cut up the story to reserve stuff for payed content, and combined with the stuff your got in the original game that I was so looking forward to, only to find I had to pay form it left a bad taste in my mouth.
caffron said: "and cat pee is not a laughing matter"
So I feel so dirty. I just cheated on steam and bought Dragon Age 2 for 20% off on D2D even though it's not a Steamworks title, which breaks my golden rule.
The shame won't wash off
Ugh. As much as I hate being a video game activist this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to boycott the game on principle. DLC, if anything, should be extra content, not stuff that was supposed to be in the original game and cut out so they could sell it to me again.
It just makes me feel like every time I buy DLC I'm supporting and encouraging a bullshit business practice where I'm being charged for stuff that should have been included at the start or patched in for free. DLC isn't always bullshit but in this case it feels like buying a bike and finding out after it gets delivered that the wheels are “extra content”.
Origin: Viycktor
What do you think was the logical conclusion of all this? When you can charge 1/4th of the entire game's purchase price for like three brand new maps and then make bank, what lessons do you think publishers learn?
DLC announced the day a game is released? Day one DLC? DLC announced seven months before the game is released? (See: Battlefield 3)
That's one stubborn reason why I've literally only bought one DLC, ever. I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.
DLC is companies adapting to the market, like we keep saying that they need to do. If they can figure out how to get it right, it will benefit everyone, except for possibly the people who are getting way more value out of a particular game than what they put into the purchase, in which case they could certainly afford to subsidize it more. Again, though, that's just an artifact of the current price lock, in which you'll never pay more than $60 even for a game that will entertain you for hundreds of hours.
I've only bought extra skin packs for Killingfloor. But thats because Tripwire are honest about it, they give all extra content away for free. I viewed buying the skin packs as a donation and a show of support for the developer, they've even said in the past that the extra funds allow them to stay open for business.
But this just reeks of scamming and penny pinching. I've never thought paying for DLC was a practice I want to support and now I'm certain of it.
The other thing about DLC that really fucks me off is needing to buy currency to buy something else with that currency, except the currency can only be used to buy that thing anyway. There's a little bit of reasoning for it consoles, but absolutely none on PC and it's why I haven't played any mass effect DLC yet. If I want to buy your content I will buy your content, not your intentionally priced currency made to take advantage of roundoff errors.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
It's still underpants on head retarded, even so.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/idolninja
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Requires 512MB video memory? Blimey, even Crysis doesn't need that. My 256MB graphics hardware (laptop) am cry.
Steam | XBL
My laptop has a gig of video memory.
I do not know why. On the other hand, not complaining.
Why I fear the ocean.
Very nice, very nice. I do know why mine doesn't. Primarily a case of the olds. Kinda like me. ;-)
Steam | XBL
because that's not quite the same thing
Might be, but I don't think so. Said it's the memory for the graphics card on the box, if memory serves.
Memory, of course, might not serve.
Why I fear the ocean.
Oh huh, my bad, I just assumed. Well then... why?
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
No-one knows.
Why I fear the ocean.
Pirates gets it free.
Legit Customers get frak.
*is heavily against DLCs unless they are free
Let's replace "DLC" with "Game"
See how that works?
You shouldn't have to pay for what was supposed to be there in the first place.
But, if the devs thought of something cool to add that has no real bearing on the core game after the game was finalized/released (additional sidequests, crazy weapons) then... sure, DLC is cool as long as the prices are reasonable.
What I'm saying is that even when they aren't holding back finished stuff to nickel and dime you later, they're always planning on additional premium content. But I could be wrong.
In any case a DLC debate seems like a good way for this thread to detour into bat country.
If the Magicka team, pre release, said "Hey. Vietnam. That should be our big DLC", well, I'm more impressed with their insanity than ever.
Why I fear the ocean.
I will always draw the line at D. Anything below that, I don't care about.
Not if having it as DLC actively lowers the price of the game. Then it's just a matter of deciding how much you want out of the game and how much you're willing to spend on it.
The developers of a game don't owe you anything. They're setting a price, and offering content to you for that price. If you want to complain that you feel that recently you've been being charged more for less content, then complain about that. DLC is only incidental to that.
Then I take it you never play computer games. F has been standard for probably decades, and it would be G if there was any way to actually verify it.
DLC these days = Pay USD9.99 to unlock pre-included stuffs.
*Sigh* Yes, thank you for this [strike]non sequitur[/strike] contribution. If you actually read my post you'll see that it isn't at all about the issue of completed content getting cut to be saved for DLC. I was talking about the notion that some DLC is just based on cool ideas the developers come up with after the game's release.