all DLC is just content that was cut and given a delayed release in order to steal more money from the consumers, us gamers.
^ That.
Also, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop and the announcement that all the DLC people bought this gen won't be compatible with the next gen of consoles.
If it's worth making, its worth putting on a disc.
I like physical media.
The less there is on physical media, the less inclined I am to buy new, or at all.
I also prefer physical media, but if the disc version of the game was considerably cheaper to offset you having to pay for DLC, you still wouldn't buy it?
At what point does your position change? When the disc version is $5 and the DLC is $20 on a game you currently pay $50 for?
The publishers can afford to give you more value for money in the DLC because they get 100% of it rather than the 40% they get for the physical disc sale, so the more the cost is biased towards the DLC, the cheaper the total cost of the game can be to the customer overall.
Just like fully Digital games, which are quite a bit cheaper, but it's not just the cost of the actual disc, it's the cut the shops take for stocking it, but they can't charge more than the sale price to the publisher, so if they can only take 60% of the $5 it sells for, then the publisher gets a bigger piece of the pie.
Of course, if you really want to save money, don't pay for the DLC and just get a cheaper game in the first place.
There is a tipping point beyond which the shops will just flat-out refuse to stock a game that sells for $5 with $20 DLC, so that won't happen, but I suspect an uneasy truce will be met somewhere in the middle ground.
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
They already do this. Both ME2 and Dragon Age have DLC codes with new purchases.
I'm perfectly fine with this. It makes the new copies worth more, without really degrading used value. You can still buy the dlc separately if you buy used.
Why should I pay full price for a new game when I'm only getting 2/3 of it? And then being pestered to buy the rest of the game as DLC the day it comes out?
Fuck that.
Any game with DLC announced before the game is even out is an instant used sale for me, and deservedly so. At the very least I wait and see if there's a separate version with the DLC included a year later.
If you want me to buy a new game, don't chop it up in pieces and sell it to me in bits. That's crap.
I get your point, but it kind of hurts your argument when the two examples you're using have a good 40 hours of gameplay out of the box, not even counting replays with each of a half-dozen characters. It's kind of silly to argue that you're not getting value for your dollar on Bioware's games.
If you're okay with the idea of DLC in general, it really doesn't matter whether that DLC comes out on launch day or a month or a year down the line. What matters is whether or not the game, sans DLC, constitutes a complete game experience. If you get to the final boss in a game and suddenly the game cuts off and demands $15 if you want to continue, that's bad form, and it's the case whether the rest of the game is released on launch day or not.
While I'm sure there are some developers cynically manipulating the DLC system in order to milk more money out of the customers, most of the time the DLC that's released is something that wouldn't have been budgeted into the game in the first place if DLC didn't exist. And launch-day DLC makes a lot of sense if you understand the game dev process. The time between when a game is finished and when it actually hits store shelves can be weeks or months. Pressing a million disks and packaging and getting them to stores isn't a trivial process. Throwing something up on a server, on the other hand, takes a few hours (or maybe days, depending on what MS/Sony's approval process is).
And when you consider that DLC could be created by an entirely different sub-team working concurrently with the main game folks, it's not that weird for DLC to be ready at launch.
At the end of the day, it's just sort of weird to be blathering at a company because they have the nerve to get their additional product out too quickly.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I will never, ever buy a single-player game that requires an internet connection to work.
As somebody who occasionally likes to game where I do not have internet, and who every now and then goes a year at a time without a personal internet connection, this is simply unacceptable to me.
The day single player games start regularly requiring internet connections just to play them is the day I stop gaming.
Well, if you get a $50 (in today's money) game for $30 and refuse to pay the extra $10 for the DLC, then you got a cheaper game, didn't you?
OK, you got a cheaper part of a game, but it is entirely your choice to pay more for the other part. Sometimes you will, sometimes you won't and that's fine.
You are effectively getting the option to save spending more money on a game that sucks. This should push quality up to avoid this happening as well as making the DLC really worth having.
It would not be sensible to have the game check an internet connection and refuse to play, so that probably won't happen, but if you can drag yourself to an internet point to get the DLC if you want to once a year, that's not asking much, is it?
all DLC is just content that was cut and given a delayed release in order to steal more money from the consumers, us gamers.
^ That.
Also, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop and the announcement that all the DLC people bought this gen won't be compatible with the next gen of consoles.
If it's worth making, its worth putting on a disc.
I like physical media.
The less there is on physical media, the less inclined I am to buy new, or at all.
I also prefer physical media, but if the disc version of the game was considerably cheaper to offset you having to pay for DLC, you still wouldn't buy it?
At what point does your position change? When the disc version is $5 and the DLC is $20 on a game you currently pay $50 for?
Everyone knows that DLC is coded by doe-eyed orphan slaves on machines made from puppy entrails.
Duh.
Why do you hate orphans and puppies?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I will never, ever buy a single-player game that requires an internet connection to work.
As somebody who occasionally likes to game where I do not have internet, and who every now and then goes a year at a time without a personal internet connection, this is simply unacceptable to me.
The day single player games start regularly requiring internet connections just to play them is the day I stop gaming.
Well, if you get a $50 (in today's money) game for $30 and refuse to pay the extra $10 for the DLC, then you got a cheaper game, didn't you?
OK, you got a cheaper part of a game, but it is entirely your choice to pay more for the other part. Sometimes you will, sometimes you won't and that's fine.
You are effectively getting the option to save spending more money on a game that sucks. This should push quality up to avoid this happening as well as making the DLC really worth having.
It would not be sensible to have the game check an internet connection and refuse to play, so that probably won't happen, but if you can drag yourself to an internet point to get the DLC if you want to once a year, that's not asking much, is it?
Actually, IIRC some game just came out that requires an internet connection check as part of the DRM. You can take it to offline mode, but that only buys you a month or something. It was pretty fucked. Shit, I think it might have been StarCraft 2. IIRC C&C4 did something similar.
No, taking my console/PC online at sporadic intervals to check for DLC (which I can play without) is no big deal. Your game better be fully functional and enjoyable without it, but otherwise that's fine. However, publishers already seem to think they can move towards requiring internet connection for single player for "physical" purchases, so for fully digital games I guarantee they'll move that direction.
Because, like, who doesn't have da interwebz lol!!?!?!!?!1?
all DLC is just content that was cut and given a delayed release in order to steal more money from the consumers, us gamers.
^ That.
Also, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop and the announcement that all the DLC people bought this gen won't be compatible with the next gen of consoles.
If it's worth making, its worth putting on a disc.
I like physical media.
The less there is on physical media, the less inclined I am to buy new, or at all.
I also prefer physical media, but if the disc version of the game was considerably cheaper to offset you having to pay for DLC, you still wouldn't buy it?
I get your point, but it kind of hurts your argument when the two examples you're using have a good 40 hours of gameplay out of the box, not even counting replays with each of a half-dozen characters. It's kind of silly to argue that you're not getting value for your dollar on Bioware's games.
Doesn't matter.
If Bioware are willing to spread around items as pre-order "bonuses" to nearly every major retailer, and then offer them as DLC, they can put them on the disc.
Will those pre-order items make a difference to the game? Maybe not, but it's the tactics they're using, which are crap, and I refuse to support a company that does it.
Put all the content on the disc, and I will pay full price for it. Otherwise, I am not getting full value for $60 ($70 in Canada, and with taxes, sometimes over $80!!!!) and I am damn well not going to pay full price.
all DLC is just content that was cut and given a delayed release in order to steal more money from the consumers, us gamers.
^ That.
Also, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop and the announcement that all the DLC people bought this gen won't be compatible with the next gen of consoles.
If it's worth making, its worth putting on a disc.
I like physical media.
The less there is on physical media, the less inclined I am to buy new, or at all.
I also prefer physical media, but if the disc version of the game was considerably cheaper to offset you having to pay for DLC, you still wouldn't buy it?
I get your point, but it kind of hurts your argument when the two examples you're using have a good 40 hours of gameplay out of the box, not even counting replays with each of a half-dozen characters. It's kind of silly to argue that you're not getting value for your dollar on Bioware's games.
Doesn't matter.
If Bioware are willing to spread around items as pre-order "bonuses" to nearly every major retailer, and then offer them as DLC, they can put them on the disc.
Will those pre-order items make a difference to the game? Maybe not, but it's the tactics they're using, which are crap, and I refuse to support a company that does it.
Put all the content on the disc, and I will pay full price for it. Otherwise, I am not getting full value for $60 ($70 in Canada, and with taxes, sometimes over $80!!!!) and I am damn well not going to pay full price.
So what about, say, Rock Band?
DLC is evil, apparently. So should they have just never released any songs past the original batch included on the disk, or should they have not released the game until the current crop of 1000-ish songs were completed?
Sorry, it's just that your "principle" that games are retroactively devalued by releasing additional content in the future makes little sense. DLC makes it possible for developers to release additional game elements above and beyond what they ordinarily would have.
Your argument would just as effectively apply to game sequels. I mean, what the hell is up with those fuckers at Sony and their stupid God of War game? They should've just waited to release the trilogy as a single game! Greedy bastards!
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I also prefer physical media, but if the disc version of the game was considerably cheaper to offset you having to pay for DLC, you still wouldn't buy it?
At what point does your position change?
It doesn't. It's the principle of the thing.
Ah, principle...
OK, well I suspect you are at the extreme end of the bell curve of possible customers and the publishers won't really cry about losing your single sale.
Just wait and see if something comes out that you really like and see if you change your mind...:winky:
You are effectively getting the option to save spending more money on a game that sucks. This should push quality up to avoid this happening as well as making the DLC really worth having.
It would not be sensible to have the game check an internet connection and refuse to play, so that probably won't happen, but if you can drag yourself to an internet point to get the DLC if you want to once a year, that's not asking much, is it?
Actually, IIRC some game just came out that requires an internet connection check as part of the DRM. You can take it to offline mode, but that only buys you a month or something. It was pretty fucked. Shit, I think it might have been StarCraft 2. IIRC C&C4 did something similar.
Ah. Well, hopefully market forces will sort those brain-farts out.
all DLC is just content that was cut and given a delayed release in order to steal more money from the consumers, us gamers.
Yeah, guys? When you find yourself agreeing with someone's sarcastic hyperbole? You're doing it wrong.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
I will never, ever buy a single-player game that requires an internet connection to work.
As somebody who occasionally likes to game where I do not have internet, and who every now and then goes a year at a time without a personal internet connection, this is simply unacceptable to me.
The day single player games start regularly requiring internet connections just to play them is the day I stop gaming.
Well, if you get a $50 (in today's money) game for $30 and refuse to pay the extra $10 for the DLC, then you got a cheaper game, didn't you?
OK, you got a cheaper part of a game, but it is entirely your choice to pay more for the other part. Sometimes you will, sometimes you won't and that's fine.
You are effectively getting the option to save spending more money on a game that sucks. This should push quality up to avoid this happening as well as making the DLC really worth having.
It would not be sensible to have the game check an internet connection and refuse to play, so that probably won't happen, but if you can drag yourself to an internet point to get the DLC if you want to once a year, that's not asking much, is it?
Actually, IIRC some game just came out that requires an internet connection check as part of the DRM. You can take it to offline mode, but that only buys you a month or something. It was pretty fucked. Shit, I think it might have been StarCraft 2. IIRC C&C4 did something similar.
No, taking my console/PC online at sporadic intervals to check for DLC (which I can play without) is no big deal. Your game better be fully functional and enjoyable without it, but otherwise that's fine. However, publishers already seem to think they can move towards requiring internet connection for single player for "physical" purchases, so for fully digital games I guarantee they'll move that direction.
Because, like, who doesn't have da interwebz lol!!?!?!!?!1?
I'm just trying to come up with options for getting more money out of people that don't have to be DLC, and that was an example. I do understand not wanting to connect-to-play. Things like the DS will (probably) always be internet-free if you want it to be.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
DLC is evil, apparently. So should they have just never released any songs past the original batch included on the disk, or should they have not released the game until the current crop of 1000-ish songs were completed?
Sorry, it's just that your "principle" that games are retroactively devalued by releasing additional content in the future makes little sense. DLC makes it possible for developers to release additional game elements above and beyond what they ordinarily would have.
Your argument would just as effectively apply to game sequels. I mean, what the hell is up with those fuckers at Sony and their stupid God of War game? They should've just waited to release the trilogy as a single game! Greedy bastards!
Never bought a GH or RB game. Mostly because I'm not interested, not because of DLC.
The principle that the game is devalued from the start by taking content away that should have been on the disc, but is sold separately, makes perfect sense.
And the three GOW games would not have fit on one disc. That's a comparison that makes no sense and you know it.
Releasing a sequel is not the same as taking out chunks of a game and selling them separately.
PooPooKaKaBumBum on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
DLC is evil, apparently. So should they have just never released any songs past the original batch included on the disk, or should they have not released the game until the current crop of 1000-ish songs were completed?
Sorry, it's just that your "principle" that games are retroactively devalued by releasing additional content in the future makes little sense. DLC makes it possible for developers to release additional game elements above and beyond what they ordinarily would have.
Your argument would just as effectively apply to game sequels. I mean, what the hell is up with those fuckers at Sony and their stupid God of War game? They should've just waited to release the trilogy as a single game! Greedy bastards!
Never bought a GH or RB game. Mostly because I'm not interested, not because of DLC.
The principle that the game is devalued from the start by taking content away that should have been on the disc, but is sold separately, makes perfect sense.
And the three GOW games would not have fit on one disc. That's a comparison that makes no sense and you know it.
Releasing a sequel is not the same as taking out chunks of a game and selling them separately.
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.
PooPooKaKaBumBum on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
DLC is evil, apparently. So should they have just never released any songs past the original batch included on the disk, or should they have not released the game until the current crop of 1000-ish songs were completed?
Sorry, it's just that your "principle" that games are retroactively devalued by releasing additional content in the future makes little sense. DLC makes it possible for developers to release additional game elements above and beyond what they ordinarily would have.
Your argument would just as effectively apply to game sequels. I mean, what the hell is up with those fuckers at Sony and their stupid God of War game? They should've just waited to release the trilogy as a single game! Greedy bastards!
Never bought a GH or RB game. Mostly because I'm not interested, not because of DLC. The principle that the game is devalued from the start by taking content away that should have been on the disc, but is sold separately, makes perfect sense.
And the three GOW games would not have fit on one disc. That's a comparison that makes no sense and you know it.
Releasing a sequel is not the same as taking out chunks of a game and selling them separately.
Orange'd for I'm confused. I understand you to be saying that if you ever release any DLC, ever, that it should have just been on the disk. Is that correct?
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
DLC is evil, apparently. So should they have just never released any songs past the original batch included on the disk, or should they have not released the game until the current crop of 1000-ish songs were completed?
Sorry, it's just that your "principle" that games are retroactively devalued by releasing additional content in the future makes little sense. DLC makes it possible for developers to release additional game elements above and beyond what they ordinarily would have.
Your argument would just as effectively apply to game sequels. I mean, what the hell is up with those fuckers at Sony and their stupid God of War game? They should've just waited to release the trilogy as a single game! Greedy bastards!
Never bought a GH or RB game. Mostly because I'm not interested, not because of DLC.
The principle that the game is devalued from the start by taking content away that should have been on the disc, but is sold separately, makes perfect sense.
And the three GOW games would not have fit on one disc. That's a comparison that makes no sense and you know it.
Releasing a sequel is not the same as taking out chunks of a game and selling them separately.
It can be the exact same thing. The only difference is scale. It is a difference of where you cut the product.
If I write a book comprising 250,000 words (which is a fuckton) and I decide, after writing 250,000 words, that I would make more money cutting the book into two separate publications of ~125,000 words each, am I doing something immoral?
It doesn't always happen that way, but it can happen that way. The principle you hold to is informed purely by cynicism. You feel that all DLC is just stuff that already existed and was cut from final publication and distribution so it can be fed back to people at $5-10 a pop. That may happen occasionally, I don't know, but that's not how it happens 100% of the time.
You sidestep that by claiming you have no interest in Rock Band or Guitar Hero, but you know that isn't the point. Future DLC for Rock Band and Guitar Hero undeniably add value for owners of the game. Pretend either of those games are something you like rather than being Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Now what?
Well I wasn't even really thinking about "music" games, to be honest. I was referring to "game" games and content like levels and items being taken out and sold as DLC.
Do I think, especially with Blu-Ray, that there are songs that *would* fit on the disc, that are taken off and sold as DLC? Yes, I do.
Understand that I do not buy any digital content at all - I buy cds, dvds/Blu-Rays, and games on disc.
I will not buy digital content of any kind. I would rather do without it.
It can be the exact same thing. The only difference is scale. It is a difference of where you cut the product.
If I write a book comprising 250,000 words (which is a fuckton) and I decide, after writing 250,000 words, that I would make more money cutting the book into two separate publications of ~125,000 words each, am I doing something immoral?
It doesn't always happen that way, but it can happen that way. The principle you hold to is informed purely by cynicism. You feel that all DLC is just stuff that already existed and was cut from final publication and distribution so it can be fed back to people at $5-10 a pop. That may happen occasionally, I don't know, but that's not how it happens 100% of the time
At this point of this gaming gen, it is something that happens *at least* 75% of the time. Pretty much every game nowadays has DLC announced before the game comes out. Just because my view is cynical, doesn't mean it isn't true.
You sidestep that by claiming you have no interest in Rock Band or Guitar Hero, but you know that isn't the point. Future DLC for Rock Band and Guitar Hero undeniably add value for owners of the game. Pretend either of those games are something you like rather than being Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Now what?
I just answered it. Do I think they rip people off by taking songs off the disc and selling them as DLC? Yes.
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.
You are promoting a philosophy where a game that has any DLC is not worth buying new. The implication is that DLC is always bad, bar nothing.
Therefore, you are implying that any bit of Rock Band or Guitar Hero DLC that comes out after the release of the game is a terrible slight against you or something and the game is not worth purchasing new. You explicitly stated:
Any game with DLC I will not buy new. Something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included, I will happily pay full price on day one for.
Put the content on the disc.
Clearly that can't happen when the DLC just isn't ready. You try to evade this by saying that Rock Band and Guitar Hero don't interest you, but that is just a bullshit parlor trick.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Well I wasn't even really thinking about "music" games, to be honest. I was referring to "game" games and content like levels and items being taken out and sold as DLC.
Do I think, especially with Blu-Ray, that there are songs that *would* fit on the disc, that are taken off and sold as DLC? Yes, I do.
Fitting on the disc should be the last metric you should use to determine if a game is done.
Should Final Fantasy VII have ended when Aeris had her fateful moment? Disc full, game over!
Should developers of RTSs be forced to make 50,000 hours of content because its on the ps3, and most of their assets are small and scenarios are scripted, thus making filling a blu Ray impossible?
There are all sorts of factors as to when a game is finished, and I suspect the arbitrary mrasure of how big the data is is absolutely the least of their concerns.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Well I wasn't even really thinking about "music" games, to be honest. I was referring to "game" games and content like levels and items being taken out and sold as DLC.
Do I think, especially with Blu-Ray, that there are songs that *would* fit on the disc, that are taken off and sold as DLC? Yes, I do.
Understand that I do not buy any digital content at all - I buy cds, dvds/Blu-Rays, and games on disc.
I will not buy digital content of any kind. I would rather do without it.
It has already been explained: most DLC is not taken out. It is new levels they work on developing after the game has moved into testing/getting ready for the shelves. Sure, sometimes they might chop something off and then wring more money out of people, but that is usually the kind of product that is added as free DLC/a patch.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Well I wasn't even really thinking about "music" games, to be honest. I was referring to "game" games and content like levels and items being taken out and sold as DLC.
Do I think, especially with Blu-Ray, that there are songs that *would* fit on the disc, that are taken off and sold as DLC? Yes, I do.
Understand that I do not buy any digital content at all - I buy cds, dvds/Blu-Rays, and games on disc.
I will not buy digital content of any kind. I would rather do without it.
So you do recognize that your entire value system is based on absolutely nothing but bias? Music games aren't real games, DLC is always terrible because it is always done to fuck the customer over as much as possible, and digital content is always bad for some reason I don't even want to ask you about.
It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching this topic even remotely objectively.
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.
You are promoting a philosophy where a game that has any DLC is not worth buying new. The implication is that DLC is always bad, bar nothing.
Therefore, you are implying that any bit of Rock Band or Guitar Hero DLC that comes out after the release of the game is a terrible slight against you or something and the game is not worth purchasing new. You explicitly stated:
Any game with DLC I will not buy new. Something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included, I will happily pay full price on day one for.
Put the content on the disc.
Clearly that can't happen when the DLC just isn't ready. You try to evade this by saying that Rock Band and Guitar Hero don't interest you, but that is just a bullshit parlor trick.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out. As I said, I wasn't thinking about RB or GH, I was thinking about stuff like the new Castlevania, which has already had DLC annonunced that is supposedly going to continue on from the end of the game, or Bioware taking out chunks of the game for pre-order or DLC.
So you do recognize that your entire value system is based on absolutely nothing but bias? Music games aren't real games, DLC is always terrible because it is always done to fuck the customer over as much as possible, and digital content is always bad for some reason I don't even want to ask you about.
It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching this topic even remotely objectively.
So what? Why do I need to objective about DLC devaluing a game when that's exactly what it does?!
It has already been explained: most DLC is not taken out. It is new levels they work on developing after the game has moved into testing/getting ready for the shelves. Sure, sometimes they might chop something off and then wring more money out of people, but that is usually the kind of product that is added as free DLC/a patch.
Explained by who? Developers? I have never, ever seen anything to contradict what I have said on here.
The principle that the game is devalued from the start by taking content away that should have been on the disc, but is sold separately, makes perfect sense.
It only makes perfect sense if you ignore the actual game development process, which entails a substantial amount of time between when a game is submitted for certification and when it ships tor retail.
During that substantial amount of time, development houses can either re-allocate their staff to other projects, reduce their staff, or have that staff work on DLC. Which, depending on the DLC, can be ready to upload by release day.
There's a wee bit of difference between the release day DLC available for Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and something like random alternate costume packs usually used as preorder bonuses.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out.
First, sometimes games "go gold" anywhere from a week to a month before a game hits shelves. The gold version of the game is what goes into product. Depending on the studio and type of game, some additional content (costumes, whatever) can be slapped together before the actual retail or digital release of the game. There is nothing sinister about that.
Second, sometimes developers have post-release schedules. In the last decade, this usually involves bugfixes. I'd rather them release games with no bugs and focus on additional content. Mass Effect 2 had a few minor bugs post release. Why? Because it isn't very feasible to justify DLC if your game is broken. Go head over to the BioShock 2 forums if you want a taste of the backlash a company gets for trying to pull that kind of shit. BioShock 2 is still terribly broken and they've released a lot of DLC for it. That just doesn't fly. BioWare though? They released a solid game and they are adding to it. There's nothing sinister about that, and there's nothing sinister about making plans to do that even before the game is released.
Third, your statements are false. You imply that this is how all DLC is. This is not how all DLC is. This is how some DLC is, a very small minority of DLC. Most DLC is not at-release DLC. And even in those cases, you cannot prove that the decision to do so was some sinister "let's cut this from the game and sell it back to the customer" type deal. You are simply arguing from cynical bias.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out.
First, sometimes games "go gold" anywhere from a week to a month before a game hits shelves. The gold version of the game is what goes into product. Depending on the studio and type of game, some additional content (costumes, whatever) can be slapped together before the actual retail or digital release of the game. There is nothing sinister about that.
Second, sometimes developers have post-release schedules. In the last decade, this usually involves bugfixes. I'd rather them release games with no bugs and focus on additional content. Mass Effect 2 had a few minor bugs post release. Why? Because it isn't very feasible to justify DLC if your game is broken. Go head over to the BioShock 2 forums if you want a taste of the backlash a company gets for trying to pull that kind of shit. BioShock 2 is still terribly broken and they've released a lot of DLC for it. That just doesn't fly. BioWare though? They released a solid game and they are adding to it. There's nothing sinister about that, and there's nothing sinister about making plans to do that even before the game is released.
Third, your statements are false. You imply that this is how all DLC is. This is not how all DLC is. This is how some DLC is, a very small minority of DLC. Most DLC is not at-release DLC. And even in those cases, you cannot prove that the decision to do so was some sinister "let's cut this from the game and sell it back to the customer" type deal. You are simply arguing from cynical bias.
1) I very highly doubt they still developing content at the time a game goes gold. They are bug testing at that point. Pre-release DLC is stuff that is cut from the game.
2) My statements are not false. Viewed through cynical bias, but frankly, it needs to be in this day and age.
Can you prove this is *not* how all DLC is? That the developers and publishers are out to hug and cuddle us every time we buy their games? No, I didn't think so.
You're arguing from a simplistic view that all developers are looking after your best interests, when they are not.
PooPooKaKaBumBum on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.
You are promoting a philosophy where a game that has any DLC is not worth buying new. The implication is that DLC is always bad, bar nothing.
Therefore, you are implying that any bit of Rock Band or Guitar Hero DLC that comes out after the release of the game is a terrible slight against you or something and the game is not worth purchasing new. You explicitly stated:
Any game with DLC I will not buy new. Something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included, I will happily pay full price on day one for.
Put the content on the disc.
Clearly that can't happen when the DLC just isn't ready. You try to evade this by saying that Rock Band and Guitar Hero don't interest you, but that is just a bullshit parlor trick.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out. As I said, I wasn't thinking about RB or GH, I was thinking about stuff like the new Castlevania, which has already had DLC annonunced that is supposedly going to continue on from the end of the game, or Bioware taking out chunks of the game for pre-order or DLC.
So you do recognize that your entire value system is based on absolutely nothing but bias? Music games aren't real games, DLC is always terrible because it is always done to fuck the customer over as much as possible, and digital content is always bad for some reason I don't even want to ask you about.
It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching this topic even remotely objectively.
So what? Why do I need to objective about DLC devaluing a game when that's exactly what it does?!
It has already been explained: most DLC is not taken out. It is new levels they work on developing after the game has moved into testing/getting ready for the shelves. Sure, sometimes they might chop something off and then wring more money out of people, but that is usually the kind of product that is added as free DLC/a patch.
Explained by who? Developers? I have never, ever seen anything to contradict what I have said on here.
They can't have scheduled releases to support the game and make more money? The product is a complete as a game, but building upon it shouldn't ever occur? Do you hate games with expansion packs?
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.
You are promoting a philosophy where a game that has any DLC is not worth buying new. The implication is that DLC is always bad, bar nothing.
That's becuase it is.
"It is because it is" isn't an argument. I'm not saying it's not a valid argument, I'm saying it's not even a bad argument. It's not an argument. It's a literal waste of text.
Therefore, you are implying that any bit of Rock Band or Guitar Hero DLC that comes out after the release of the game is a terrible slight against you or something and the game is not worth purchasing new. You explicitly stated:
Any game with DLC I will not buy new. Something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included, I will happily pay full price on day one for.
Put the content on the disc.
Clearly that can't happen when the DLC just isn't ready. You try to evade this by saying that Rock Band and Guitar Hero don't interest you, but that is just a bullshit parlor trick.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out. As I said, I wasn't thinking about RB or GH, I was thinking about stuff like the new Castlevania, which has already had DLC annonunced that is supposedly going to continue on from the end of the game, or Bioware taking out chunks of the game for pre-order or DLC.
You not thinking about things is a big problem here. You might want to start thinking about things relevant to the discussion you are participating in.
So you do recognize that your entire value system is based on absolutely nothing but bias? Music games aren't real games, DLC is always terrible because it is always done to fuck the customer over as much as possible, and digital content is always bad for some reason I don't even want to ask you about.
It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching this topic even remotely objectively.
So what? Why do I need to objective about DLC devaluing a game when that's exactly what it does?!
Because objective arguments are the only arguments that have any value here? There is something to be said about how treating a customer is important in the scheme of things, but that isn't how you are framing your argument. But you are arguing your feelings as fact. "DLC is bad because DLC is bad." Um, no. If you want to say "this makes me distrust publishers," that's fine. You aren't saying that though. You're just bleating that DLC is objectively bad without any evidence or explanation.
It has already been explained: most DLC is not taken out. It is new levels they work on developing after the game has moved into testing/getting ready for the shelves. Sure, sometimes they might chop something off and then wring more money out of people, but that is usually the kind of product that is added as free DLC/a patch.
Explained by who? Developers? I have never, ever seen anything to contradict what I have said on here.
But you clearly haven't done any research or anything. You've clearly assumed a few biases and refuse to think beyond them.
At this point of this gaming gen, it is something that happens *at least* 75% of the time. Pretty much every game nowadays has DLC announced before the game comes out. Just because my view is cynical, doesn't mean it isn't true.
You sidestep that by claiming you have no interest in Rock Band or Guitar Hero, but you know that isn't the point. Future DLC for Rock Band and Guitar Hero undeniably add value for owners of the game. Pretend either of those games are something you like rather than being Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Now what?
I just answered it. Do I think they rip people off by taking songs off the disc and selling them as DLC? Yes.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out.
First, sometimes games "go gold" anywhere from a week to a month before a game hits shelves. The gold version of the game is what goes into product. Depending on the studio and type of game, some additional content (costumes, whatever) can be slapped together before the actual retail or digital release of the game. There is nothing sinister about that.
Second, sometimes developers have post-release schedules. In the last decade, this usually involves bugfixes. I'd rather them release games with no bugs and focus on additional content. Mass Effect 2 had a few minor bugs post release. Why? Because it isn't very feasible to justify DLC if your game is broken. Go head over to the BioShock 2 forums if you want a taste of the backlash a company gets for trying to pull that kind of shit. BioShock 2 is still terribly broken and they've released a lot of DLC for it. That just doesn't fly. BioWare though? They released a solid game and they are adding to it. There's nothing sinister about that, and there's nothing sinister about making plans to do that even before the game is released.
Third, your statements are false. You imply that this is how all DLC is. This is not how all DLC is. This is how some DLC is, a very small minority of DLC. Most DLC is not at-release DLC. And even in those cases, you cannot prove that the decision to do so was some sinister "let's cut this from the game and sell it back to the customer" type deal. You are simply arguing from cynical bias.
1) I very highly doubt they still developing content at the time a game goes gold. They are bug testing at that point. Pre-release DLC is stuff that is cut from the game.
2) My statements are not false. Viewed through cynical bias, but frankly, it needs to be in this day and age.
Can you prove this is *not* how all DLC is? That the developers and publishers are out to hug and cuddle us every time we buy their games? No, I didn't think so.
You're arguing from a simplistic view that all developers are looking after your best interests, when they are not.
I don't have to prove anything. You're the person making a positive claim and the burden of proof is on you. You have yet to explain where your thoughts come from, and why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
And you saying I'm wrong "because I say so" adds nothing to the discussion either.
>They can't have scheduled releases to support the game and make more money? The product is a complete as a game, but building upon it shouldn't ever occur? Do you hate games with expansion packs?
Were Prince of Persia or Fallout 3 complete? Both had a ton of extra content that changed the ending. And sure enough, Fallout 3 got released again with all the DLC *that fit on the disc*.
(And yes, I bought it. Though I bought the PS3 version, which didn't actually work, but that's an argument about the lack of quality of Bethesda games)
why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
Seriously? Is this even in doubt anymore?
So you think every bit of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC to come out is an act of the worst kind of consumer exploitation? Really? Because that's what Kirby here is saying.
why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
Seriously? Is this even in doubt anymore?
So you think every bit of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC to come out is an act of the worst kind of consumer exploitation? Really? Because that's what Kirby here is saying.
And you saying I'm wrong "because I say so" adds nothing to the discussion either.
The wrongness of your non-arguments is evident in the words you put forth. Your arguments would be wrong without me saying that they are wrong. So I suppose you do have a point: Me pointing out how much of a silly goose you are doesn't actually add much to the discussion, because it is pretty obvious you don't have a leg to stand on.
why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
Seriously? Is this even in doubt anymore?
So you think every bit of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC to come out is an act of the worst kind of consumer exploitation? Really? Because that's what Kirby here is saying.
The pre-order crap certainly was.
So are you talking about all DLC or some DLC? Stop vacillating. Is their recent release of Overlord - a DLC - or their upcoming release of Lair of the Shadow Broker - a DLC - terrible consumer exploitation or not?
And you saying I'm wrong "because I say so" adds nothing to the discussion either.
The wrongness of your non-arguments is evident in the words you put forth. Your arguments would be wrong without me saying that they are wrong. So I suppose you do have a point: Me pointing out how much of a silly goose you are doesn't actually add much to the discussion, because it is pretty obvious you don't have a leg to stand on.
The "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument doesn't really hold up either.
why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
Seriously? Is this even in doubt anymore?
So you think every bit of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC to come out is an act of the worst kind of consumer exploitation? Really? Because that's what Kirby here is saying.
The pre-order crap certainly was.
So are you talking about all DLC or some DLC? Stop vacillating. Is their recent release of Overlord - a DLC - or their upcoming release of Lair of the Shadow Broker - a DLC - terrible consumer exploitation or not?
If it's being sold in chunks as DLC, it should be on the disc.
If those lazy, customer-hating developers have all that free time to write patches for a game after they release it, they should have included them on the damn disc.
Posts
I also prefer physical media, but if the disc version of the game was considerably cheaper to offset you having to pay for DLC, you still wouldn't buy it?
At what point does your position change? When the disc version is $5 and the DLC is $20 on a game you currently pay $50 for?
The publishers can afford to give you more value for money in the DLC because they get 100% of it rather than the 40% they get for the physical disc sale, so the more the cost is biased towards the DLC, the cheaper the total cost of the game can be to the customer overall.
Just like fully Digital games, which are quite a bit cheaper, but it's not just the cost of the actual disc, it's the cut the shops take for stocking it, but they can't charge more than the sale price to the publisher, so if they can only take 60% of the $5 it sells for, then the publisher gets a bigger piece of the pie.
Of course, if you really want to save money, don't pay for the DLC and just get a cheaper game in the first place.
There is a tipping point beyond which the shops will just flat-out refuse to stock a game that sells for $5 with $20 DLC, so that won't happen, but I suspect an uneasy truce will be met somewhere in the middle ground.
I get your point, but it kind of hurts your argument when the two examples you're using have a good 40 hours of gameplay out of the box, not even counting replays with each of a half-dozen characters. It's kind of silly to argue that you're not getting value for your dollar on Bioware's games.
If you're okay with the idea of DLC in general, it really doesn't matter whether that DLC comes out on launch day or a month or a year down the line. What matters is whether or not the game, sans DLC, constitutes a complete game experience. If you get to the final boss in a game and suddenly the game cuts off and demands $15 if you want to continue, that's bad form, and it's the case whether the rest of the game is released on launch day or not.
While I'm sure there are some developers cynically manipulating the DLC system in order to milk more money out of the customers, most of the time the DLC that's released is something that wouldn't have been budgeted into the game in the first place if DLC didn't exist. And launch-day DLC makes a lot of sense if you understand the game dev process. The time between when a game is finished and when it actually hits store shelves can be weeks or months. Pressing a million disks and packaging and getting them to stores isn't a trivial process. Throwing something up on a server, on the other hand, takes a few hours (or maybe days, depending on what MS/Sony's approval process is).
And when you consider that DLC could be created by an entirely different sub-team working concurrently with the main game folks, it's not that weird for DLC to be ready at launch.
At the end of the day, it's just sort of weird to be blathering at a company because they have the nerve to get their additional product out too quickly.
Well, if you get a $50 (in today's money) game for $30 and refuse to pay the extra $10 for the DLC, then you got a cheaper game, didn't you?
OK, you got a cheaper part of a game, but it is entirely your choice to pay more for the other part. Sometimes you will, sometimes you won't and that's fine.
You are effectively getting the option to save spending more money on a game that sucks. This should push quality up to avoid this happening as well as making the DLC really worth having.
It would not be sensible to have the game check an internet connection and refuse to play, so that probably won't happen, but if you can drag yourself to an internet point to get the DLC if you want to once a year, that's not asking much, is it?
Everyone knows that DLC is coded by doe-eyed orphan slaves on machines made from puppy entrails.
Duh.
Why do you hate orphans and puppies?
Actually, IIRC some game just came out that requires an internet connection check as part of the DRM. You can take it to offline mode, but that only buys you a month or something. It was pretty fucked. Shit, I think it might have been StarCraft 2. IIRC C&C4 did something similar.
No, taking my console/PC online at sporadic intervals to check for DLC (which I can play without) is no big deal. Your game better be fully functional and enjoyable without it, but otherwise that's fine. However, publishers already seem to think they can move towards requiring internet connection for single player for "physical" purchases, so for fully digital games I guarantee they'll move that direction.
Because, like, who doesn't have da interwebz lol!!?!?!!?!1?
It doesn't. It's the principle of the thing.
Doesn't matter.
If Bioware are willing to spread around items as pre-order "bonuses" to nearly every major retailer, and then offer them as DLC, they can put them on the disc.
Will those pre-order items make a difference to the game? Maybe not, but it's the tactics they're using, which are crap, and I refuse to support a company that does it.
Put all the content on the disc, and I will pay full price for it. Otherwise, I am not getting full value for $60 ($70 in Canada, and with taxes, sometimes over $80!!!!) and I am damn well not going to pay full price.
So what about, say, Rock Band?
DLC is evil, apparently. So should they have just never released any songs past the original batch included on the disk, or should they have not released the game until the current crop of 1000-ish songs were completed?
Sorry, it's just that your "principle" that games are retroactively devalued by releasing additional content in the future makes little sense. DLC makes it possible for developers to release additional game elements above and beyond what they ordinarily would have.
Your argument would just as effectively apply to game sequels. I mean, what the hell is up with those fuckers at Sony and their stupid God of War game? They should've just waited to release the trilogy as a single game! Greedy bastards!
Ah, principle...
OK, well I suspect you are at the extreme end of the bell curve of possible customers and the publishers won't really cry about losing your single sale.
Just wait and see if something comes out that you really like and see if you change your mind...:winky:
Ah. Well, hopefully market forces will sort those brain-farts out.
Vote with your wallets, people. :winky:
Yeah, guys? When you find yourself agreeing with someone's sarcastic hyperbole? You're doing it wrong.
I'm just trying to come up with options for getting more money out of people that don't have to be DLC, and that was an example. I do understand not wanting to connect-to-play. Things like the DS will (probably) always be internet-free if you want it to be.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Never bought a GH or RB game. Mostly because I'm not interested, not because of DLC.
The principle that the game is devalued from the start by taking content away that should have been on the disc, but is sold separately, makes perfect sense.
And the three GOW games would not have fit on one disc. That's a comparison that makes no sense and you know it.
Releasing a sequel is not the same as taking out chunks of a game and selling them separately.
Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.
Orange'd for I'm confused. I understand you to be saying that if you ever release any DLC, ever, that it should have just been on the disk. Is that correct?
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
It can be the exact same thing. The only difference is scale. It is a difference of where you cut the product.
If I write a book comprising 250,000 words (which is a fuckton) and I decide, after writing 250,000 words, that I would make more money cutting the book into two separate publications of ~125,000 words each, am I doing something immoral?
It doesn't always happen that way, but it can happen that way. The principle you hold to is informed purely by cynicism. You feel that all DLC is just stuff that already existed and was cut from final publication and distribution so it can be fed back to people at $5-10 a pop. That may happen occasionally, I don't know, but that's not how it happens 100% of the time.
You sidestep that by claiming you have no interest in Rock Band or Guitar Hero, but you know that isn't the point. Future DLC for Rock Band and Guitar Hero undeniably add value for owners of the game. Pretend either of those games are something you like rather than being Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Now what?
Do I think, especially with Blu-Ray, that there are songs that *would* fit on the disc, that are taken off and sold as DLC? Yes, I do.
Understand that I do not buy any digital content at all - I buy cds, dvds/Blu-Rays, and games on disc.
I will not buy digital content of any kind. I would rather do without it.
Yes.
At this point of this gaming gen, it is something that happens *at least* 75% of the time. Pretty much every game nowadays has DLC announced before the game comes out. Just because my view is cynical, doesn't mean it isn't true.
I just answered it. Do I think they rip people off by taking songs off the disc and selling them as DLC? Yes.
You are promoting a philosophy where a game that has any DLC is not worth buying new. The implication is that DLC is always bad, bar nothing.
Therefore, you are implying that any bit of Rock Band or Guitar Hero DLC that comes out after the release of the game is a terrible slight against you or something and the game is not worth purchasing new. You explicitly stated:
Clearly that can't happen when the DLC just isn't ready. You try to evade this by saying that Rock Band and Guitar Hero don't interest you, but that is just a bullshit parlor trick.
Fitting on the disc should be the last metric you should use to determine if a game is done.
Should Final Fantasy VII have ended when Aeris had her fateful moment? Disc full, game over!
Should developers of RTSs be forced to make 50,000 hours of content because its on the ps3, and most of their assets are small and scenarios are scripted, thus making filling a blu Ray impossible?
There are all sorts of factors as to when a game is finished, and I suspect the arbitrary mrasure of how big the data is is absolutely the least of their concerns.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It has already been explained: most DLC is not taken out. It is new levels they work on developing after the game has moved into testing/getting ready for the shelves. Sure, sometimes they might chop something off and then wring more money out of people, but that is usually the kind of product that is added as free DLC/a patch.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
So you do recognize that your entire value system is based on absolutely nothing but bias? Music games aren't real games, DLC is always terrible because it is always done to fuck the customer over as much as possible, and digital content is always bad for some reason I don't even want to ask you about.
It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching this topic even remotely objectively.
That's becuase it is.
Yes, but nowadays, the DLC *is* ready, and announced before the game is even out. As I said, I wasn't thinking about RB or GH, I was thinking about stuff like the new Castlevania, which has already had DLC annonunced that is supposedly going to continue on from the end of the game, or Bioware taking out chunks of the game for pre-order or DLC.
So what? Why do I need to objective about DLC devaluing a game when that's exactly what it does?!
Explained by who? Developers? I have never, ever seen anything to contradict what I have said on here.
It only makes perfect sense if you ignore the actual game development process, which entails a substantial amount of time between when a game is submitted for certification and when it ships tor retail.
During that substantial amount of time, development houses can either re-allocate their staff to other projects, reduce their staff, or have that staff work on DLC. Which, depending on the DLC, can be ready to upload by release day.
There's a wee bit of difference between the release day DLC available for Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and something like random alternate costume packs usually used as preorder bonuses.
First, sometimes games "go gold" anywhere from a week to a month before a game hits shelves. The gold version of the game is what goes into product. Depending on the studio and type of game, some additional content (costumes, whatever) can be slapped together before the actual retail or digital release of the game. There is nothing sinister about that.
Second, sometimes developers have post-release schedules. In the last decade, this usually involves bugfixes. I'd rather them release games with no bugs and focus on additional content. Mass Effect 2 had a few minor bugs post release. Why? Because it isn't very feasible to justify DLC if your game is broken. Go head over to the BioShock 2 forums if you want a taste of the backlash a company gets for trying to pull that kind of shit. BioShock 2 is still terribly broken and they've released a lot of DLC for it. That just doesn't fly. BioWare though? They released a solid game and they are adding to it. There's nothing sinister about that, and there's nothing sinister about making plans to do that even before the game is released.
Third, your statements are false. You imply that this is how all DLC is. This is not how all DLC is. This is how some DLC is, a very small minority of DLC. Most DLC is not at-release DLC. And even in those cases, you cannot prove that the decision to do so was some sinister "let's cut this from the game and sell it back to the customer" type deal. You are simply arguing from cynical bias.
1) I very highly doubt they still developing content at the time a game goes gold. They are bug testing at that point. Pre-release DLC is stuff that is cut from the game.
2) My statements are not false. Viewed through cynical bias, but frankly, it needs to be in this day and age.
Can you prove this is *not* how all DLC is? That the developers and publishers are out to hug and cuddle us every time we buy their games? No, I didn't think so.
You're arguing from a simplistic view that all developers are looking after your best interests, when they are not.
They can't have scheduled releases to support the game and make more money? The product is a complete as a game, but building upon it shouldn't ever occur? Do you hate games with expansion packs?
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
"It is because it is" isn't an argument. I'm not saying it's not a valid argument, I'm saying it's not even a bad argument. It's not an argument. It's a literal waste of text.
You not thinking about things is a big problem here. You might want to start thinking about things relevant to the discussion you are participating in.
Because objective arguments are the only arguments that have any value here? There is something to be said about how treating a customer is important in the scheme of things, but that isn't how you are framing your argument. But you are arguing your feelings as fact. "DLC is bad because DLC is bad." Um, no. If you want to say "this makes me distrust publishers," that's fine. You aren't saying that though. You're just bleating that DLC is objectively bad without any evidence or explanation.
But you clearly haven't done any research or anything. You've clearly assumed a few biases and refuse to think beyond them.
OK, we're done here, where's my troll musket?
I don't have to prove anything. You're the person making a positive claim and the burden of proof is on you. You have yet to explain where your thoughts come from, and why publishers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst kind of consumer exploitation as you seem to be putting forth.
Seriously? Is this even in doubt anymore?
>They can't have scheduled releases to support the game and make more money? The product is a complete as a game, but building upon it shouldn't ever occur? Do you hate games with expansion packs?
Were Prince of Persia or Fallout 3 complete? Both had a ton of extra content that changed the ending. And sure enough, Fallout 3 got released again with all the DLC *that fit on the disc*.
(And yes, I bought it. Though I bought the PS3 version, which didn't actually work, but that's an argument about the lack of quality of Bethesda games)
They don't. Period. They've pulled far too much crap this gen that has ripped off consumers - except Atlus.
So you think every bit of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC to come out is an act of the worst kind of consumer exploitation? Really? Because that's what Kirby here is saying.
The pre-order crap certainly was.
The wrongness of your non-arguments is evident in the words you put forth. Your arguments would be wrong without me saying that they are wrong. So I suppose you do have a point: Me pointing out how much of a silly goose you are doesn't actually add much to the discussion, because it is pretty obvious you don't have a leg to stand on.
So are you talking about all DLC or some DLC? Stop vacillating. Is their recent release of Overlord - a DLC - or their upcoming release of Lair of the Shadow Broker - a DLC - terrible consumer exploitation or not?
The "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument doesn't really hold up either.
Meh.
If it's being sold in chunks as DLC, it should be on the disc.