I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
+3
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
Bad thing is it doesn't sound like Wonderlands will get any big story DLC like previous games did (Like Bounty of Blood, Claptastic Voyage, etc) if thats really all the season pass has so I really hope those random dungeons really deliver.
I interpreted that as the entire trailer being for part 1 of the season pass. Would be much worse if that was the whole thing. I could see them not mentioning the new enemies being added to the random dungeons and maybe new pieces for the dungeon randomizer. Of course, that relies on the random dungeons to deliver as well.
We'll see. It could also be they aren't sure about DLC until they see what the games reception is like, so season 1 will be the mirrors and any story dlc will be season 2 or standalone, especially if Season 1 only sells for $20-$25. Avoid a TPS situation where people expected much more from the season pass than they got.
Shouldn't be announcing with a trailer that there's going to be a Season Pass, they should have just tossed that stuff in the base game.
That's probably just me yelling at clouds, though.
I really hate this mentality that anyone buying a game is entitled to anything conceived or developed during the initial development time of a game. I never see this logic applied to any other media. I mean, they shot Two Towers and Return of the King before Fellowship came out, they should have tossed that footage in with the first movie. If a writer comes up with sequel ideas for the novel they're writing while they're writing it, they should just make that first book longer.
+1
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
Shouldn't be announcing with a trailer that there's going to be a Season Pass, they should have just tossed that stuff in the base game.
That's probably just me yelling at clouds, though.
I really hate this mentality that anyone buying a game is entitled to anything conceived or developed during the initial development time of a game. I never see this logic applied to any other media. I mean, they shot Two Towers and Return of the King before Fellowship came out, they should have tossed that footage in with the first movie. If a writer comes up with sequel ideas for the novel they're writing while they're writing it, they should just make that first book longer.
DLC feels more akin to a publisher selling new chapters in a book, or a few extra scenes of descriptions, as separate purchases after you'd already bought the book when it launched.
like there are a few books and theatrical movies that get updated with "director's cuts" or "author's preferred edition", but most are generally just a single purchase where you get 100% of the content, they're not trying to sell you a partial title at launch and then upselling you for the rest at a premium
Except the idea that the title is incomplete without the DLC is just a concept that exists in your head because you feel entitled to it.
sure? like I'd much prefer that games worked more like other media where I could give somebody $60 and they would just give me everything, rather than being told, at launch, that they'd sell me the remaining 25% of the game for $30 and I'd receive it piecemeal over the next year
whether you want to count that as "incomplete" or "bonus content" is up to you, but I don't have much patience for it
I really can't get worked up over this since I lived through the era of having major chunks of finished DLC on the disk. I don't mind compensating them for their work post-launch.
Though with Borderlands I've gotten in the habit of waiting a couple years to play them so I can buy the game and the DLC together for dirt cheap.
I mean, this is just going to keep going in circles. What ever. But I can count on one hand the number of times where the DLC felt like an essential part of the experience, or the base game felt incomplete because I didn't buy the extra content.
Except the idea that the title is incomplete without the DLC is just a concept that exists in your head because you feel entitled to it.
Some titles do feel incomplete without the DLC. Those piss me off. What comes to mind first would be Assassin's Creed 2 (where they literally went by chapters and skipped 2 chapters to release as DLC) and Mass Effect 3 (where the Prothean DLC and Leviathan feel like essential cut content)
Borderlands DLC has never felt that way. It's always been a good feeling of completion with the base game and the DLC feel like optional side quests when you can't get enough. This looks like that to me.
It's not that hard to feel out the difference between content being worked on after release, and literal on-disc dlc being sliced off. It's one of those "I just know it when I see it".
Also, some publishers (which to be honest at this point is pretty much all publishers now...) simply don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Except the idea that the title is incomplete without the DLC is just a concept that exists in your head because you feel entitled to it.
It is MEGA weird to me to see this "entitled customers" crap from the early 2000s emerge unquestioned after 20 years of publisher exploitation. What are you DOING, here?
Except the idea that the title is incomplete without the DLC is just a concept that exists in your head because you feel entitled to it.
Some titles do feel incomplete without the DLC. Those piss me off. What comes to mind first would be Assassin's Creed 2 (where they literally went by chapters and skipped 2 chapters to release as DLC) and Mass Effect 3 (where the Prothean DLC and Leviathan feel like essential cut content)
Borderlands DLC has never felt that way. It's always been a good feeling of completion with the base game and the DLC feel like optional side quests when you can't get enough. This looks like that to me.
Well, the good news is that those types of DLC pissed off so many people that nobody's done that stuff for a decade or so.
Except the idea that the title is incomplete without the DLC is just a concept that exists in your head because you feel entitled to it.
It is MEGA weird to me to see this "entitled customers" crap from the early 2000s emerge unquestioned after 20 years of publisher exploitation. What are you DOING, here?
Look, I feel entitled to a game working at launch. I feel entitled to games that don't crash. That's the kind of shit that pisses me off. I think it's very telling that every time this argument comes up, it's always Assassins Creed 2 and Mass Effect 3. If this were really a problem outside of feeling entitled, we'd have more recent examples.
Except the idea that the title is incomplete without the DLC is just a concept that exists in your head because you feel entitled to it.
It is MEGA weird to me to see this "entitled customers" crap from the early 2000s emerge unquestioned after 20 years of publisher exploitation. What are you DOING, here?
Look, I feel entitled to a game working at launch. I feel entitled to games that don't crash. That's the kind of shit that pisses me off. I think it's very telling that every time this argument comes up, it's always Assassins Creed 2 and Mass Effect 3. If this were really a problem outside of feeling entitled, we'd have more recent examples.
More recent examples of DLC not being worth money? Or of games being released in a laughable state with additional content already being marketed on Day one? We have a wealth of examples of both things.
I mean examples of games actually being incomplete without the DLC.
This is weasel terminology because even a piece of shit game like Evolve could be argued to be "complete" at launch. Complete has no agreed upon definition. Basically the only way to obviously lose the argument is to label your DLC as a part of the main story, as AC2 and Asura's Wrath did.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla is an extremely content packed game, however in terms of being well put together, well tested, etc. it's one of the worst in the series. So is the DLC a ripoff? Kind of, yeah. They rushed the game, packed it full of microtransaction "time savers" and other scams, and then put their hand out for more money, right away.
Or another weird example, Kingdom Hearts 3, which is a pretty lengthy and expensively put together game. But the ending is... very strange. A lot of things happen with little or sometimes no explanation. Why? Because they pulled a Xenogears and ran out of time to do the ending they planned on. However in the modern era, they were able to go back after the fact and actually make the planned ending as DLC... which they sold at a HIGH price as far as these things go. So was the original game "complete" then? Are customers "entitled" for wanting the ending to the story to make any kind of sense, to see what the script was written as to begin with?
Tl;dr various anti-consumer trends have become commonplace, which makes me very unimpressed with this concept of customers being entitled for sniffing out the BS.
+1
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I mean examples of games actually being incomplete without the DLC.
This is weasel terminology because even a piece of shit game like Evolve could be argued to be "complete" at launch. Complete has no agreed upon definition. Basically the only way to obviously lose the argument is to label your DLC as a part of the main story, as AC2 and Asura's Wrath did.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla is an extremely content packed game, however in terms of being well put together, well tested, etc. it's one of the worst in the series. So is the DLC a ripoff? Kind of, yeah. They rushed the game, packed it full of microtransaction "time savers" and other scams, and then put their hand out for more money, right away.
Or another weird example, Kingdom Hearts 3, which is a pretty lengthy and expensively put together game. But the ending is... very strange. A lot of things happen with little or sometimes no explanation. Why? Because they pulled a Xenogears and ran out of time to do the ending they planned on. However in the modern era, they were able to go back after the fact and actually make the planned ending as DLC... which they sold at a HIGH price as far as these things go. So was the original game "complete" then? Are customers "entitled" for wanting the ending to the story to make any kind of sense, to see what the script was written as to begin with?
Tl;dr various anti-consumer trends have become commonplace, which makes me very unimpressed with this concept of customers being entitled for sniffing out the BS.
I will give you kudos for an actual recent example. Though I didn't play KH3, largely because I found KH1&2 to be shit, but that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say a game that's incomplete without its DLC. For something with "no agreed upon definition", you were able to define it just fine.
I really don't care when content is developed or when DLC is announced. All I care about is a complete experience. Fuck, announce your season pass in the game's reveal trailer. It doesn't change my experience at all.
I'm going to explain what happened in KH3 in a very general way, just so the example makes sense, but I'll still tag it for those who aren't interested or want to play it rather than read about it.
KH3's ending
The Hero Team squares up against the villain team for the final battle. The battle gets off to a bad start when the villain team straight up KILLS the entire hero team in a huge blowout right at the start. However, the Hero Team gets a second chance at not screwing it all up due to the main heroine (Kairi) finally giving Sora the push to develop a certain superpower he's been trying to get the whole game (The Power of Waking). With this power, he's able to undo the bad thing that just happened and create a more competent response to the villain's attack, so nobody dies this time. In the process of using this power, Sora is explicitly warned by an ally that using it in a certain way will create some kind of very bad result.
In the course of the final battle, Kairi is first captured and then straight up executed by the main bad guy. The hero team presses on to beat him, but she's dead, seems like. As the final battle ends, Sora expresses that he can't just let Kairi go, and goes to use the Power again that he used previously. He's warned against doing it, but does it anyway. His body disappears in some kind of magical effect, run the credits. During the credits, we see various scenes of the still living heroes going back to their lives, with Sora and Kairi appearing as see-through figures. Is this... a metaphor for the hole they left in their friends' hearts? Are they in a parallel dimension where they can see what's happening, but can't interact (this exact thing has actually happened in a very recent game to this one)? Then at the end, Sora and Kairi are together, but then Sora disappears and only Kairi is left. So... what was all that? Lol, that's the end of the retail release!
KH DLC
Sora uses the power to save Kairi, and after a bit of adventure to do so, disappears from this world entirely it seems. So Kairi is 100% back to life and Sora is gone (this point was not at all clear from the main game). Sora turns up in some kind of alternative universe/ dimension for future games, in the post credits.
I'm not really ok with announcing DLC before the base game is even out. It smacks of greed to be asking for more money for a season pass before people have even had a chance to try the base game.
I'm not really ok with announcing DLC before the base game is even out. It smacks of greed to be asking for more money for a season pass before people have even had a chance to try the base game.
And I don't like things that smack of greed.
I can understand that, but in this case I think they did the right thing. By the looks of it, the Content Drops from the Season Pass are going to be much smaller than the ones in BL3. That explains why the cost for the game with pass is lower. For most people though, they see a Season Pass and just immediately assume they will be the big story DLCs we're used to. That doesn't appear to be the case. By announcing details before launch, you can avoid pissed off buyers remorse from people who purchase the more expensive version.
I'm not really ok with announcing DLC before the base game is even out. It smacks of greed to be asking for more money for a season pass before people have even had a chance to try the base game.
And I don't like things that smack of greed.
This is what I was getting at. Plus, the idea that a game that hasn't been released yet, already has a completed DLC mode and a character class ready to go on top of that screams "we should have put this in the base game, but didn't because $$$$$".
I'm not against DLC or season passes, but the fact that in this particular case it looks like we're being charged extra just because.
I'm not really ok with announcing DLC before the base game is even out. It smacks of greed to be asking for more money for a season pass before people have even had a chance to try the base game.
And I don't like things that smack of greed.
Plus, the idea that a game that hasn't been released yet, already has a completed DLC mode and a character class ready to go on top of that screams "we should have put this in the base game, but didn't because $$$$$".
My understanding is that the character class will be a part of DLC 4 of the season pass...
And the only thing coming in April (that effectively is done) would be the first content drop, so there is still a lot of time for them to work on it.
I guess there is just a lot of confusion on what this DLC Season Pass is and what it entails... I understand it as the 4 "mirrors" being the entire season pass, and the class comes by with #4. If you read it as the 4 mirrors being a single DLC that slowly rolls out, I could see you having more of an issue with it.
Has there been a confirmation which is right?
*Edit* I'm pretty sure I'm right... The season pass description doesn't reference DLCs or Packs, it references Content Drops, which is what they are referring to each card as.
MasterOfPupets on
XBL = MoP54
PSN = PessimistMaximus
0
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
We got a rogue, a druid, a wizard, barbarian and a paladin (clawbringer...kind of?).
What else are we missing? Feels like bard could be a good one.
I think the lack of story dlc might be because Andy Samberg and Wanda Sykes are to expensive to get back multiple times.
This isn’t a great excuse when the premise of the plot is a child’s D&D campaign. Story DLC can be literally whatever they want and include whomever they need.
Posts
Here's the dev diary article for it: https://playwonderlands.2k.com/news/dev-diary-5-chaos-chamber/
PSN = PessimistMaximus
That's probably just me yelling at clouds, though.
I really hate this mentality that anyone buying a game is entitled to anything conceived or developed during the initial development time of a game. I never see this logic applied to any other media. I mean, they shot Two Towers and Return of the King before Fellowship came out, they should have tossed that footage in with the first movie. If a writer comes up with sequel ideas for the novel they're writing while they're writing it, they should just make that first book longer.
DLC feels more akin to a publisher selling new chapters in a book, or a few extra scenes of descriptions, as separate purchases after you'd already bought the book when it launched.
like there are a few books and theatrical movies that get updated with "director's cuts" or "author's preferred edition", but most are generally just a single purchase where you get 100% of the content, they're not trying to sell you a partial title at launch and then upselling you for the rest at a premium
sure? like I'd much prefer that games worked more like other media where I could give somebody $60 and they would just give me everything, rather than being told, at launch, that they'd sell me the remaining 25% of the game for $30 and I'd receive it piecemeal over the next year
whether you want to count that as "incomplete" or "bonus content" is up to you, but I don't have much patience for it
Though with Borderlands I've gotten in the habit of waiting a couple years to play them so I can buy the game and the DLC together for dirt cheap.
Some titles do feel incomplete without the DLC. Those piss me off. What comes to mind first would be Assassin's Creed 2 (where they literally went by chapters and skipped 2 chapters to release as DLC) and Mass Effect 3 (where the Prothean DLC and Leviathan feel like essential cut content)
Borderlands DLC has never felt that way. It's always been a good feeling of completion with the base game and the DLC feel like optional side quests when you can't get enough. This looks like that to me.
PSN = PessimistMaximus
Also, some publishers (which to be honest at this point is pretty much all publishers now...) simply don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
It is MEGA weird to me to see this "entitled customers" crap from the early 2000s emerge unquestioned after 20 years of publisher exploitation. What are you DOING, here?
Well, the good news is that those types of DLC pissed off so many people that nobody's done that stuff for a decade or so.
Look, I feel entitled to a game working at launch. I feel entitled to games that don't crash. That's the kind of shit that pisses me off. I think it's very telling that every time this argument comes up, it's always Assassins Creed 2 and Mass Effect 3. If this were really a problem outside of feeling entitled, we'd have more recent examples.
More recent examples of DLC not being worth money? Or of games being released in a laughable state with additional content already being marketed on Day one? We have a wealth of examples of both things.
This is weasel terminology because even a piece of shit game like Evolve could be argued to be "complete" at launch. Complete has no agreed upon definition. Basically the only way to obviously lose the argument is to label your DLC as a part of the main story, as AC2 and Asura's Wrath did.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla is an extremely content packed game, however in terms of being well put together, well tested, etc. it's one of the worst in the series. So is the DLC a ripoff? Kind of, yeah. They rushed the game, packed it full of microtransaction "time savers" and other scams, and then put their hand out for more money, right away.
Or another weird example, Kingdom Hearts 3, which is a pretty lengthy and expensively put together game. But the ending is... very strange. A lot of things happen with little or sometimes no explanation. Why? Because they pulled a Xenogears and ran out of time to do the ending they planned on. However in the modern era, they were able to go back after the fact and actually make the planned ending as DLC... which they sold at a HIGH price as far as these things go. So was the original game "complete" then? Are customers "entitled" for wanting the ending to the story to make any kind of sense, to see what the script was written as to begin with?
Tl;dr various anti-consumer trends have become commonplace, which makes me very unimpressed with this concept of customers being entitled for sniffing out the BS.
BL3 will literally drop items with anoints for skills you can't use unless you buy the DLC.
I will give you kudos for an actual recent example. Though I didn't play KH3, largely because I found KH1&2 to be shit, but that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say a game that's incomplete without its DLC. For something with "no agreed upon definition", you were able to define it just fine.
I really don't care when content is developed or when DLC is announced. All I care about is a complete experience. Fuck, announce your season pass in the game's reveal trailer. It doesn't change my experience at all.
KH3's ending
In the course of the final battle, Kairi is first captured and then straight up executed by the main bad guy. The hero team presses on to beat him, but she's dead, seems like. As the final battle ends, Sora expresses that he can't just let Kairi go, and goes to use the Power again that he used previously. He's warned against doing it, but does it anyway. His body disappears in some kind of magical effect, run the credits. During the credits, we see various scenes of the still living heroes going back to their lives, with Sora and Kairi appearing as see-through figures. Is this... a metaphor for the hole they left in their friends' hearts? Are they in a parallel dimension where they can see what's happening, but can't interact (this exact thing has actually happened in a very recent game to this one)? Then at the end, Sora and Kairi are together, but then Sora disappears and only Kairi is left. So... what was all that? Lol, that's the end of the retail release!
KH DLC
And I don't like things that smack of greed.
I can understand that, but in this case I think they did the right thing. By the looks of it, the Content Drops from the Season Pass are going to be much smaller than the ones in BL3. That explains why the cost for the game with pass is lower. For most people though, they see a Season Pass and just immediately assume they will be the big story DLCs we're used to. That doesn't appear to be the case. By announcing details before launch, you can avoid pissed off buyers remorse from people who purchase the more expensive version.
PSN = PessimistMaximus
I'm not against DLC or season passes, but the fact that in this particular case it looks like we're being charged extra just because.
And the only thing coming in April (that effectively is done) would be the first content drop, so there is still a lot of time for them to work on it.
I guess there is just a lot of confusion on what this DLC Season Pass is and what it entails... I understand it as the 4 "mirrors" being the entire season pass, and the class comes by with #4. If you read it as the 4 mirrors being a single DLC that slowly rolls out, I could see you having more of an issue with it.
Has there been a confirmation which is right?
*Edit* I'm pretty sure I'm right... The season pass description doesn't reference DLCs or Packs, it references Content Drops, which is what they are referring to each card as.
PSN = PessimistMaximus
What else are we missing? Feels like bard could be a good one.
Warlock.
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
isn't that the graveborn?
$80 USD for the Chaotic Great edition that comes with the Season's Pass
but several sites already have pre-launch discounts:
https://gg.deals/us/pack/tiny-tinas-wonderlands-chaotic-great-edition/
(Disclaimer: Season passes are always a crapshoot, you might not feel like you're getting your money's worth, etc.)