dlc in games

[DMcGuigan]

I got it at discount using various means (PS4 admittedly) and I can see why he actually enjoyed this one.

 

I finished campaign last night (8 hours, start to finish on Veteran), and had a go of the multiplayer this morning. I can see where it plays similarly for campaign, taking things slow and moving up, but the multiplayer was a nice change of the pace from the old ones.

Particularly enjoyed running into a room, double jumping instantly then boosting towards the guy chasing me and slamming onto him from just above the doorway. It's also got a loot system, so you can earn random modified versions of weapons or player customization items, which is nice

[Garacesh]

It's also got a loot system, so you can earn random modified versions of weapons or player customization items, which is nice

Which are also redeemable for XP if you don't like what you're given, which is a nice touch.

[foofighterjim]

My only major one I had problems with was when I brought the season pass for Gears of War 3.

 

The first multiplayer map update came along at just 300kb in size, at this point I found that the content was already on the disc and this patch just unlocked it! This is the other form of DLC (Disc Locked Content), as stated before this is not something that was an after thought as it was included on the disc. It was just a way for Epic to rinse more money out of multiplayer gamers, I think that was the last DLC I actually paid for.

[Garacesh]

My only major one I had problems with was when I brought the season pass for Gears of War 3.

 

The first multiplayer map update came along at just 300kb in size, at this point I found that the content was already on the disc and this patch just unlocked it! This is the other form of DLC (Disc Locked Content), as stated before this is not something that was an after thought as it was included on the disc. It was just a way for Epic to rinse more money out of multiplayer gamers, I think that was the last DLC I actually paid for.

 

Yep. Day 1 DLC on the disk. Mass Effect 3 did this, too, IIRC.

[gavins38]

Yep. Day 1 DLC on the disk. Mass Effect 3 did this, too, IIRC.

 

Reminds me of when Fable 3 came out on Xbox 360. Had to pay on the release day to unlock content already on the disc that I'd paid for! You wouldn't buy a car from a dealership and then pay the salesman again so you could have the keys. Why is it acceptable in the gaming world? New levels and extra content 6-12 months down the line yes, but not stuff that you've already bought.

[X-13]

Reminds me of when Fable 3 came out on Xbox 360. Had to pay on the release day to unlock content already on the disc that I'd paid for! You wouldn't buy a car from a dealership and then pay the salesman again so you could have the keys. Why is it acceptable in the gaming world? New levels and extra content 6-12 months down the line yes, but not stuff that you've already bought.

 

Oh, no. THAT'S not the worst Fable 3 DLC.

 

The dye pack is.

 

There are literally empty slots on the dye rack that you can't fill if you don't pay.

 

The dye colour? Black.

 

The one everyone wants.

[gavins38]

Oh, no. THAT'S not the worst Fable 3 DLC.

 

The dye pack is.

 

There are literally empty slots on the dye rack that you can't fill if you don't pay.

 

The dye colour? Black.

 

The one everyone wants.

 

Where did it all go wrong?

 

Fable 2 DLC = Pay once to get a massive island to explore, a whole new major quest line to follow, new armour, new weapons and a way to bring back your faithful dog.

 

Fable 3 = Pay to get the dyes!! Pay more to get the quests. Pay even more to get the extra weapons and outfits. Pay, pay, pay. Is this really the future of console gaming?

 

Where is the value for money? I understand this model in Free to Play games on PC and tablets, but the sales model on consoles should be entirely different.

[Tesla]

It's like the freemium mobile apps, without the free to begin with.

[LeMarchand]

The dye colour? Black.

 

The one everyone wants.

 

Speak for yourself dahling!

 

I wanted cerise!*

 

*I may not have actually played any of the Fable series

[X-13]

Where did it all go wrong?

 

Fable 2 DLC = Pay once to get a massive island to explore, a whole new major quest line to follow, new armour, new weapons and a way to bring back your faithful dog.

 

Fable 3 = Pay to get the dyes!! Pay more to get the quests. Pay even more to get the extra weapons and outfits. Pay, pay, pay. Is this really the future of console gaming?

 

Where is the value for money? I understand this model in Free to Play games on PC and tablets, but the sales model on consoles should be entirely different.

 

Fable 2 had forced multiplayer... which was P2P and behind a paywall.

 

[if you wanted all the weapons/achievements]

 

 

Microsoft - Leading the way in milking your customers for all their cash.

 

Speak for yourself dahling!

 

I wanted cerise!*

 

*I may not have actually played any of the Fable series

 

Purple or GTFO. [And it's actually in the game!!]

Edited November 5, 2014 by X-13

[foofighterjim]

I actually think the Fable 2 method wasn't bad, you could download the free version of the DLC and play co-op with someone with the paid version, how many other games can claim this? Yes you needed a gold subscription but this is the case with all Microsoft multiplayer and even Sony have followed this model with the PS4.

[X-13]

I actually think the Fable 2 method wasn't bad, you could download the free version of the DLC and play co-op with someone with the paid version, how many other games can claim this?

 

Apart from Fable 2, I think it's just Dark Souls 2...

 

 

It's an awesome concept.

[LincolnE]

I don't have an issue with DLC, persay. Certainly with regards to some of the older stuff I've got (the fallout 3/new vagas DLC added a bit to the game), Bioshock Infinite stuff and some of the Borderlands 1/2 DLC was mildly fun and added something new to the games. My issue is with day-one DLC. If I'm willing to drop £40 quid on your game, I don't expect to not have the 'full' release on day one. If something is made and ready for the initial release, it should just be included into it.

 

My other issue, which has only cropped up in a couple of posts here is with pre-order bonuses. You could take a look at steam to find many of the top purchased games are things that haven't even been released yet (well, it used to be. On checking, many things on the list have only just recently come out) . Why do people drop money onto games before it's released... because you get a 'free' weapon, a different coloured skin. You get a extra bit of DLC that is only available if you pre-order. This, more than anything else, is what I want to see removed from existence. Way back when, if you wanted to take a look at a game, you'd download a demo and then decide if you want to buy it. Now you've got no choice but to buy the game before it's released without any guarantee that it'll work, end up as you thought or a whole other manor of issues that are likely to arise. Certainly when you've recently got embargos on reviews going out until after the game is released, you've got no choice but to either wait and see or miss out on bonuses that you'll never be able to get after it comes out.

[X-13]

Why do people drop money onto games before it's released... because you get a 'free' weapon, a different coloured skin.

 

I preorder collector's editions. That have actual physical stuff I want.

 

Like artbooks and statues.

[tmcd35]

I'm happy to pre-order but only on the basis that it's a game I'm 100% certain I want to play. New Assassins Creed or Arkham games fit in to this category. Or something like No Mans Sky or Rime were the trailer hype has intrigued me enough to want to give it a try regardless of the outcome. Games like Shadows of Modor I'm pleased I waited since as time went on it became clear it wasn't the game I was expecting based on early trailers, so not really interested in playing it now.

 

As for Day 1 content. I've no problem with it, even disc locked (got to think of the people with rubbish Internet connections). The only question for me is - is the content required to complete the game? If it is then it really shouldn't be locked away as additional content. If it's something like an extra skin, weapon, map, etc, that has not real impact on the core game - more cosmetic or multiplayer - then I can't see what the problem is.

[Garacesh]

I'd happily pre-order games if they had legit online demos I could test out. Even if it was just "Okay, here's what we have so far. We only have one map and only about half the weapons.. But go nuts.".. If I enjoyed it I'd gladly drop dollar on it to support the devs.. Basically saying (with my wallet) "I enjoyed this! Here's some cash to make sure it gets completed!".. But I do despise the fact that game demos don't exist anymore. Combined with absolutely B.S. review embargoes* I just do not feel confident pre-ordering any video game anymore.

 

* I don't really have an issue with embargoes as a concept. As a concept. You're given a review copy and they say "Okay, no reviews for a week." which gives everybody time to properly play it and ensures nobody rushes a review out just to be the first one to have it, and also eliminates the issue of the copies arriving sooner to some reviewers than others. By the time the reviews come out, in theory, the reviewers have had ample opportunity to play for quite some time, have sunk 4+ hours into the game and can write an honest review. However, what I don't agree with is the embargoes until release day. That's just really shady.

[sted]

I preorder collector's editions. That have actual physical stuff I want.

 

Like artbooks and statues.

 

or in my case lego minifigs again i have no issue with that it affects gameplay in no way

 

again picking on mario kart because its visually easy but top pic is how the cup select screen used to look

since the free dlc it now looks like this

which is all but saying oi cheapo buy these tracks (best of it is even if you buy them the last 2 dont come out till may)

 

but at least it wasnt day0 dlc as above if its released at the same time as the game why am i being asked to fork out surely its part of the game and ive already coughed up for that

[LincolnE]

I preorder collector's editions. That have actual physical stuff I want.

 

Like artbooks and statues.

 

Ah yes, I occasionally do this stuff myself with things like the Tales of Games and with Final Fantasy X/X2 HD remake. I guess if you are getting something physical, it's acceptable by my books.

[CAM]

I'd happily pre-order games if they had legit online demos I could test out. Even if it was just "Okay, here's what we have so far. We only have one map and only about half the weapons.. But go nuts.".. If I enjoyed it I'd gladly drop dollar on it to support the devs.. Basically saying (with my wallet) "I enjoyed this! Here's some cash to make sure it gets completed!".. But I do despise the fact that game demos don't exist anymore. Combined with absolutely B.S. review embargoes* I just do not feel confident pre-ordering any video game anymore.

 

Meanwhile, I would happily see Early Access die a quick and quiet death! They sit in a half finished state for years before being launched incomplete or shut down. Meanwhile gamers assume that they are entitled to the "features they have paid for" and kicking up a stink when a dev says "Hey, this is beta, not everything will make the cut."

 

As for embargoes, TB explained this well. He says they are there to ensure reviewers take their time and don't rush a review to be first out the stable. But like DLC and Early Access, they are now being abused to hide games from the spotlight when they are riddled with bugs and garbage before release date so as not to de-rail the hype machine. Ironically, a few games came out that were actually good (Shadow of Mordor and supposedly COD Advanced Warfare) but they were still tied to shady review deals and embargoes when they didn't need to!

[LiamH]

Meanwhile, I would happily see Early Access die a quick and quiet death! They sit in a half finished state for years before being launched incomplete or shut down. Meanwhile gamers assume that they are entitled to the "features they have paid for" and kicking up a stink when a dev says "Hey, this is beta, not everything will make the cut."

 

As for embargoes, TB explained this well. He says they are there to ensure reviewers take their time and don't rush a review to be first out the stable. But like DLC and Early Access, they are now being abused to hide games from the spotlight when they are riddled with bugs and garbage before release date so as not to de-rail the hype machine. Ironically, a few games came out that were actually good (Shadow of Mordor and supposedly COD Advanced Warfare) but they were still tied to shady review deals and embargoes when they didn't need to!

 

Some early access stuff isn't too bad, especially if they are using crowd-funding and EA purchases to fund the development, Minecraft and 7 Days to Die are good example of this. But i know a few that got crowd funding and are very quiet, that's why I research the development team before i buy into EA releases and kickstarter projects..

[Garacesh]

Early Access, like the embargo, and like DLC, is something else that again is good as a concept but is now being royally abused. Early Access payments are sort of like crowdsourcing but with something to show for it there-and-then.. You get a fairly decent idea of what the interest for your game will be as well as some more cash to float you until completion, as well as an incredibly large beta testing group who will report issues they encounter so you can fix them a lot quicker.. And there's a lot of people who enjoy bug-hunting and feeling like they're actually helping, they're not just another £30 in the bank.

 

But! Now Early Access is being swamped by people who put out a concept, get the ol' hype train going, charge the full-whack price of a completed game (and then some) and then 'do a runner', so to speak. Official releases go quiet, progress stagnates and it just ends up going nowhere. Fantastical ideas are promised and people get suckered in with nothing to show for it. And the devs get to go "Well, it is an alpha, you know?" as if that condones releasing something that isn't even anywhere close to being playable. I'm okay with alphas and betas but a line has to be drawn.

 

Worse still are the self-righteous gamers who go on a massive power trip. "I paid for this, so I should get to say what gets added!" for example. Or even worse, the ones that buy into it and expect it to be bug-free and polished to a mirror shine.

 

Early access is a wonderful idea.. I just don't think the gaming community as a whole is mature enough for it yet.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Garacesh

[tmcd35]

Or even worse, the ones that buy into it and expect it to be bug-free and polished to a mirror shine.

 

Certain AAA publishers struggle to achieve that after a dozen or so post-release patches! (I'm looking at you Ubisoft.)