What game are you playing now?

[Justin_Voorhees]

Originally Posted by Se7en XxSinzXx

What game companies only release, "half the game"?

As for DLC like Map packs or major story add-ons (Fallout, Mass Effect) I can totally justify $10-15 every month or two. If it keeps me coming back and wanting more, more power to them.

When a company is talking about DLC before a game is even released they are obviously holding back content just so they can milk the player base even more.
This is a disturbing trend that is happening more and more and people just accept it.
Releasing DLC is fine but it should be months down the road. IF a DLC comes out the day/week/month of a new games release that's a rip off.

[bloodydollface]

Originally Posted by Justin_Voorhees

When a company is talking about DLC before a game is even released they are obviously holding back content just so they can milk the player base even more.
This is a disturbing trend that is happening more and more and people just accept it.
Releasing DLC is fine but it should be months down the road. IF a DLC comes out the day/week/month of a new games release that's a rip off.

I must have played at least a dozen games in which I later bought DLC packs for, and not one of those packs were integral towards the storyline whatsoever. If your playing FPS, map packs don't count as "holding back content" and sandbox games that add side missions like, Skyrim and GTA, only add to what's already there to keep the gamer interested in playing the game after completion. It's a business strategy and a good one. Plus, what company releases DLC the first day or week of the game's release? I've never heard or seen that before.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by bloodydollface

I must have played at least a dozen games in which I later bought DLC packs for, and not one of those packs were integral towards the storyline whatsoever. If your playing FPS, map packs don't count as "holding back content"

How does it not? Do you think they actually started working on those map packs after launch? Are maps not "content"?

and sandbox games that add side missions like, Skyrim and GTA, only add to what's already there to keep the gamer interested in playing the game after completion. It's a business strategy and a good one.

They're not "adding missions" though. They're releasing portions of the game that were completed at launch, but held back to fleece consumers down the road. It is smart business for the time being, but it might have consequences down the road, if people get wise to the scheme.

Obviously, Guitar Hero is the example of how treating you're customers like drooling fucking retards, can backfire. People finally clued in that they were paying $60 for what essentially should've been cheap song packs.

Plus, what company releases DLC the first day or week of the game's release? I've never heard or seen that before.

Mass Effect 3 had an entire character arc, that was integral to the story, as day 1 DLC.

Other than that, practically every single game today has day 1 DLC in some form or another. Whether it be character skins, map packs, special item bundles, etc. Next time you're on XBLA, or the PSN, check out any random game, and look at the amount of "extras" that are available. You'll be stunned at how much pointless DLC there is, that you never even knew was there.

Some guy at GT broke down the DLC for Dead Space 3. If you want to play the "full experience", it will cost you $101,.....at launch. Give it a year, and it will be close to $200, if not more.

[Porn N Gore]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Some guy at GT broke down the DLC for Dead Space 3. If you want to play the "full experience", it will cost you $101,.....at launch. Give it a year, and it will be close to $200, if not more.

From what I can remember, Dead Space DLC has always been extra suits, weapons and shit, nothing that was necessary to the story.

The one DLC that I like, if you can call it DLC< was the Armor unlock from Mass Effect into DS3 that was nice, or from Mass Effect into Dragon Age and Dead Space into Dragon age....Seems like its only EA that does it?

[wolfblood]

Been playing Sly Cooper : Thieves in Time since yesterday, finished the first two episodes story-wise and I'm loving it so far. Sanzuru did a great job of making it feel and play like a Sly Cooper game, and for me the Mission/Heists at the end of the episodes have a more grand/epic feel then the previous games.

The only complaint I have is the loading times, but when that's the only complaint so far, that's a great thing!

[Se7en Sins]

Originally Posted by Heretic

They're not "adding missions" though. They're releasing portions of the game that were completed at launch, but held back to fleece consumers down the road. It is smart business for the time being, but it might have consequences down the road, if people get wise to the scheme.

Think of it as deleted scenes that got cut from the game, but are available for people to play if they are into that sort of thing. Sure, they could include it, but what's the point if they can make profit on it? And if I enjoy a game (Like I did with Mass Effect) then I'm happy to pay extra, whether it was completed on day one or not.

Originally Posted by Heretic

Mass Effect 3 had an entire character arc, that was integral to the story, as day 1 DLC.

Yes, but that entire arc isn't anything special and basically only provides back story for people who enjoy that kind of thing.

Originally Posted by Heretic

Other than that, practically every single game today has day 1 DLC in some form or another. Whether it be character skins, map packs, special item bundles, etc. Next time you're on XBLA, or the PSN, check out any random game, and look at the amount of "extras" that are available. You'll be stunned at how much pointless DLC there is, that you never even knew was there.

Is the pointless DLC necessary? Are you missing anything? Never.

Originally Posted by Heretic

Some guy at GT broke down the DLC for Dead Space 3. If you want to play the "full experience", it will cost you $101,.....at launch. Give it a year, and it will be close to $200, if not more.

Collector's edition DLC isn't necessary at all. People use the "full experience" cop out because the they think since they played it, they would've missed out had they not gotten to.

[bloodydollface]

Originally Posted by Heretic

How does it not? Do you think they actually started working on those map packs after launch? Are maps not "content"?



They're not "adding missions" though. They're releasing portions of the game that were completed at launch, but held back to fleece consumers down the road. It is smart business for the time being, but it might have consequences down the road, if people get wise to the scheme.

Obviously, Guitar Hero is the example of how treating you're customers like drooling fucking retards, can backfire. People finally clued in that they were paying $60 for what essentially should've been cheap song packs.



Mass Effect 3 had an entire character arc, that was integral to the story, as day 1 DLC.

Other than that, practically every single game today has day 1 DLC in some form or another. Whether it be character skins, map packs, special item bundles, etc. Next time you're on XBLA, or the PSN, check out any random game, and look at the amount of "extras" that are available. You'll be stunned at how much pointless DLC there is, that you never even knew was there.

Some guy at GT broke down the DLC for Dead Space 3. If you want to play the "full experience", it will cost you $101,.....at launch. Give it a year, and it will be close to $200, if not more.

What I'm saying is that most DLC is not integral to the main story. I don't consider DLC has holding content back, rather it's an extra option for the consumer to add things to the game if he/she so chooses. You may pay for DLC that includes extended forms of the storyline, but usually it's not going to effect the core story for people who choose not to purchase DLC. And yes, I realize most DLC is already done when the games come out, but what would be the point from a business perspective, of releasing it all at once? The point of DLC is to keep people playing your game until you put another one out. Guitar Hero is an exception to the rule and I agree with you on that, but most companies aren't going to receive the backlash that GH did, nor should they. It's a way to make money between games, and it is ultimately the consumer's choice in whether or not he/she buys the DLC content. Now I've never played Dead Space so I really can't comment on that, but what was the DLC that made it a "full experience"? I've said it a lot and I'll say it one more time, IMO, if the DLC you purchase doesn't effect the main core story of the game, then it shouldn't count as withholding content. Not trying to start anything, this is just my opinion.

[Ginobili]

Just 1K'd Captain America: Super Soldier and Sleeping Dogs with the Nightmare in North Point DLC.
Currently playing Tekken Tag Tounament 2 figuring out what characters work best with whom and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Se7en XxSinzXx

Think of it as deleted scenes that got cut from the game, but are available for people to play if they are into that sort of thing. Sure, they could include it, but what's the point if they can make profit on it? And if I enjoy a game (Like I did with Mass Effect) then I'm happy to pay extra, whether it was completed on day one or not.

That is the problem though. People are complacent with paying extra, and thinking the developers are being "nice" to them, when in fact it's all based on greed, and will only continue to get worse, as long as customers keep lapping it up.

I'll admit it's still reasonable now, and I'm just as guilty as anyone else for buying extra content, but it's a slippery slope. If the trend continues, the content at launch is going to get smaller and smaller, and it won't be long before you're paying for every chapter of the game.

Guitar Hero is an exception to the rule and I agree with you on that, but most companies aren't going to receive the backlash that GH did, nor should they.

How can you be so sure? Look at the growing number of complaints that come with each new rendition of COD, or the FPS genre in general. It's the same thing that happened with GH, only difference is people are still buying FPSs. That could easily change, and if FPSs go down, the entire industry will suffer, because every company out there, has their hand in that pie.

You can never say never in any business. Nobody saw the first videogame crash coming either. It just sort of happenned, due to greed, lack of creativity, and complacency that the customer base will always be there no matter what. The perfect storm, so to speak. It's the same shit that's going on right now, they just haven't hit the tsunami yet.

Nintendo is suffering right now. THQ just shut it's doors. Sony's survival is nothing short of a miracle. The signs are all there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be some negative jerk, shitting on the industry for the hell of it. I love the industry, which is why I find it troubling that history is repeating itself.

The industry might be too big to fail, like Hollywood, but it's not a guarantee by any means.

[bloodydollface]

Originally Posted by Heretic

How can you be so sure? Look at the growing number of complaints that come with each new rendition of COD, or the FPS genre in general. It's the same thing that happened with GH, only difference is people are still buying FPSs. That could easily change, and if FPSs go down, the entire industry will suffer, because every company out there, has their hand in that pie.

You can never say never in any business. Nobody saw the first videogame crash coming either. It just sort of happenned, due to greed, lack of creativity, and complacency that the customer base will always be there no matter what. The perfect storm, so to speak. It's the same shit that's going on right now, they just haven't hit the tsunami yet.

Nintendo is suffering right now. THQ just shut it's doors. Sony's survival is nothing short of a miracle. The signs are all there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be some negative jerk, shitting on the industry for the hell of it. I love the industry, which is why I find it troubling that history is repeating itself.

The industry might be too big to fail, like Hollywood, but it's not a guarantee by any means.

Yea but are the complaints relevant to the product in which the consumer is getting? Or is just bitching to bitch? With GH it's obvious that the standalone songs and song packs were absolutely ridiculously overpriced and people have a right to be upset, but I look at games like FPS and think that it's honestly not that bad. Like the new DLC for Black Ops 2 includes more than any other DLC pack Treyarch/IW have ever released (I'm fairly sure), and it's still the same price as any other DLC they have released. 4 new multiplayer maps, a new zombie map, and a new weapon. Not bad in my mind for 15 bucks. Considering you get to play them for as long as you want, they aren't going anywhere until they finally take the servers down, which could be 10-15 years down the road. Pretty good for a small investment. And that's just the online aspect, your single player DLC is never going anywhere. I mean is it overpriced compared to what it's costing them to make? Sure it is, but that's most things in life. Until I feel that I'm being totally ripped off, I'll keep buying DLC.

As far as Sony goes, I'm surprised they haven't completely tanked either. Which is sad because I love their products for the most part. Sony has tons of problems but their gaming has always been the one aspect that has kept them afloat, for the most part. Other than the PS3's horrible start that is. I hope they can get back to par here and get things straightened out soon.