DLC: When It's The Enemy and When It's Okay

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

Edited By jakob187

Recently, we've seen a lot of activity on the forums about a particular topic:  downloadable content.  Specifically, we've seen two very differing sides.  On one end, we see someone saying "this should've been included in the box".  Meanwhile, the other side is saying "shut the fuck up". 
 
Which side is correct?  Well, ladies and germs, I'm here to tell you this:  it depends.  Let's break down a couple of instances and see exactly when DLC is a bad thing and when it's not a problem. 
 

Resident Evil 5 

While the quality of the game as an entry into the franchise is subjective, there's no doubt that Resident Evil 5 made a big splash upon release.  Maybe it's because it seemed to make a great dive worthy of 9's and 10's, but quickly started losing its ability to execute a good dive.  When the Slayer mode was announced for RE5, people were up in arms over it.  Why?  Because the content was already located on the disc but merely locked by the publisher and developers.  Purchase of the DLC supposedly just unlocked that content.  Is this bad?  FUCK YES!  If something is present on the disc but you are not allowed to play it, then that means the product you purchased is incom-fucking-plete!
 

Left 4 Dead 

The granddaddy of controversy this year (thanks to the announcement of Valve not taking seven years to release a fucking sequel), Left 4 Dead was under heavy scrutiny due to a distinct lack of downloadable content showing up, as well as a late SDK kit.  Valve had already initially said they would support L4D with free updates as well as an SDK kit, but now we are two months before launch.  We've seen one additional update, in the fun-but-broken-as-Hell Crash Course DLC, and we've seen the release of the SDK since the announcement of L4D2 at E3.  Regardless, the question is begged:  was L4D a thin package upon release?  Yes.  It was also a thin package that happened to be a killer fucking game that many people have enjoyed and the console communities decided to turn into a trolling war by acting like their usual dickish selves.  To be quite honest, you console muthafuckers don't deserve any FREE DLC for that game solely based on your love of team-killing everyone and acting like fuckwads.  So...enjoy your buggy-as-shit Crash Course and VIVA LA L4D2!!! 
 

Red Faction Guerrilla 

Having proven to be quite popular in the multiplayer arena (to the point that it's listed on MLG), RFG caught some flack from the community due to two weak DLC packs, in the form of a single player expansion called Demons of the Badlands and a wrecking crew package.  Demons of the Badlands provided a short 4-mission long story that provided less than 30 minutes of total gameplay for $10, while the latest wrecking crew package simply added new levels to a mode that is already pretty useless in the first place.  Meanwhile, two new multiplayer modes and eight new maps were added in their second DLC pack, coming in at $7.00.  This has begged the question:  why hasn't there just been multiplayer add-ons for the game where the multiplayer has been keeping it alive?  It's understandable if a company is wanting to offer something in all the areas of their game, but expecting people to pay $10 for a 30 minute single player expansion is bonkers.  Meanwhile, asking far less for something that you'll get more playtime out of is just a bit baffling in nature.  Given the reputation that Volition gained with their infamously bad DLC for the Saint's Row franchise, we can only hope they are planning more DLC content in the right department for the future, but most signs are pointing to no in that department.
 

Halo 3 Mythic  

In a weird instance of reverse ideology, there are people who are actually complaining about a game including ALL of the DLC, as well as three exclusive maps.  Packaged along with ODST at a price of $60, Halo 3 Mythic features all of the Halo 3 multiplayer component from the 2007 hit, INCLUDING all the DLC packages up to Mythic and three exclusive maps to the disc itself.  Halo fans have found it to be bullshit that this has occurred.  There is only one logical way for me to address this:  go talk to someone who has played Everquest since day 1...and bought every expansion brand new...and then saw the release of the Titanium Edition of Everquest for $19.95.  -_-  If you are seriously so die-hard about the game, then you'll be wanting ODST anyways.  If you aren't that die-hard, it's not like you NEED those three maps in order to play your favorite playlists online still.  So...quichabitchin.
 

Dragon Age Origins 

The new hack 'n' slash RPG from veteran beat-shit-up company BioWare has been taking hit after hit over the course of the year.  First was the trailer featuring the Marilyn Manson track "This is The New Shit", followed by a seeming lack of faith by BioWare in the product in exchange for building hype around The Old Republic, and then came news that the BioWare doctors were going to be taking the reins of Mythic Entertainment and EA's new RPG/MMO division.  Despite positive press coming out saying that the game doesn't suck, that hasn't stopped people from being pissed about the announcement of DLC being launched day 1 of release for DAO.  While the DLC is developed by a different studio, the question has been begged as to whether the DLC was already completed before the game went gold or not.  Should the DLC have been included on the disc?  Well, given the coinciding release date, it would seem there's no reason it shouldn't have been.  With the fact that it will simply be adding a new quest line in a small new area, along with six new abilities, it doesn't seem like something nearly as significant as Fallout 3's DLC expansion sets.  However, is it the equivalent of horse armor in Oblivion?  Probably not, but it's close...and it costs $7.00 to boot. 
 

Forza 3 

People are pissed off that Turn10 announced 10 additional cars will be packed in with BRAND NEW copies of Forza 3, as an incentive for consumers to purchase the game new rather than waiting for it be come secondhand through used game stores like GameStop.  People have then gone on to call Turn10 "evil" and "corporate"...even though they were going to go pay someone who isn't the game developer money for a secondhand copy of the game they were bitching about wanting so bad.  To make matters even worse...that secondhand company...happens to be "evil" and "corporate" as well...and they don't even make high-quality video games.  
  

Borderlands 

The newest cat to the controversy (possibly just as sarcasm and irony), Borderlands has not even hit shelves yet, and the first DLC pack has already been announced.  This DLC will be adding an entire new area as well new quests, items, enemy types, etc.  Should it have been included on the disc?  Look, folks...they've already said it'll be before the end of the year, but that simply means we've got between October 20th and December 31st.  There's absolutely no reason why it should be expected on the disc at all...so lay the fuck off it. 
 
In essence, here's what we have to ask ourselves when we decide to try and make controversy over something like DLC: 
  1.  Will the DLC be coming out day and date of the retail game?  If so, is it something so small that it could've been included in the disc but instead is being used to reap more money from people?
  2. Will the DLC be a significant change to the gameplay, warranting the price it is being offered at?  For instance, World at War's Map Pack 3 contained one Nazi Zombie map for $10, while Red Faction Guerrilla's second DLC pack contained two new modes of play and eight new maps for $7.00.
  3. What is the general amount of gameplay you've gotten from the base game?  If it seems incredibly short, then is the DLC simply present to finally give you the REST of the game?
  4. How meaningful is the DLC?  Does it work to the strengths of the game in question?
Personally, I'm sick of seeing all the "controversy" about DLC popping up.  People need to simply ask themselves some basic question before replying to the announcement of DLC.  I wrote this blog mainly as a guide as well as an outrage to the idea that Borderlands' recently announced DLC "should be on the game disc".  Fallout 3 wasn't even out, yet it was already stated that they would have five DLC packs after launch to extend the game.  Should those have been on the game? 
 
People, just please...for fuck's sake...think for once before you open your mouths...or type your words at least. 
 
Thank you, and good night.
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#1  Edited By jakob187

Recently, we've seen a lot of activity on the forums about a particular topic:  downloadable content.  Specifically, we've seen two very differing sides.  On one end, we see someone saying "this should've been included in the box".  Meanwhile, the other side is saying "shut the fuck up". 
 
Which side is correct?  Well, ladies and germs, I'm here to tell you this:  it depends.  Let's break down a couple of instances and see exactly when DLC is a bad thing and when it's not a problem. 
 

Resident Evil 5 

While the quality of the game as an entry into the franchise is subjective, there's no doubt that Resident Evil 5 made a big splash upon release.  Maybe it's because it seemed to make a great dive worthy of 9's and 10's, but quickly started losing its ability to execute a good dive.  When the Slayer mode was announced for RE5, people were up in arms over it.  Why?  Because the content was already located on the disc but merely locked by the publisher and developers.  Purchase of the DLC supposedly just unlocked that content.  Is this bad?  FUCK YES!  If something is present on the disc but you are not allowed to play it, then that means the product you purchased is incom-fucking-plete!
 

Left 4 Dead 

The granddaddy of controversy this year (thanks to the announcement of Valve not taking seven years to release a fucking sequel), Left 4 Dead was under heavy scrutiny due to a distinct lack of downloadable content showing up, as well as a late SDK kit.  Valve had already initially said they would support L4D with free updates as well as an SDK kit, but now we are two months before launch.  We've seen one additional update, in the fun-but-broken-as-Hell Crash Course DLC, and we've seen the release of the SDK since the announcement of L4D2 at E3.  Regardless, the question is begged:  was L4D a thin package upon release?  Yes.  It was also a thin package that happened to be a killer fucking game that many people have enjoyed and the console communities decided to turn into a trolling war by acting like their usual dickish selves.  To be quite honest, you console muthafuckers don't deserve any FREE DLC for that game solely based on your love of team-killing everyone and acting like fuckwads.  So...enjoy your buggy-as-shit Crash Course and VIVA LA L4D2!!! 
 

Red Faction Guerrilla 

Having proven to be quite popular in the multiplayer arena (to the point that it's listed on MLG), RFG caught some flack from the community due to two weak DLC packs, in the form of a single player expansion called Demons of the Badlands and a wrecking crew package.  Demons of the Badlands provided a short 4-mission long story that provided less than 30 minutes of total gameplay for $10, while the latest wrecking crew package simply added new levels to a mode that is already pretty useless in the first place.  Meanwhile, two new multiplayer modes and eight new maps were added in their second DLC pack, coming in at $7.00.  This has begged the question:  why hasn't there just been multiplayer add-ons for the game where the multiplayer has been keeping it alive?  It's understandable if a company is wanting to offer something in all the areas of their game, but expecting people to pay $10 for a 30 minute single player expansion is bonkers.  Meanwhile, asking far less for something that you'll get more playtime out of is just a bit baffling in nature.  Given the reputation that Volition gained with their infamously bad DLC for the Saint's Row franchise, we can only hope they are planning more DLC content in the right department for the future, but most signs are pointing to no in that department.
 

Halo 3 Mythic  

In a weird instance of reverse ideology, there are people who are actually complaining about a game including ALL of the DLC, as well as three exclusive maps.  Packaged along with ODST at a price of $60, Halo 3 Mythic features all of the Halo 3 multiplayer component from the 2007 hit, INCLUDING all the DLC packages up to Mythic and three exclusive maps to the disc itself.  Halo fans have found it to be bullshit that this has occurred.  There is only one logical way for me to address this:  go talk to someone who has played Everquest since day 1...and bought every expansion brand new...and then saw the release of the Titanium Edition of Everquest for $19.95.  -_-  If you are seriously so die-hard about the game, then you'll be wanting ODST anyways.  If you aren't that die-hard, it's not like you NEED those three maps in order to play your favorite playlists online still.  So...quichabitchin.
 

Dragon Age Origins 

The new hack 'n' slash RPG from veteran beat-shit-up company BioWare has been taking hit after hit over the course of the year.  First was the trailer featuring the Marilyn Manson track "This is The New Shit", followed by a seeming lack of faith by BioWare in the product in exchange for building hype around The Old Republic, and then came news that the BioWare doctors were going to be taking the reins of Mythic Entertainment and EA's new RPG/MMO division.  Despite positive press coming out saying that the game doesn't suck, that hasn't stopped people from being pissed about the announcement of DLC being launched day 1 of release for DAO.  While the DLC is developed by a different studio, the question has been begged as to whether the DLC was already completed before the game went gold or not.  Should the DLC have been included on the disc?  Well, given the coinciding release date, it would seem there's no reason it shouldn't have been.  With the fact that it will simply be adding a new quest line in a small new area, along with six new abilities, it doesn't seem like something nearly as significant as Fallout 3's DLC expansion sets.  However, is it the equivalent of horse armor in Oblivion?  Probably not, but it's close...and it costs $7.00 to boot. 
 

Forza 3 

People are pissed off that Turn10 announced 10 additional cars will be packed in with BRAND NEW copies of Forza 3, as an incentive for consumers to purchase the game new rather than waiting for it be come secondhand through used game stores like GameStop.  People have then gone on to call Turn10 "evil" and "corporate"...even though they were going to go pay someone who isn't the game developer money for a secondhand copy of the game they were bitching about wanting so bad.  To make matters even worse...that secondhand company...happens to be "evil" and "corporate" as well...and they don't even make high-quality video games.  
  

Borderlands 

The newest cat to the controversy (possibly just as sarcasm and irony), Borderlands has not even hit shelves yet, and the first DLC pack has already been announced.  This DLC will be adding an entire new area as well new quests, items, enemy types, etc.  Should it have been included on the disc?  Look, folks...they've already said it'll be before the end of the year, but that simply means we've got between October 20th and December 31st.  There's absolutely no reason why it should be expected on the disc at all...so lay the fuck off it. 
 
In essence, here's what we have to ask ourselves when we decide to try and make controversy over something like DLC: 
  1.  Will the DLC be coming out day and date of the retail game?  If so, is it something so small that it could've been included in the disc but instead is being used to reap more money from people?
  2. Will the DLC be a significant change to the gameplay, warranting the price it is being offered at?  For instance, World at War's Map Pack 3 contained one Nazi Zombie map for $10, while Red Faction Guerrilla's second DLC pack contained two new modes of play and eight new maps for $7.00.
  3. What is the general amount of gameplay you've gotten from the base game?  If it seems incredibly short, then is the DLC simply present to finally give you the REST of the game?
  4. How meaningful is the DLC?  Does it work to the strengths of the game in question?
Personally, I'm sick of seeing all the "controversy" about DLC popping up.  People need to simply ask themselves some basic question before replying to the announcement of DLC.  I wrote this blog mainly as a guide as well as an outrage to the idea that Borderlands' recently announced DLC "should be on the game disc".  Fallout 3 wasn't even out, yet it was already stated that they would have five DLC packs after launch to extend the game.  Should those have been on the game? 
 
People, just please...for fuck's sake...think for once before you open your mouths...or type your words at least. 
 
Thank you, and good night.
Avatar image for zombiehunterog
ZombieHunterOG

3529

Forum Posts

590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#2  Edited By ZombieHunterOG

im glad to see this as people have been losing there minds over DLC recently 

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#3  Edited By jakob187
@ZombieHunter said:
" im glad to see this as people have been losing there minds over DLC recently  "
Seriously, people are just bitching because they think they deserve everything to be given to them right away.  A society of immediacy, if you will.  It's getting ridiculous.  Nonetheless, there are perfectly acceptable times for bitching about DLC.  I just don't feel that most of them have been very worthwhile so far.
Avatar image for pause
pause422

6350

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By pause422

I agree entirely Jakob. The Borderlands thing specifically. If it was something coming out day and date or not even a week after release, people could find a good reason for the complaining I suppose, but if it doesnt come out till mid Nov or Dec even, then obviously they are still working on it and its completely fine, and all the morons needs to shut the fuck up. The only straight up terrible DLC I can say can be justified with a general outcry, is when it is 100% something that is already on the disc, and all you are doing is paying to unlock it..thats a bit much.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#5  Edited By jakob187
@pause422: Yes, if the Borderlands DLC was day and date, you would see me getting bent and pissed about it as well.  It's not.  It's still in development.  The game has already been on hold for HOW MANY YEARS...and people want to bitch about them finally putting it out and then offering post-game support? 
 
With Dragon Age Origins, I am totally cool with BioWare offering DLC for up to two years after release or whatever they are promising.  HOWEVER, having a DLC pack available for $7.00 day and date that...in details...doesn't sound like it's even worth that amount of money nor a significant enough size to not be put on the disc, it begs the question of why the fuck it's DLC on day and date.  Simple:  money extraction from your wallet.
Avatar image for zombiehunterog
ZombieHunterOG

3529

Forum Posts

590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#6  Edited By ZombieHunterOG

My main issues with people complaining is that all the DLC is Optional you dont have to get it if you dont want to..

Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#7  Edited By Diamond

The people defending the companies for stomping all over the consumer are the ridiculous ones.  It reminds me strongly of the neo Conservative philosophy that everyone should work for the rich and the consumer should always accept everything.  The economy is shit and gamers are getting fed up, rightly so.  Corporations are trying to nickel and dime us constantly with DLC keys, chunks of games ripped out exclusively to make DLC, and other slightly less intrusive means such as download codes packed in with disks.
 
Everyone has their own personal sliding scale of what is right and what's not, but only the real idiots think DLC is always alright.  Probably the worst offender I'm buying this holiday is Forza 3, and that has already announced DLC (that one Ferrari) and it's probably done by now, seeing as we saw the trailer a few weeks ago.  People are willing to bend if they really want the game, but pre-announced DLC is definitely at the point where it is turning away potential customers that were on the edge of buying the games.

Avatar image for natetodamax
natetodamax

19464

Forum Posts

65390

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 5

#8  Edited By natetodamax

People shouldn't complain about DLC in general if they aren't being forced to buy it.

Avatar image for sjschmidt93
sjschmidt93

5014

Forum Posts

3236

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 20

#9  Edited By sjschmidt93
@jakob187 said:

Borderlands 

The newest cat to the controversy (possibly just as sarcasm and irony), Borderlands has not even hit shelves yet, and the first DLC pack has already been announced.  This DLC will be adding an entire new area as well new quests, items, enemy types, etc. Should it have been included on the disc?  
No, no it shouldn't be. 
 
And anyone who disagrees.... would you rather it be on the disc and come out in a month or come out on schedule?
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#10  Edited By jakob187
@Diamond: So your arguing factor is a game that features over 400 cars and you aren't able to get one car because you don't want to buy it new?  SERIOUSLY?  1 out of 400?  My...fucking...God, man! 
 
Buy the game new if you are wanting it SOOOO bad...and your problem is then SOLVED! 
 
I totally forgot to include Forza 3 on that list up above.  Here, let me write an entry real quick. 
 
EDIT-- Updated with Forza 3.  Thanks for pointing it out, Diamond.
Avatar image for brunchies
Brunchies

2501

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#11  Edited By Brunchies
@pause422 said:
" I agree entirely Jakob. The Borderlands thing specifically. If it was something coming out day and date or not even a week after release, people could find a good reason for the complaining I suppose, but if it doesnt come out till mid Nov or Dec even, then obviously they are still working on it and its completely fine, and all the morons needs to shut the fuck up. The only straight up terrible DLC I can say can be justified with a general outcry, is when it is 100% something that is already on the disc, and all you are doing is paying to unlock it..thats a bit much. "
Yeah people bitching about The Borderlands DLC is ridiculous, its coming out mid November or December and it looks perfectly reasonable for it to be DLC. If people don't like the DLC that is being put out, just don't buy it and enjoy playing the game you already have, don't complain about it because there really is no point to complain. 
Avatar image for damien
Damien

1378

Forum Posts

668

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#12  Edited By Damien

I hate people that complain about buying DLC when it first comes out and then bitch when it inevitably comes out in some bundle format a la Gears 2 or ODST.  They don't seem to realize that this is tantamount to the DLC being on sale or dropping in price, which some people complain that DLC never does.  If the DLC is cheaper after a week or two of release, then yes, that is fucked up and the complaint is valid.  However, most of the times, it has been months or years as is the case with Halo.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#13  Edited By jakob187

You know what?  I want WoW: Cataclysm for free.  I don't care that Blizzard puts out patches that are as big as an expansion on their own.  I want Cataclysm for free, because I deserve it!!!  I mean, it should've been included on the disc! 
 
I also EXPECT the second and third installments of StarCraft II for free!  They should all be one game!

Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#14  Edited By Diamond
@jakob187 said:
" @Diamond: So your arguing factor is a game that features over 400 cars and you aren't able to get one car because you don't want to buy it new?  SERIOUSLY?  1 out of 400?  My...fucking...God, man!  Buy the game new if you are wanting it SOOOO bad...and your problem is then SOLVED!  I totally forgot to include Forza 3 on that list up above.  Here, let me write an entry real quick.  EDIT-- Updated with Forza 3.  Thanks for pointing it out, Diamond. "
Forza 3 will also had paid DLC, there's a Ferrari already announced.  Packed in DLC doesn't bother me as much as parts of a game that could be included on the disk.  Personally that's where I draw the line.  100% of a game should be included when it hits retail, ignoring 'gold' processing time.  Basically there's at least one car that's already done that I'll have to pay for if I want to use it.  Doesn't bother me horribly in the case of Forza 3, but it's still extremely disrespectful to consumers.
Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#15  Edited By Diamond
@jakob187 said:
I also EXPECT the second and third installments of StarCraft II for free!  They should all be one game!
They really should be in that case.
Avatar image for scooper
Scooper

7920

Forum Posts

1107

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#16  Edited By Scooper

It is kind of annoying that you spend $60 on a game and instead of a company saying "Thanks for spending all that money on our product, we're going to keep making stuff for the game for a litttle while as a sign of our gratitude. We hope you buy the next game from us too!" you get *a bunch of suits sitting around a desk 3 months before game goes gold* "Ok so we're going to be making this money from the game at purchase, take some of the rescources and set them to work on some paid DLC, then we'll be able to keep making money from the consumer months after the original purchase!".
 
It's just a little greasy when it's blatently the work of businessmen. When it's the developers comming up with new ideas and saying thanks to the guy who bought their 2 years hard work it's not so bad (think of Burnout Paradise, those guys blew out alot of free shit for their game which I think garnered alot of good will from the fans who now think very highly of them and probably bought some of the paid stuff too). It's not always about making money it's about growing a companies reputation with the gamers who are deciding what to spend their money on.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#17  Edited By jakob187
@Diamond said:
" @jakob187 said:
I also EXPECT the second and third installments of StarCraft II for free!  They should all be one game!
They really should be in that case. "
I also expect StarCraft 1 and Brood Wars, as well as all WarCraft II and III games included in that package as well. 
 
As a matter of fact, I expect to get WoW: Cataclysm, Diablo III, StarCraft II, and WarCraft IV...in all their iterations...in one box...for fucking FREE!!!
Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#18  Edited By Diamond
@jakob187 said:
I also expect StarCraft 1 and Brood Wars, as well as all WarCraft II and III games included in that package as well.  As a matter of fact, I expect to get WoW: Cataclysm, Diablo III, StarCraft II, and WarCraft IV...in all their iterations...in one box...for fucking FREE!!!
See, you're destroying your own argument by using idiotic hyperbole.  Noone is saying what you're saying.  We're paying full price for games, we should get full games. 
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#19  Edited By jakob187
@Scooper: You must primarily be a PC gamer.  I will say that we've had a LOOOOONG legacy in this industry of being given shit for free.  However, we also were an industry that was growing, struggling at times, and never really taken seriously until Sony entered the fold with the PlayStation.
Avatar image for scooper
Scooper

7920

Forum Posts

1107

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#20  Edited By Scooper
@jakob187 said:
" @Scooper: You must primarily be a PC gamer.  I will say that we've had a LOOOOONG legacy in this industry of being given shit for free.  However, we also were an industry that was growing, struggling at times, and never really taken seriously until Sony entered the fold with the PlayStation. "
I've played most of my games on PC yeah. Maybe that does colour my opinion quite alot. I don't mean to offend anyone.
Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#21  Edited By Diamond

Not just PC gaming.  Hell I remember going into a store and buying a console game and not having parts of the game locked away so the company could make more money from me in the future.  Boy, those were the days.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#22  Edited By jakob187
@Diamond: And I agree that portions of the game shouldn't be locked away and then unlocked by paying extra ala Resident Evil 5.  However, I'm pretty sure that the car you are talking about in Forza 3 is something that is not already on the disc.  Yes, there is plenty of room on that second disc to fit that one car...but then we could argue that there is plenty of room to fit the 10 cars that they are using as an incentive to buy the game new so they can be paid for their work rather than buying the game used and giving money to the guys that are helping to hurt the games industry.  =  /  Personally, if it were me, I'd offer that Ferrari as a free download with the 10 cars included in the new package, but that's just me.  I doubt that Turn10 has evil motives behind making that one car specifically downloadable outside of the game.  My impressions are that it has less to do with Microsoft and/or Turn10 and more to do with licensing from Ferrari for the use of the car. 
 
For all we know...Sony had exclusive rights to that car being ON DISC, and so Turn10 decided to put the car in as a downloadable option and Ferrari said "sure, give us a chunk of that cash and we'll be cool with it". 
 
I don't know, but the lack of one car out of 400 isn't a deal breaker for me, and it doesn't make me think less of Turn10 for it at all.
Avatar image for slippy
Slippy

749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

#23  Edited By Slippy

The majority of DLC can fuck right off, if i'm honest. It's either a terrible value addition such as a new multiplayer skin, or a new gun, or an extra car with a shit 'custom' paint job - ok, so people will say "if you don't like, don't buy it". That's fine by me, I won't buy it, but just saying that doesnt change my opinion of it - often something's been cut from the game for it to exist, or some dev time has been wasted on creating it. Just the fact that a company thinks they can get away with charging a lot for something so insignificant is disgusting enough in my eyes. And what happens when DLC starts to sell well enough? Will publishers start thinking: "Hmm, my 10 cars for $5 DLC is making me some good money, but I wonder, is my 400 car $60 game too good value in comparison? I bet I can mark it up by $10 to get a bit more money..." - in my opinion that's the real danger if DLC starts to catch on, and who knows, perhaps that's even the reasoning behind the MW2 price hike.  
 
For me, the only DLC that's worth it is the free stuff, or some stuff which has been developed from the ground up with a real labor of love and a fair price - like the GTA episodes and Wipeout Fury. Often with DLC though, I get a sad feeling that can't be shaken - that the development time behind it could have been put to better use adding it into the sequel instead, or improving the sequel. Why add more cars to a game already out, when you could instead add it to a future game and make your numbers seem even better? Why add, for example, 50 cars to your 400 car game, when you could instead make your sequel with 450 cars? Fair enough, there may not be a sequel, but that is the only excuse I would be willing to accept.
Avatar image for arbitrarywater
ArbitraryWater

16104

Forum Posts

5585

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 66

#24  Edited By ArbitraryWater

I'm pretty sure RE5 versus mode wasn't on the disk, but because it added so little it had a really small filesize (like 10 MB or something). If it was on the disk a simple 100KB unlock code would have done the trick. Of course, versus mode was perhaps the most ill conceived DLC addon possible for a game like RE5, which is why nobody bought it. Street Fighter IV on the other hand, charges more than $10 for all the alternate costumes (which are on the disk), which in a pre-DLC era would have been free.
 
I agree with you otherwise. Day 1 DLC is shady as hell, even if it makes sense in the context of Dragon Age's development cycle. Then again, Warden's Keep doesn't really seem that important, and people who want that game really don't need it. Still a bummer though. However, I am fine with stuff like Forza 3's cars and The Stone Prisoner for Dragon Age, as I buy my games new most of the time anyways. 

Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#25  Edited By Diamond
@jakob187 said:
@Diamond: And I agree that portions of the game shouldn't be locked away and then unlocked by paying extra ala Resident Evil 5.  However, I'm pretty sure that the car you are talking about in Forza 3 is something that is not already on the disc.  Yes, there is plenty of room on that second disc to fit that one car...but then we could argue that there is plenty of room to fit the 10 cars that they are using as an incentive to buy the game new so they can be paid for their work rather than buying the game used and giving money to the guys that are helping to hurt the games industry.  =  /  Personally, if it were me, I'd offer that Ferrari as a free download with the 10 cars included in the new package, but that's just me.  I doubt that Turn10 has evil motives behind making that one car specifically downloadable outside of the game.  My impressions are that it has less to do with Microsoft and/or Turn10 and more to do with licensing from Ferrari for the use of the car.  For all we know...Sony had exclusive rights to that car being ON DISC, and so Turn10 decided to put the car in as a downloadable option and Ferrari said "sure, give us a chunk of that cash and we'll be cool with it".  I don't know, but the lack of one car out of 400 isn't a deal breaker for me.
I'd say the worst offenders recently were RE5 and also SF4's alt costumes (additionally because they're mostly shitty on top of costing extra money for content already on the disk).
 
I agree the Ferrari in question is probably not on the disk.  It's done, probably been done for months.  The second disk install is only 1.9GB so it definitely could have been included.  Personally when I see preorder bonus DLC, it seems more like punishment if you don't preorder.  They want to get as many up front sales as possible, it's not a reward out of the kindness of their hearts.  It also helps reduce piracy.
 
There are already multiple Ferraris in the game, along with many other large name brands.  If they didn't have those the game wouldn't be anywhere near as popular.  I'm sure 1 car out of 400 can't cost them much at all in terms of modeling or licensing.
 
Definitely not a deal breaker in terms of Forza 3.  I was never on the fence with that game personally.  You want me to buy stuff like Dragon Age or Borderlands?  You'd better start sweetening that pot.  Basically I think if more games offered free future DLC and showed customers what they were working on, they'd get more sales.  That had generally been Valve's philosophy.  As far as Left 4 Dead 2 goes, I'm not a big fan of L4D1 at all, but it seems Valve has been pouring more and more content into L4D2 at least.
Avatar image for deactivated-5ee489577a60c
deactivated-5ee489577a60c

204

Forum Posts

34

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

I think that a lot of this uproar over the DLC that either is a 10 $ unlock code, or that comes day and date with the release of the game, can be partially blamed on Microsoft and their unwillingnes to  put any content on XBLM for free. I have enough faith in the developers to think that, given the opportunity, would put it out for free. 
 
When it comes to the Dragon Age DLC, that is just poor timing on biowares part. I think that they should wait a little more than few hours to give the gamers an entire new story arc to play. When the players have not even gotten to play much of the original game. 
 
But to me there is nothing wrong with the decision that Gearbox made to release info on DLC that they will be developing some time into the future. It gives the game post release hype and attention on top of what it gets from release.  

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#27  Edited By jakob187
@Slippy: I cannot say that I agree with that sentiment.  There are a lot of the DLC packs that are released which are great add-ons.  Not only is there the GTAIV expansions, but you can also look at something like Midnight Club: Los Angeles.  That adds SOUTH CENTRAL L.A. to the playing field, which is pretty massive on its own...as well as additional story stuff, new missions, new vehicles, etc.  It's quite a nice DLC pack.  Fallout 3 happened to expand on the game in a similar way as old traditional expansion packs did.  You tally those up:  five expansions for $50.  Not too shabby, especially when one of those increases the level cap, and all include new quests and areas to explore.  Some may have been shorter than others, but it's not a bad deal at all. 
 
You've also got games like Gears of War 2, which added new multiplayer maps as well as a portion from the single player that they felt was out of sequence with the story's pacing originally.  You've got Halo 3, which offered up multiplayer map packs for a game that continuously ranks #1 on Xbox Live.  And let's not even TOUCH Burnout Paradise, a game that has had continued support for as long as Halo 3 now...or even the fact that a game like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed or Mass Effect got great DLC add-ons!
 
There's a ton of examples I can offer that go against what you are saying.  However, you are more than likely talking about things like the alternate costume packs for Street Fighter IV or two additional characters like the Small Arms DLC pack.  When you take the pricing of those in comparison with something as little as The Maw's DLC packs, which are all deleted levels that were taken out due to pacing of the game, the value seems lesser. 
 
Most free DLC that I've seen hasn't been anything significant.  Batman Arkham Asylum got some challenge maps.  That's cool...I guess...although I only did those modes for the achievements and nothing else.  =  /  Other than that, I can think of a few free cars for Burnout Revenge that didn't matter much, free maps for Civilization Revolution and The Darkness, and a little thing for Crackdown.
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#28  Edited By jakob187
@toorima said:
" I think that a lot of this uproar over the DLC that either is a 10 $ unlock code, or that comes day and date with the release of the game, can be partially blamed on Microsoft and their unwillingnes to  put any content on XBLM for free. I have enough faith in the developers to think that, given the opportunity, would put it out for free.   When it comes to the Dragon Age DLC, that is just poor timing on biowares part. I think that they should wait a little more than few hours to give the gamers an entire new story arc to play. When the players have not even gotten to play much of the original game.   But to me there is nothing wrong with the decision that Gearbox made to release info on DLC that they will be developing some time into the future. It gives the game post release hype and attention on top of what it gets from release.   "
You, sir, deserve a fucking medal for logic!!!  Thank you for having a brain about you!!!
Avatar image for diamond
Diamond

8678

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#29  Edited By Diamond
@toorima said:
I think that a lot of this uproar over the DLC that either is a 10 $ unlock code, or that comes day and date with the release of the game, can be partially blamed on Microsoft and their unwillingnes to  put any content on XBLM for free. I have enough faith in the developers to think that, given the opportunity, would put it out for free.
It's definitely not just MS.  I can tell you for sure that Capcom's decision to lock the alt costumes is completely unrelated to anything MS or Sony forced them to do.
Avatar image for slippy
Slippy

749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

#30  Edited By Slippy
@jakob187 said:
" @Slippy: I cannot say that I agree with that sentiment.  There are a lot of the DLC packs that are released which are great add-ons.  Not only is there the GTAIV expansions, but you can also look at something like Midnight Club: Los Angeles.  That adds SOUTH CENTRAL L.A. to the playing field, which is pretty massive on its own...as well as additional story stuff, new missions, new vehicles, etc.  It's quite a nice DLC pack.  Fallout 3 happened to expand on the game in a similar way as old traditional expansion packs did.  You tally those up:  five expansions for $50.  Not too shabby, especially when one of those increases the level cap, and all include new quests and areas to explore.  Some may have been shorter than others, but it's not a bad deal at all.  You've also got games like Gears of War 2, which added new multiplayer maps as well as a portion from the single player that they felt was out of sequence with the story's pacing originally.  You've got Halo 3, which offered up multiplayer map packs for a game that continuously ranks #1 on Xbox Live.  And let's not even TOUCH Burnout Paradise, a game that has had continued support for as long as Halo 3 now...or even the fact that a game like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed or Mass Effect got great DLC add-ons! There's a ton of examples I can offer that go against what you are saying.  However, you are more than likely talking about things like the alternate costume packs for Street Fighter IV or two additional characters like the Small Arms DLC pack.  When you take the pricing of those in comparison with something as little as The Maw's DLC packs, which are all deleted levels that were taken out due to pacing of the game, the value seems lesser.  Most free DLC that I've seen hasn't been anything significant.  Batman Arkham Asylum got some challenge maps.  That's cool...I guess...although I only did those modes for the achievements and nothing else.  =  /  Other than that, I can think of a few free cars for Burnout Revenge that didn't matter much, free maps for Civilization Revolution and The Darkness, and a little thing for Crackdown. "

The examples you gave would fall under my labor of love category - GTA4, Midnight Club and Fallout 3 all added content months after the games came out, and it was content developed from the ground up because the developer wanted to add more to their existing world. That's great DLC - and all those examples (bar Fallout 3 which could have been sold as a bundle slightly cheaper, but the GOTY edition solved that) were fairly priced for what you got. Map packs are great value too IF you play online - but there needs to be an unofficial standard set for them. The example in the OP with Red Faction's map pack being compared with World at War's map pack 3 is perfect - 8 maps and 2 modes versus 4 maps for existing modes, which should be cheaper? The answer blows the mind.
 
And shit like Street Fighter 4's costumes is exactly what i'm talking about. It's just a total stab in the dark for more money. Add to that garbage like Dead Space's (reskinned) weapon packs, The Godfather DLC, additional Ridge Racer 7 music and Soul Calibur IV character creation parts. There was no labor of love here, just plain greed.
Avatar image for deactivated-5ee489577a60c
deactivated-5ee489577a60c

204

Forum Posts

34

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@Diamond said:
" @toorima said:
I think that a lot of this uproar over the DLC that either is a 10 $ unlock code, or that comes day and date with the release of the game, can be partially blamed on Microsoft and their unwillingnes to  put any content on XBLM for free. I have enough faith in the developers to think that, given the opportunity, would put it out for free.
It's definitely not just MS.  I can tell you for sure that Capcom's decision to lock the alt costumes is completely unrelated to anything MS or Sony forced them to do. "
True, true. There will allways be studios out there that will take any means nesecary to earn more money on 100k download codes. But what I'm saying is that it IS MS fault that the studios don't have the option to put the smaller things out for free if they wanted to.
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#32  Edited By jakob187
@Slippy: I'm not saying that bullshit DLC doesn't exist.  However, I am saying that all the bullshit DLC...doesn't mean shit in the long run.
Avatar image for addfwyn
Addfwyn

2057

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 11

#33  Edited By Addfwyn

I agree with this original post, I think what people don't get is that DLC is (in some cases) basically today's expansion pack. 
 
Instead of getting one big expansion pack for $40 half a year after the game comes out, you get 4 packs of content for $10 each over the course of that same half-year period.  In the end it isn't really any different, you are just getting content sooner.  The way that all systems are always online allows for digital distribution of this content as they finish it, instead of requiring people to go purchase a new disc when they finish a good chunk of content. 
 
Locking basic game content out that is already on the disc IS an attitude people should get up in arms over.  However, people should not complain about DLC that are part of this expansion pack model:  DLC that adds content that is new and not otherwise available on the disc.  DLC that the developers start working on after a game has undergone certification is not only something that makes sense, but that I support and wish MORE companies did on a significant level.  Stuff like the Fallout 3 DLC are great I think (Though I don't like the actual FO3 game, so that's my argument against those) in concept.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96
deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96

8259

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

I just can't accept the fact that this could have been in the game 5 months ago and they may have thought "Damn we could cut this out and sell it for DLC" 
I wouldn't care if it was 4-5 months after release, but this is even before the fucking game is out.

Avatar image for slippy
Slippy

749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

#35  Edited By Slippy
@jakob187 said:

" @Slippy: I'm not saying that bullshit DLC doesn't exist.  However, I am saying that all the bullshit DLC...doesn't mean shit in the long run. "


It might mean a whole lot of shit, who's to tell at this point? It already looks like a Katamari shaped situation at the moment (which, ironically, was DLC heavy too!) - it's started out as an issue that only a small but very vocal part of the community cared about, but the ball has grown larger over time and now more and more people are beginning to be burned by this DLC business. A LOT of people are feeling like they aren't getting the full game anymore unless they pre-order, as someone pointed out. Who is to say that DLC success starts affecting full game prices eventually? I'd bet on it...  Street Fighter IV's Gouken in a pretty red dress for $5.
Avatar image for deactivated-5ee489577a60c
deactivated-5ee489577a60c

204

Forum Posts

34

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@Bucketdeth said:
" I just can't accept the fact that this could have been in the game 5 months ago and they may have thought "Damn we could cut this out and sell it for DLC" I wouldn't care if it was 4-5 months after release, but this is even before the fucking game is out. "
You do realise that the DLC is not out right now right? They said that that DLC will be out "later this year".
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#37  Edited By jakob187
@Bucketdeth said:
" I just can't accept the fact that this could have been in the game 5 months ago and they may have thought "Damn we could cut this out and sell it for DLC" I wouldn't care if it was 4-5 months after release, but this is even before the fucking game is out. "
The fact that they are working on it and trying to get it out in a timely fashion after the release of the game is stellar.  This goes back to the Left 4 Dead 2 scenario, to be honest:  Valve is releasing a game less than a year after the first came out, and people are going to complain about that?  We still haven't seen Episode 3, but finally, Valve can get a decent release schedule going.  Meanwhile, people are going to complain about the Borderlands DLC...which isn't going to hit until sometime in late November or even December, and we're going to complain?  Dood, they busted ass to get the game done, as well as continue to bust ass to give us post-release content.
Avatar image for j_meyer_13
j_meyer_13

414

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#38  Edited By j_meyer_13

Very well written, and I completely agree with everything you said...  but you forgot to mention something (unless it's in the comments somewhere).  The whole Rock Band DLC vs. Guitar Hero new games thing... personally, I think DLC is vastly superior for music games then whoring out new games, and I don't understand why anybody would think otherwise... but maybe somebody does.  *shrugs*

Avatar image for deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96
deactivated-5c5cdba6e0b96

8259

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

@toorima said:
" @Bucketdeth said:
" I just can't accept the fact that this could have been in the game 5 months ago and they may have thought "Damn we could cut this out and sell it for DLC" I wouldn't care if it was 4-5 months after release, but this is even before the fucking game is out. "
You do realise that the DLC is not out right now right? They said that that DLC will be out "later this year". "
Well I know, the game isn't even out yet so the DLC shouldn't be. 
 
@jakob187 said:
" @Bucketdeth said:
" I just can't accept the fact that this could have been in the game 5 months ago and they may have thought "Damn we could cut this out and sell it for DLC" I wouldn't care if it was 4-5 months after release, but this is even before the fucking game is out. "
The fact that they are working on it and trying to get it out in a timely fashion after the release of the game is stellar.  This goes back to the Left 4 Dead 2 scenario, to be honest:  Valve is releasing a game less than a year after the first came out, and people are going to complain about that?  We still haven't seen Episode 3, but finally, Valve can get a decent release schedule going.  Meanwhile, people are going to complain about the Borderlands DLC...which isn't going to hit until sometime in late November or even December, and we're going to complain?  Dood, they busted ass to get the game done, as well as continue to bust ass to give us post-release content. "
Well I'm one of those annoying people who thinks L4D2 is to early and I respect your opinion, I just don't like the way all these DLC's are done, I remember back in the day waiting well over a year for an expansion and the end product was usually a very well made and polished product, I'm not saying companies could spend less time and still make a great product, I would just prefer things to slow down a little, maybe announce some DLC after the game is out.
Avatar image for meteora
meteora

5844

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#40  Edited By meteora

 I find jakob and some other's opinion to be very convincing, there are some DLC that we shouldn't whine, bitch and complain about. DLCs are like expansion packs, but with 50% less fat. Its like cooking steak, a DLC would be something like rare and a expansion pack is well done. If burned at the same temperture, it takes less time to churn out a DLC than a expansion pack.
 
DLCs are fine as long as its none of the unlocking bullshit or ones that could have been on the disc but the developer decided to take out. Oh, and the countless number of shitty DLCs.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#41  Edited By jakob187
@j_meyer_13 said:

" Very well written, and I completely agree with everything you said...  but you forgot to mention something (unless it's in the comments somewhere).  The whole Rock Band DLC vs. Guitar Hero new games thing... personally, I think DLC is vastly superior for music games then whoring out new games, and I don't understand why anybody would think otherwise... but maybe somebody does.  *shrugs* "

I understand the reasoning, from Neversoft's perspective, of why they are putting out so many Guitar Hero games.  I mean, those guys came into an already rolling train on GHIII, which was their first swing at the genre.  They didn't nail it perfect, and then by the time they were getting into the swing of it, they had to add the whole band experience to it with World Tour.  From there, however, they had time to really nail their whole thing with Guitar Hero 5.  I don't necessarily understand the mentality behind Aerosmith and Van Halen (other than Bobby Kotick in the background being annoying as shit), but I do with Metallica.  I mean, it's fucking Metallica, and it was just as lovingly done as The Beatles: Rock Band IMO!  I thought they did a great job with Metallica and GH5.  You also have to realize that Neversoft also wanted to work on their hardware more, push the genre forward.  The touch-sensitive neck was a great add-on, although few pros ever use it. 
 
Here's what I find interesting, though:  people will complain about add-ons for games, but they don't complain about buying songs for Rock Band.  -_-  It makes little sense to me, as that's TRUE nickel and diming for music that can be over 20 years old!!!
Avatar image for captain_insano
Captain_Insano

3658

Forum Posts

841

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 15

#42  Edited By Captain_Insano

This has been one of the more thoughtful posts on DLC that I have seen.
With regards to Dragon Age:Origins it is hard to tell whether the Bioware DLC is bullshit or not. Given their track record with Mass Effect DLC, I think it is safe to say they haven't quite worked out how to do DLC properly yet. However, although the DLC for Dragon Age is released first day, you don't HAVE to buy it to experience the game. It is not like Multiplayer Maps where you might be missing out on a large section of the audience. 
Then again, the fact that it is coming out on the same day as release is pretty fishy. If I get DA:O, which I am undecided on yet, I would wait a few weeks til I got the DLC anyway, and I think a lot of people would wait also. So it is a bit of a poor move for them to release it on the same day.
 
Opinion therefore = undecided

Avatar image for j_meyer_13
j_meyer_13

414

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#43  Edited By j_meyer_13
@jakob187 said:
" @j_meyer_13 said:

" Very well written, and I completely agree with everything you said...  but you forgot to mention something (unless it's in the comments somewhere).  The whole Rock Band DLC vs. Guitar Hero new games thing... personally, I think DLC is vastly superior for music games then whoring out new games, and I don't understand why anybody would think otherwise... but maybe somebody does.  *shrugs* "

I understand the reasoning, from Neversoft's perspective, of why they are putting out so many Guitar Hero games.  I mean, those guys came into an already rolling train on GHIII, which was their first swing at the genre.  They didn't nail it perfect, and then by the time they were getting into the swing of it, they had to add the whole band experience to it with World Tour.  From there, however, they had time to really nail their whole thing with Guitar Hero 5.  I don't necessarily understand the mentality behind Aerosmith and Van Halen (other than Bobby Kotick in the background being annoying as shit), but I do with Metallica.  I mean, it's fucking Metallica, and it was just as lovingly done as The Beatles: Rock Band IMO!  I thought they did a great job with Metallica and GH5.  You also have to realize that Neversoft also wanted to work on their hardware more, push the genre forward.  The touch-sensitive neck was a great add-on, although few pros ever use it.  Here's what I find interesting, though:  people will complain about add-ons for games, but they don't complain about buying songs for Rock Band.  -_-  It makes little sense to me, as that's TRUE nickel and diming for music that can be over 20 years old!!! "
Good point about the hardware.  WT went to the full band and added the touch pad (which I find lulzy, haven't played it much though) and Metallica with the double pedal.  The same goes for Beatles: RB in a way - not hardware, but gameplay features... namely 3-part harmony and the dreamscapes.  GH: Van Halen and GH: Aerosmith should definitely have just been DLC, they add no features at all, as far as I know.  Band Hero and Lego: RB could easily be DLC I think... Lego is able to export the songs at least, I don't know if Band Hero can. 
 
As for nickel and diming on DLC songs... I don't think the age of the song really has anything to do with price.  No matter whether it's 20 years old or 2 months old, they still have to license them, get the master tracks, build the note charts, sync in the character movements, camera switches, etc.  My opinion, $2 (or less if it's a pack) for a song I like is well worth it, especially with the amount I play Rock Band. ^_^
Avatar image for damian
Damian

1521

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By Damian

My worst DLC offender will always be the DLC that gets talked about but never shows. Now there's a true scam. 
 
Borderlands DLC still has to prove to me it's worth $10. But there's nothing rational about expecting it for free. And I'm just glad they're all over that so soon, and are proving when they talked shit about post-release support, they meant it.

Avatar image for bofooq
BoFooQ

1120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#45  Edited By BoFooQ

I think you're alot closer to the correct answer than most people. the key is that everything changes, how much does something cost, how much stuff is there?  map packs are the ones that piss me off the most I think they're over priced for the small content, i think maps should be sold one by one for maybe $1.99 each. 
day of launch DLC doesn't matter to me cause I'll play through all of  DAO first and if I like it i' ll get DLC for the 2nd play, which adds something new for the 2nd play.
Avatar image for soothsayergb
SoothsayerGB

1500

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46  Edited By SoothsayerGB

 
Nice b-post. You make a great argument and  illuminate several good points concerning DLC's image.  Angry, but nicely put.
 
But my beef isn't the DLC alone. Its the price tag.  When I buy a game, that should be that.  It's mine, nuff said.  But selling map packs, small bits of content, and a few levels doesn't warrant a price tag.  Most of the DLC I have encountered should have been free.   A game patch.
 
Not being able to continue playing with a group of people in a FPS, because I didn't buy a map pack.  Is bullshit.  Developers are taking advantage of their fanbase.  Instead of supporting us with fan service.  People buy DLC, obviously, because they like the title.  Devs know this and abuse our pockets. Abuse our trust.  Do you ask you friend for money, when he wants to watch a movie with you? 
 
So then they get their pay off. So what will happen further down the line?  They will continue to sell half assed packets of content, dressed like a game expansion and people will buy it.  Forced DLC will be common place.  They will cost more.  You will need more maps to continue playing, you will have to pay more to level up.  
 
Its a tricky way to get a subscription fee and I don't like it.   We, as fans.  Deserve better treatment.  We're loyal, we spend hours, days.  Playing their games and they're abusing our friendship.  Like a bully picking on the nice kid.  People need to stand up and stop paying for DLC.  
 
We, as gamers and fans.  Deserve better. 
 

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for xyzygy
xyzygy

10595

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#47  Edited By xyzygy

I got over this back in 2000, when I came home from school in 6th grade to find Perfect Dark waiting for me as a birthday present. Then, realizing I needed an expansion pack to play it.  
 
-_-

Avatar image for hpv
hpv

195

Forum Posts

101

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

#48  Edited By hpv

You should have thrown Katamari Forever (or wtf the 360 version is called [edit: it's Beautiful Katamari, but I'm proud not to have remembered that because that game is bullshit]) on this list.  I didn't have a 360 at the time so I never played it and have no interest now that I do have one, but something like half of the levels ON THE DISC were unlocked via DLC that totaled something in the neighborhood of 50% of the disc price.  I'm not sure any other game comes even close to that nonsense.
 
I hope we can get a nice balance between price and added features from DLC *and* get people to shut the fuck up about it.  If you don't like it or think it costs too much, don't buy it.  If it's an issue of that stuff being on the disc and you don't think what they're letting you play is worth the money then don't buy the game in the first place.  Because that's really the problem with these games that sell you on-disc unlock codes.  That sort of thing happens ALL the time with computer software and you don't see people complaining that their copy of Windows only lets them use Home Basic because that's what they paid for when Ultimate is "OMFG ON THE DISC!!!"
 
I guess I'm just lucky that I don't like shit games and that shit games are the ones that tend to have these shenanigans wrapped up in them.

Avatar image for staticfalconar
StaticFalconar

4918

Forum Posts

665

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#49  Edited By StaticFalconar
@jakob187: I generally agree with you and your list of DLC examples should show developers that the masses would panic based on announcement time. Perhaps PR should let their games be released first and then make an announcement for DLC. Case in point, Borderlands. While all the zombie stuff sounds great, I have yet to even play the core game. Even though it seems unlikely, I could hate the game or find myself just not enjoying it to warrent paying for DLC.  Honestly, the masses by definition have herd mentality and PR should learn better.
 
 
@Diamond: The one thing you have to keep in mind is your money ultimate talks especially in a "corporate world". You could be mad that they are trying to upsell you on a game by making you pay for DLC. However, corporations don't have the power to throw you in jail if you don't buy their DLC. If you really think they are evil, just say no and walk away. Perhaps just wait a tad longer til you see a big bundle "box" set where all the DLCs are in one package (Fallout 3 GOTY style). It should speak volumes to these "evil" corporations when they see a huge spike in sales for the bundled set over individual DLC packs, that they are doing it wrong.
 
 
 
Case in point for both of you. L4d2. 
 
Oh sure, boycott this game if you want, because after all it is money and sales number that these "evil" corporations are after. But the PR guys did a good job handling this situation and converted the herder of the flock of haters. It doesn't matter whether something "Feels" like it should be DLC or not, based on the people who actually buy DLC there is your real answer. 
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

#50  Edited By jakob187
@StaticFalconar: While I can partially agree that it might be a good idea for people to talk about DLC plans after the release of their game, I can understand that Gearbox is trying to build up some extra hype for post-release on the game...especially since they are facing games like Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed 2, and Left 4 Dead 2 this season. 
 
The way I look at it, I should also add Halo 3 onto that list, as Bungie FORCED you to have all the DLC in order to play any ranked lists.  Otherwise, you were pretty much stuck to Social Slayer.  Name five more games that force that onto a consumer. 
 
And people wanna bitch about Borderlands trying to support its game post-release...  lol