Tumbler's forum posts

#1 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

Don’t hate day one DLC, hate not getting your money’s worth.

Aren't those the same thing? Day One DLC is always garbage. That is why people complain about it being there to begin with. Why are you making garbage to go along with an otherwise great game? And why are you lying to us about this being a totally separate project when you made this with the rest of the game and simply want to sell it separately. Strike at Karkland was DLC created after BF3? You're telling me Wake Island wasn't built during the normal development of the game? Karkland, the most popular map for BF2...that was just going to be extra? It's beginning to stink too much not to speak up. These companies need to just be honest and say, "Hey guys, we know you really want this game so we're going to only include a portion of it when you buy the game at retail and then other parts you'll need to pay extra for. We're trying to make the most money possible so I think you'll agree this is the best way to do it."

#2 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

I tried playing ME3 on my Xbox installed and it was great. Loading times were never an issue. I tried playing it later on an older xbox in another room and just let it run off the discs. Loading times were noticeably longer so I installed it there as well. It's a shame the PS3 doesn't let you force install everything as you can do on the 360. What is the point of having a HDD if you don't get to use it to it's full potential? The DVD drive is so noisy if you don't install I think I'd still prefer to install 360 games even if the load times were the same.

#3 Edited by Tumbler (162 posts) -

DLC could be really cool but almost no one tries to build anything worth the money. Despite what they say about this being extra content that couldn't be put into the game at launch I think it's all just smoke and mirrors to hack up the traditional development track and release in stages so everyone will buy an incomplete version at launch and then you can add to the game to make it complete for additional dollars. Not sure what the averages work out to but I'm guessing the result is a higher return per unit sold on release. ($65 per unit instead of $60)

The capcom thing is a perfect example of this. They built the game, A-Z, then went in and locked T-Z behind a pay wall so they could easily charge you extra money. These used to be unlocks in the past. Beat the game, unlock a new character or costume. They saw how much people liked doing that so they figured why let them have that for free? They're going to buy the game without it anyway, (you don't have that content when you take the game home) so it's a win win. People are willing to buy games with lots of locked content that unlocks as you play. So lets just make it unlock if you pay.

A company that valued their consumers might offer the choice. Unlock if you play or pay to unlock immediately. Mass Effect 3 MP does this with those little crates. You can earn money from playing the game and go buy those crates. It takes a while to earn enough to buy the top level crate but the rewards and unlocks are fun to earn. You can spend points to buy those crates as well, 80 for mid level, 160 for spectre (tier 3). I think I've purchased 2 spectre crates (in game credits) so far and I really enjoy the game so I'm just buying them when I can and working with the players I have. I like having the option to spend $2 and get another crate. ME3 would be wise to do this with "From Ashes" as well. Unlock by paying for first playthrough. Or after you beat the game play through again on hardcore and the prothean unlocks in new game+. (or whatever)

Good DLC ends up being cosmetic changes that some will want and some won't. Like cars in Forza, or a special helmet or suit of armor in ME3. The whole microtransaction model is the way to go with DLC but so far all we've seen is shameless attempts to charge us more money for content that was in the game before release."We got this really cool game, what can we take out so people will pay us extra for it?" They should be asking "What can we add to the game that customers will like?" That quote recently about making good DLC is hard is telling the truth. That is why so many companies don't even try, they just look for ways to use existing content as DLC.

#4 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

I hate all the maps where they focused on infantry combat. And 16 players? Jeez, why don't you just make a map pack for COD instead. The list of available maps already makes you jump between servers to stay out of the crappy maps, do you really need to add more!? (on consoles) Hopefully they will smooth out the controller issues on the pc version and I can just play on there....but then Origin....ugh....just don't want to get back into that and Battlelog BS. Sigh. Can I just have my money back DICE?

#5 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

@uniform said:

I'll be the first to admit I had to google the name to find out who the hell that is/was.

This. I discovered he was an author of books relating to right/conservative politics. Tried to find something more specific but nothing rang any bells.

#6 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

I think it's worth it if you choose 2 out at a time. There is a ton of waiting when you send a game in before you get the next game back and that never felt like a good deal to me. Drop it in the mail Monday, they receive it on Wednesday. They ship me a new game Thursday, I have it Saturday. That was my typical turn around so losing a whole week didn't feel good.

But with 2 out at a time I can have something to play while I'm waiting.

I only used it for new releases. If you're good about getting your games in before Monday/Tuesday you will almost always get the newest game shipped to you on release. For the price that was pretty nice. I think that meant I had to send something in on friday if I wanted them to have it received by monday so they'd then ship me something on Tuesday.

I liked the service overall but it never felt like a great value. I think I hit a dry spell in new game releases and didn't go back.

Found Goozex to be a perfect fit for me. Can't recommend that site highly enough. Takes a bit to get things rolling but holy cow. I love that site.

#7 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -


I'd be interested in Vita if there were games I wanted to play. I don't want to play Vita Uncharted for $50. I don't want to play Vita Wipeout for $40. At best if you're going to simply sell me Vita version of ps3 games I'd need those to be maybe $20 max. And what I want is a large number of digital games that I can purchase for $5 -$10. I don't have any interest in having those little game cards and carrying those around so unless they're going to offer a lot of digital games at great prices there is no reason for me to own one.

If sony had shipped this thing with PSN compatibility on some games, smaller PSN titles, I'd probably be looking very closely at it. There are a lot of smaller titles on PSN and Live that I never play because I rarely want to play arcade games when I'm sitting down on my 360/PS3. But you allow me to play those games on the go for $15 or less in most cases? Ok, now I'm listening.

$30 is too much for games on this system, $50 is hilarious.

#8 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

@tCobra said:

I like the idea of playing a game on the PS3 then picking up the Vita to continue the game.

This. I'd like the PSV to be an extension of my PS3 experience.

I'm totally confused why they even have little chips/cards for the games. You could have used that spot on the machine to just put internal memory into the device, like 32GB, then the other slot could be an upgrade. That last thing I want to do is carry around little game cards with me on that thing. It should be 100% digital and you should have a games library similar to pc gamers on steam that you slowly add to over time and you download stuff over wifi.

#9 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

@DeF: So you can play games you buy in stores but you can't save any progress. (if I understand you correctly?)

If you have a memory card do any of the games need anything installed?

Does PSN (SON now?) have demos to download for any of the games?

#10 Posted by Tumbler (162 posts) -

So I've heard several people comment how you need a memory stick for many of the games on the PSV but can someone go into more detail about what you will be able to do with and without a memory card? How far does 8gb get you when you're buying digital games?

Games are sold on the same style memory cards for the PSV I presume? When you save games you need a seperate memory card for those save files? Or it saves it to the game memory stick?

Assuming it saves to a separate memory stick, how much space does it take and at what points would you assume the memory sticks would run out of space?

Just curious how the system uses memory with the different types of content.

And is there a seperate slot for these memory cards and for game cards? Can you use both slots for memory cards and get the system up to 64GB?