TheMightyEthan

Exactly. The video is entitled "Heinz Automato 4." The bottle in the video is Heinz Tomato Ketchup. Therefore, the title of the thread is correct.

But the brand is "Heinz Tomato Ketchup." *Edit* -

Aaaaaand fixed.

Yay snow! About 3 inches overnight.

Okay, so that hypothetical doesn't work. Regardless, the core of my point is that as long as whatever I get on the disc for the purchase price is a complete, satisfactory game, then I'm happy. Anything else is extra, regardless of when it was created. Sure, it would be nice for them to put more stuff in the game, or release extra content for free after launch, but I don't feel that it's wrong of them not to.

Yeah, I agree. Like I said, content on the disc that you have to pay to unlock is very shady. I just listed that as one of the factors, not an all-encompassing criterion. Anything that makes it seem like they've removed or held back content that would have/should have been in the game proper in a world without DLC is a factor. I didn't list everything. I wasn't talking about things that were developed concurrently and then missed the deadline. I'm saying they finish the game, and send it to the presses. THEN they start working on the DLC. AFTER the game is done. It's just that they get it finished before the game actually hits store shelves.

I feel I have a duty to the world to pass on my obviously superior genes into the next generation.

Actually, if they're crying for a dumb reason (mom won't buy me a toy!) then ignoring it is the best thing you can do. They learn pretty quickly that crying won't get them what they want, and they stop. *Edit* - By "pretty quickly" I mean it only takes a few times. They still might cry for quite a while the first couple of times.

You're assuming they'd put it in though. In the past, if they had a new awesome idea, either they'd put it in the main game or they'd just be like "we don't have the budget, so we can't do it" and not put it in at all. Now stuff that might have fallen in to that category they can release as launch DLC, charge separate for it, and so be able to include it. But they are developing it, they clearly have the budget to make that idea a reality. Does it require the developer to say "yeah we're totally cashing on on this" to convince you? No dev's going to admit to that. They've got the ideas during development, they have the funding to make it a reality, they have the framework to add it right into the game. However rather than doing they, they're selling it as a separate component. They have the budget to make it if they charge extra for it. That's all we really know for sure, whether or not they would have the budget without charging more for it is a guessing game. And no, they don't have to come straight out and say it, I just need some evidence beyond the fact that it's release-day. One of those things could be that it's content already on the disc, and the "DLC" is really just an unlock code. Another would be if the game feels significantly incomplete without it. Or if they advertise like it's built into the game, but then it's released separately. There are lots of things that could go into that. Question: What if it's release-date DLC, but it wasn't developed concurrently. Like the dev made the game, sent the final code to Q/A and to be pressed/shipped to retailers/whatever. Then, after that was done, they started working on DLC, but because the DLC is so much smaller and they already have the engine and game framework and stuff set up they're able to get the DLC done before the game actually releases and have it up for download day-one. Is that okay?

Yeah. I also don't like DLC that's really just a code to unlock content already on the disc. I can see limited situations where it might be justified (small publisher can't afford the data rates MS/Sony charge for distributing content), but it certainly looks shady.

You're assuming they'd put it in though. In the past, if they had a new awesome idea, either they'd put it in the main game or they'd just be like "we don't have the budget, so we can't do it" and not put it in at all. Now stuff that might have fallen in to that category they can release as launch DLC, charge separate for it, and so be able to include it. I'm not saying all launch DLC is that way, I know there's definitely stuff that they cut out in order to charge extra for later, I'm just saying I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence that that's what this particular company has done.

I don't see why time frame has anything to do with it. If it's developed separately, then it's separate, regardless of WHEN it was developed.

Does that include negative rep? If so, should we make negative rep viewable on profiles as well, or would you prefer to keep it only viewable on individual posts?

This kind of thing doesn't actually bother me. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the DLC was developed separately on a separate budget, and actually is additional content rather than removed content, until I'm given reason to believe otherwise.

This one pisses me off. I saw that, unmarked and unprotected, on a Google search, before I actually played the game. It really fucked up the mood of the whole thing.

Yeah, the tower defense aspect is mostly like "our towers are down, build some more towers" than actually constantly worrying about your towers. If you ever played Tribes, the towers in MNC are more like the turrets in Tribes than the towers in a real TD game.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty good. Best Batman game I've ever played, and without a doubt worth the $1 I paid for it on the GFWL sale.

They can think that if they want to, I just was saying I don't understand it.

I probably would have changed it to Falconwrath.

But there are people who actually hold that kind of viewpoint.

For the most part I agree with this, though I didn't mind the one in Dead Space for playing the whole game with only the plasma cutter. That was actually one of my favorite weapons anyway.

I don't understand why other people's misconceptions about a game makes people not like the game (or movie or whatever). I'm referring to the "the fact that many dudes believe GoW started the genre makes me hate them and the game!" I mean, I can see that if something is super hyped up and then doesn't live up to those expectations it might hurt your opinion, because you expected too much, but why does something like people thinking it created a genre affect your opinion of the game? That has nothing to do with the game, it's just people being retarded.

That's true, but if he wants it for upcoming games he can just wait until those upcoming games are out or almost out...

I don't move like a knight on tile, but I do still try to avoid stepping on cracks. I won't go much out of my way to do it, but I will adjust my step.