Lazy Cash-ins

[deanb]

Well I can understand preferring DLC over the SF type stuff, but I was using the SF stuff as an example in post-release additions.

[SixTwoSixFour]

Well, but it brings up an interesting point, though. It's nice when game companies add stuff post-launch, but the old model was to release entirely new versions for that content, and that was a whole bunch of bullshit, I think we can agree. Frankly, between that and launch DLC, it's no contest.

[TheMightyEthan]

If DA2 was made last gen and they had ideas for extra quests, characters etc for the game during production of the game, they'd put them in. It's only now that they can sell snippets of the game ontop of the price of the main game that this kind of stuff is happening.

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.

[Mister Jack]

I hate DLC that just unlocks stuff that's too hard for scrubs to unlock in the game itself. Oh, and DLC cheat codes are the worst.

[RadiantViper]

I loved the Pokemon Trading Game too. Unfortunately I lost my copy ...

 

Edit: Forget there was a second page ... derp.

Edited January 9, 2011 by RadiantViper

[TheMightyEthan]

I hate DLC that just unlocks stuff that's too hard for scrubs to unlock in the game itself. Oh, and DLC cheat codes are the worst.

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.

[Tiffany]

 

Obvious answer here...

[deanb]

If DA2 was made last gen and they had ideas for extra quests, characters etc for the game during production of the game, they'd put them in. It's only now that they can sell snippets of the game ontop of the price of the main game that this kind of stuff is happening.

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.

 

 

[TheMightyEthan]

If DA2 was made last gen and they had ideas for extra quests, characters etc for the game during production of the game, they'd put them in. It's only now that they can sell snippets of the game ontop of the price of the main game that this kind of stuff is happening.

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?

[Zenia-chan]

I have a pet peeve with some games that you have to pay for, which also have a cash shop. In other words, games that you have to pay X amount just to play, but to win you have to pay X+Y amount (the Y amount is for the cash shop items that give you an often HUGE advantage over players who don't buy them)

 

Examples:

 

Ragnarok Online (MMORPG) - Especially 2-3 years ago before the official free-to-play server went live, and even then, the cash shop items were more expensive on the free server than on the subscription-based servers.

 

Team Fortress 2 - Since this could be considered a more casual game, it's a bit of a lesser example (you can still win without paying extra depending on skill and teams, and you can get most of the same items just by playing or idling) but it still technically follows the X+Y formula. The main differences between this and Ragnarok are that the X part for TF2 isn't a recurring payment and is frequently discounted, and the Y part carries less significance (being mostly for lazy people and collectors rather than people playing to win.)

 

I'm sure there are more out there like this, I haven't exactly played EVERY game out there.

[deanb]

-snip-

 

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?

 

They're going to make many times the cost of the game anyway. A few thousand on making some extra quests isn't going to be a huge dint that can only be recouped by charging separately for it. If it's release day that's on the disc, then even worse. Why put it in the disc but not in the game? You've technically already paid for it, it's content that's on the disc you just put cash down, but some of it's held at ransom until you pay for an unlock code. lolwut. With pretty much any DLC you could remove huge amounts of the game before it's "incomplete". Fallout 3 could just be about 10 quests long, with everything else as DLC. The main game is still in place, the main storyline from start to end. But all the possible side-missions are not.

 

If it was developed and missed been added to the game due to it been sent off to stamping then just put it up for free Shale style. There's potentially so many things that could of "missed the deadlines. Woops", that it's not really a reason to charge extra for it not been in the game. "Hey guys we fucked up and didn't finish this on time. But it's yours if you give us $5".

[TheMightyEthan]

If it's release day that's on the disc, then even worse. Why put it in the disc but not in the game? You've technically already paid for it, it's content that's on the disc you just put cash down, but some of it's held at ransom until you pay for an unlock code. lolwut.

Yeah, I agree. Like I said, content on the disc that you have to pay to unlock is very shady.

 

With pretty much any DLC you could remove huge amounts of the game before it's "incomplete". Fallout 3 could just be about 10 quests long, with everything else as DLC. The main game is still in place, the main storyline from start to end. But all the possible side-missions are not.

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.

 

 

If it was developed and missed been added to the game due to it been sent off to stamping then just put it up for free Shale style. There's potentially so many things that could of "missed the deadlines. Woops", that it's not really a reason to charge extra for it not been in the game. "Hey guys we fucked up and didn't finish this on time. But it's yours if you give us $5".

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.

[deanb]

There's normally a pretty short gap of about a week (the less time the disc is made n able to get in pirates hands before release the better, just ratio'd to how many you need to print off to meet demand. Big game could be about 2-3 weeks before release). Coming up with the idea, making, QAing it then getting it up on services CMS then obviously waiting for launch. And Dragon Age 2 will not be at the printers now. Stilla month+ to go. It's DLC's they've planned months in advance, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to make it in the game other than them purposely not putting it in. It's have to be pretty big for them to come up with it months in advance and still be unable to complete in time for the presses.

[TheMightyEthan]

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.

[Chewblaha]

[deanb]

See FFXIV was just shit. I don't think it was lazy cash-in though.

[Wrayfield]

I hate cash-ins for sports games so much -- getting an actual competitive advantage because you paid defies what sports games should be about.

 

DLC for story-driven games has to be at least roughly planned during the dev phase. I think Fallout makes an 'interesting' approach in kind of moving the location entirely away from the original map, so you could theoretically add infinite scenarios, even after the original game is long finished. That doesn't change the fact that their DLC stories don't add up much with the original story unless you count higher level cap and additional items.

 

That said, unlockable DLC on disc is taking the piss. DLC weapons and armor... lazy cash-ins you guys talk about, I dunno, I just couldn't bring myself to pay for that.

[Mister Jack]

[Wrayfield]

 

 

 

The classic

[Battra92]

I would have been fine with it had it included maybe 3 or 4 more games on it. Mario World 1 and maybe 2. Mario 64. Just...SOMETHING. Hell, The SNES had a Mario All-Stars that HAD Mario World on it, but they didn't even put that version on the disc. I mean what the hell?

 

Oh wait. Virtual Console.

 

You dicks.

Nintendo NOT rehashing the same stuff over and over to pry a few more coins from the dedicated gamers pockets? Where have you been for the past decade? Nintendo seems to pride itself on releasing something, then releasing a superior product six months down the road. In a few years, there will be the Mario Brothers 30th anniversary edition with the "left out" Super Mario World.

 

My question is, how is this any different from any other medium?

 

1.) Disney released films on VHS

2.) Disney released better versions on Laserdisc

3.) Disney released even better versions on DVD

4.) Disney took more of my money with the Blu-Rays.

 

Mario All Stars was well worth the $20 after coupon that I paid for it. I have a copy and my sisters have a copy. They apparently have put hours and hours into it and play it most every day. I understand there could have been more but it was apparently enough for most people. :-/

 

Now had Mario All Stars come with SMB 1-3 + SMBUSA + SMW 1&2 AND the CD and a figurine or something and only cost $30 people would still complain.

 

Oh well.

[SixTwoSixFour]

My question is, how is this any different from any other medium?

 

1.) Disney released films on VHS

2.) Disney released better versions on Laserdisc

3.) Disney released even better versions on DVD

4.) Disney took more of my money with the Blu-Rays.

 

Mario All Stars was well worth the $20 after coupon that I paid for it. I have a copy and my sisters have a copy. They apparently have put hours and hours into it and play it most every day. I understand there could have been more but it was apparently enough for most people. :-/

 

Now had Mario All Stars come with SMB 1-3 + SMBUSA + SMW 1&2 AND the CD and a figurine or something and only cost $30 people would still complain.

 

Oh well.

 

The difference is, Disney dug up new extras, interviews, and shit each time in an effort to make the product more valuable. Nintendo didn't.

[Commander Shepard]

My question is, how is this any different from any other medium?

 

1.) Disney released films on VHS

2.) Disney released better versions on Laserdisc

3.) Disney released even better versions on DVD

4.) Disney took more of my money with the Blu-Rays.

 

Mario All Stars was well worth the $20 after coupon that I paid for it. I have a copy and my sisters have a copy. They apparently have put hours and hours into it and play it most every day. I understand there could have been more but it was apparently enough for most people. :-/

 

Now had Mario All Stars come with SMB 1-3 + SMBUSA + SMW 1&2 AND the CD and a figurine or something and only cost $30 people would still complain.

 

Oh well.

 

The difference is, Disney dug up new extras, interviews, and shit each time in an effort to make the product more valuable. Nintendo didn't.

 

This times one thousand. In the case of Disney, you are getting a higher quality version of the film, in most cases, along with added bonuses, deleted scenes, etc. In this case, you are getting a port, that even still uses the graphic of an SNES controller rather than a Wii controller. The only real seller is the soundtrack and the "larger" player manual. Also, using a coupon to lower a price is nice and all, but some people do not have these coupons, or already have paid full-retail price. I will agree that spending $20 on this would not be so bad, but again, not everyone did/does pay that amount.

[Rocket Lawnchair]

id have to put my vote on team fortress 2 Hats/crates.

spent way too much money on opting crates trying to get unusual hats.. i got two :X

[Mister Jack]

I hate TF2 crates so goddamn much. I'd be fine with them if you could turn them into scrap, but you can't. They just take up space unless you cough up real money for a key on a gamble.

[Rocket Lawnchair]

I hate TF2 crates so goddamn much. I'd be fine with them if you could turn them into scrap, but you can't. They just take up space unless you cough up real money for a key on a gamble.

if you dont want your crates il ltake em from you :V