Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Made by a different team, made after it went gold, etc. I think in this case we're actually talking about "content" and not some Capcom-esque palette swaps. Notice how they also have patches on launch, which no one is paying for, yet are still added first day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Exploit: To use for one’s own advantage. I think they're using consumer's excitement over a launch title to wring a few extra $$ that might not have been spent if they were to wait a few weeks. It's an impulse buy in a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Made by a different team, made after it went gold, etc. I think in this case we're actually talking about "content" and not some Capcom-esque palette swaps. Notice how they also have patches on launch, which no one is paying for, yet are still added first day. I know we're talking content(which so is the capcom-esque palette swap stuff). I'm sure I've already pointed out the silliness of the idea of separate teams for making DLC. A team working post-gold isn't going to magically have the DLC, or chunks of the DLC, on the disc since that disc is being printed as they're theoretically making the DLC that's going on the disc. Please tell me with the second comment you're not suggesting they charge for patches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 No one complains about day 1 patches. I'm making the point that a day 1 patch in itself is proof that they do work between gold and release. Anyways, why do you keep bringing up on-disc DLC? We've talked that over far too much. Most DLC isn't on disc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Most day-one DLC is. Which given the topic at hand is Javik, the dude from the ME3 day-one DLC, who is on the disc, it's why I'm bringing up on-disc DLC. And no one has said they're not working right up to release, it's the "they're not making the DLC just before release" that's the dispute here. And a fair chunk of patches are more than likely made before it's even gone to certification. Being able to tell sony "oh well we already have patch 1.1 to fix the terrible frame rate ready to fire out once the game launches" would be how you get a game with the issues Skyrim had out of certification and onto the PS3. (Though trying to find the article where they said they knew before launch there was an issue but thought they had it fixed with a patch waiting in the wings is proving to be pushing my google-fu to it's limits) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Just to clarify, a lot of the Javik stuff is not on the disc. Only the basic stuff to make him available as a combat party member. There is a lot more to the content than just that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 I downloaded a 5o0 something mb patch for Javik. I dont think he was fully on the disc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Javik is very much on the disc. Eden Prime, not so much. (We covered this a while back in the ME3 thread. I even took him for a test run) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Just Finished DLC Quest. I get the feeling this is one of those parody games that becomes less funny over time as it becomes more true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 If the content was truly worthwhile wouldn't that mean that people would seek it out? Isn't the fact that DLC is forgotten if it's long after the release speak to how little value it actually has other than capitalizing on overexcited launch adopters? I don't think this is necessarily true. It could easily be worthwhile content, but not enough to make you pick back up a huge RPG just to do a new side quest chain when there are other, brand-new games you're interested in playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) If the content was truly worthwhile wouldn't that mean that people would seek it out? Isn't the fact that DLC is forgotten if it's long after the release speak to how little value it actually has other than capitalizing on overexcited launch adopters? I don't think this is necessarily true. It could easily be worthwhile content, but not enough to make you pick back up a huge RPG just to do a new side quest chain when there are other, brand-new games you're interested in playing. But that's exactly my point. If it were more than a lousy sidequest chain you'd probably bother to go back and pick up the game. Edited March 23, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 If the content was truly worthwhile wouldn't that mean that people would seek it out? Isn't the fact that DLC is forgotten if it's long after the release speak to how little value it actually has other than capitalizing on overexcited launch adopters? I don't think this is necessarily true. It could easily be worthwhile content, but not enough to make you pick back up a huge RPG just to do a new side quest chain when there are other, brand-new games you're interested in playing. But that's exactly my point. If it were more than a lousy sidequest chain you'd probably bother to go back and pick up the game. But I'm saying it applies even to well-done stuff. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing small add-ons as long as they're done well, but the farther you are from release the less likely people are going to be to go back to it for small add-ons so you need to get it out early in the life-cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Kinda goes back to the days of expansion packs. If you've got something worthwhile then it doesn't matter if it's a few months or a year after initial release. Also if you make your game more repayable instead of a one off 10hr adventure (And that's being generous these days) then it also increases the chances folks will still be around for it. IF you can have breakfast, start the game, and watch the credits before putting dinner in the oven the game has a fundamental flaw DLC can't really fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Yeah, I remember when Half Life Opposing force came out and was $30 and I was upset at the price but it was so worth it. I wish we still did expansion packs rather than DLC. I guess we still do now with some games (AC:B and AC:R I'm looking at you). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I remember when Half Life Opposing force came out and was $30 and I was upset at the price but it was so worth it. I wish we still did expansion packs rather than DLC. I guess we still do now with some games (AC:B and AC:R I'm looking at you). I used to LOVE expansion packs. Hell, I still like them very much. Shivering Isles is amazing and I REALLY hope Beth does that again for Skyrim (though I think they said they'd do more along stuff like New Vegas, to which I say "blegh". Reeks more of tiny DLC-ish things rather than one BIG expansion that truly feels like, well, an EXPANSION). I loved the idea of a modular model for a game where you just attach a chunk of the game, you boot it up and holy shit look at ALL this new content! Made the game feel more dynamic. DLC, though, like stupid microtransactions with one tiny level, skin, map, weapon, a couple of missions, characters, shit like that, makes me think of the devs as lazy. I mean, take a DLC-heavy game and wait maybe five months to release it all in one big pack and you probably have as much content as an expansion, but come on now. A real, proper expansion takes up a lot more effort from the devs where they have to actually make a new chunk of game seamlessly integrating in to the actual experience. Again, think of Shivering Isles. They could've made like 30 little "DLC LOL" shits that cost like $5 apiece, like some stupid "plant pack" that puts the foliage from the expansion into the game, another "monster pack", they charge like $0.50 for each new weapon. You'd eventually have as much content but you're not getting a complete, cohesive package that had someone go "yep, that shit goes in here, then you come in and find this here, then let's tweak this weapon/spell/whatever to fit the theme of this new dungeon we're working on", etc. Throwing a bunch of random shit together takes almost zero effort in comparison. Expansion packs just generally give me a vibe that some dev somewhere actually gave a shit and planned it out, rather than had a manager sit them down and model a weapon 'cause "WE'RE SELLING THIS SHIT NEXT WEEK FOR A BUCK FIFTY", you know. Certainly feels that way when I'm buying an expansion. I mean, how long does anyone use a weapon/skin and 20 minutes later goes, "welp, that's that, time to move on"? Whereas with a proper expansion these little tidbits you sample here and there as part of a larger experience you've stamped onto the game? I think generally expansion packs give a better overall experience to the end consumer. Edited March 23, 2012 by RockyRan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 I agree that expansions are better, but even back in the day most games never got expansions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 I had heard the opposite. I'd heard that Skyrim was going to have more shivering isles and less fallout in its DLC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Javik is very much on the disc. Eden Prime, not so much. (We covered this a while back in the ME3 thread. I even took him for a test run) *Eden Prime and all the other associated interactions not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 So apparently the lost archive DLC has a huge plot point relating to Assassin's Creed. It's the answer to the question that was posed at the end of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. This is a prime example of crappy DLC including huge plot points in a poor way that should have been in the game in the first place. All of this is on top of the fact that the game was called "Revelations" and they hid the biggest revelation in a DLC add on. Screw you Ubisoft! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) http://www.destructo...13-225078.phtml "Tiburon had the audacity to integrate DLC courses into the career regardless of whether you have access to them, so you’ll occasionally come upon an event that you can’t initially play because you haven’t unlocked or purchased the course at which it’s taking place. (Thankfully, you can at least change the venue to an available course.)" It's stuff like this which makes you feel like you don't have a complete game. It makes you feel like there are gaping holes for a game which you just paid $60 for. "what’s particularly grating is that PGA Tour 13 goes out of its way to remind you at every turn that you’re missing out on content, like by leaving downloadable courses in the course select menu as grayed-out options." Edited April 3, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) Dirt 3 did that same kind of thing, and yes it was very off-putting. I fucking hated that it would show me only having 250/300 points or whatever in a tournament because I hadn't bought the DLC and so didn't have access to that last 50 points. *Edit* - It's compounded by the fact that Dirt 3 seemed to have far fewer tracks/races than Dirt 2 did. Edited April 3, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Gamespot says this: "If you really want the extras, most notably the numerous DLC courses that the game constantly teases you with, you pretty much have to pay for them. The same goes for the golf bag pins that provide you with various buffs during rounds. You get the first pack free, and can theoretically earn the rest of them with lots of time on the links, but it's hard to imagine finding the time to do so without quitting your job, leaving school, freeing your dog on the street to fend for himself, and so forth" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Dirt 3 did that same kind of thing, and yes it was very off-putting. I fucking hated that it would show me only having 250/300 points or whatever in a tournament because I hadn't bought the DLC and so didn't have access to that last 50 points. Oh man, that was the worst. It didn't help that your first few tournaments didn't do it and you could 100% them without the DLC. I started that game, 100%ed the first few tournaments, got the idea in my head I was going to do the rest like that, and then the DLC came along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Yep, and then I quit playing it and decided I'm done with the Dirt series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 http://youtu.be/8XEblnhBKLU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.