Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It's like selling a car with the doors, windows and everything on the dash optional. Is it a car ?, yes, is it what you wanted - no. No, it isn't. You couldn't even USE that car. You can completly finish a game though. You can eat a burger without lettuce, though you may prefer it with it. If they start charging extra for the lettuce would you complain? If a game is at a development level where the experience feels complete without any additions, then I may agree. When the developers leave part of their game out because it won't meet the deadline then charge you extra for what was supposed to be in the game in the first place, I do. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not really, no. I've never seen a game where the DLC was required to actually complete it.So? They could ship a game without SFX or music, with a max resolution of 800x600, multiplayer support but no maps etc... and then sell all of that separately. You wouldn't need any of that to "complete" the game, but they would still be selling you bits and pieces that you would expect to be in the game to begin with. Or, you know, the inventory. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nepenthe Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It's like selling a car with the doors, windows and everything on the dash optional. Is it a car ?, yes, is it what you wanted - no. I had never thought about it this way, but clearly car manufacturers have been ripping me off for years by having multiple options of the same car. Definitely expect to have the most expensive engine option included in the future, as well as leather seats. You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassat Hunter Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Or, you know, the inventory. Pay $7 for a cache? (Dragon Age: Origins) Edited February 4, 2011 by Hassat Hunter ^ I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5. TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 These are the worst analogies ever. Cars charge more for extra features. Burger joints charge more for cheese and other extras. Video games are now charging more for extra content. Every DLC I have ever seen is clearly EXTRA. It is not necessary to finish the game in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not really, no. I've never seen a game where the DLC was required to actually complete it.So? They could ship a game without SFX or music, with a max resolution of 800x600, multiplayer support but no maps etc... and then sell all of that separately. You wouldn't need any of that to "complete" the game, but they would still be selling you bits and pieces that you would expect to be in the game to begin with. Or, you know, the inventory. I guess I'll join the anti-DLC crowd when that happens, but we are nowhere near that now. Do you really think they are going ship a game that looks and sounds like crap so they can nickel and dime their customers? That sounds ridiculous. A multiplayer game without maps is not a game. Now if they start shipping MP games with a single map, then I can see people complaining, but again, that makes little business sense, the game would likely be crippling its own initial sales power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 These are the worst analogies ever. Cars charge more for extra features. Burger joints charge more for cheese and other extras. Video games are now charging more for extra content. Every DLC I have ever seen is clearly EXTRA. It is not necessary to finish the game in any way. ME2 had an shortage of weapons and armors, all of which were later released via DLC. DA:O's Shale was too well developed to be "extra" content right out of release date. It is not about the game's completion, if I pay for DLC it should add something extra and new. Not something that was supposed to be there, moreover the quality of some of these DLC is well below standard. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) I guess I'll join the anti-DLC crowd when that happens, but we are nowhere near that now.I guess that paying extra for a staple of the genre that has been included in previous incarnations doesn't mean jack for you. And of course they aren't going to do anything like what I posted. It was a hyperbolic example intended to make a point. They will keep removing stuff from the game and selling it separately as long as people keep buying into that. No more, no less. Edited February 4, 2011 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shale probably never would have been developed to the extent that he was if he wasn't meant to be included as a DLC character. We can go back and forth on this all day, the fact is only the developer knows what their plan was with all this content. What I do know is that Shale was not a central character to the story. No major plot developments hinged on him. It isn't as if Morrigan or Alistair were DLC. You can only bring two people along with you in DA. They gave us a ton more than that without charging extra, so it makes no sense why people get upset about one extra character being DLC. I guess that paying extra for a staple of the genre that has been included in previous incarnations doesn't mean jack for you. What staples are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorstUsernameEver Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 "She". Shale is a she. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 These are the worst analogies ever. Cars charge more for extra features. Burger joints charge more for cheese and other extras. Video games are now charging more for extra content. Every DLC I have ever seen is clearly EXTRA. It is not necessary to finish the game in any way. ME2 had an shortage of weapons and armors, all of which were later released via DLC. DA:O's Shale was too well developed to be "extra" content right out of release date. It is not about the game's completion, if I pay for DLC it should add something extra and new. Not something that was supposed to be there, moreover the quality of some of these DLC is well below standard. So, if I follow you, DLC is either of poor quality, or it is "too well developed" to be DLC? Anyhow, I don't think that either of your examples hold up. Any fan can get indignant based on their expectations about what "should have been in the game"-- that kind of thing was going on decades before anybody dreamed of selling downloadable add-on content. Basic games are either worth their retail price, or they're not, regardless of whether there is DLC content to come. DLC are either worth their retail price, or they're not, regardless of whether the high quality of their content makes you view the basic game in a lesser light. (Indeed, if a developer listens to their fans and releases DLC that addresses a common post-release complaint about an ancillary aspect of a game, isn't that a good thing??) Do your research and make your purchasing decisions in the manner that pleases you most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 "You can only bring two people along with you in DA." 3. Shale was part of the original game but was cut (like many other games DA had cut content) because of time/money issues. Without DLC Shale would have been in the trash heap like the cut planets from both KOTOR and KOTOR2 as well as other games. Don't forgget TOb was meant to be BG3 but was dumped off as a simple (but longer) expansion because of time/money. Not one DLC offered by BIo (or others) are needed to have a complete game play experience. They are 100% optional. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 These are the worst analogies ever. Cars charge more for extra features. Burger joints charge more for cheese and other extras. Video games are now charging more for extra content. Every DLC I have ever seen is clearly EXTRA. It is not necessary to finish the game in any way. ME2 had an shortage of weapons and armors, all of which were later released via DLC. DA:O's Shale was too well developed to be "extra" content right out of release date. It is not about the game's completion, if I pay for DLC it should add something extra and new. Not something that was supposed to be there, moreover the quality of some of these DLC is well below standard. So, if I follow you, DLC is either of poor quality, or it is "too well developed" to be DLC? Anyhow, I don't think that either of your examples hold up. Any fan can get indignant based on their expectations about what "should have been in the game"-- that kind of thing was going on decades before anybody dreamed of selling downloadable add-on content. Basic games are either worth their retail price, or they're not, regardless of whether there is DLC content to come. DLC are either worth their retail price, or they're not, regardless of whether the high quality of their content makes you view the basic game in a lesser light. (Indeed, if a developer listens to their fans and releases DLC that addresses a common post-release complaint about an ancillary aspect of a game, isn't that a good thing??) Do your research and make your purchasing decisions in the manner that pleases you most. Then would you agree that Dragon Age DLC was worth it's money, specially when there was an active community releasing (for free)work that rivaled and surpassed it? They release substandard work and charge you for it; that 's shameless. What's worse it's that they are killing one of the few bastion against piracy that could actually work. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Then would you agree that Dragon Age DLC was worth it's money, specially when there was an active community releasing (for free)work that rivaled and surpassed it?They release substandard work and charge you for it; that 's shameless. What's worse it's that they are killing one of the few bastion against piracy that could actually work. I didn't buy any DA:O DLC (other than what I got for free as a retail purchaser of the game) so I can't comment on it as a value proposition, other than to say that it didn't look like a tempting enough value to get me to buy it. And, judging by how the number of DLCs being offered by developers seems to grow each year, it doesn't look to me like they're "killing" anything. If a few poor-value offerings had the potential to kill the idea of DLC, the whole concept would've been abandoned after the "Horse Armor" incident. Edited February 4, 2011 by Enoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Then would you agree that Dragon Age DLC was worth it's money, specially when there was an active community releasing (for free)work that rivaled and surpassed it?They release substandard work and charge you for it; that 's shameless. What's worse it's that they are killing one of the few bastion against piracy that could actually work. I didn't buy any DA:O DLC (other than what I got for free as a retail purchaser of the game) so I can't comment on it as a value proposition, other than to say that it didn't look like a tempting enough value to get me to buy it. And, judging by how the number of DLCs being offered by developers seems to grow each year, it doesn't look to me like they're "killing" anything. If a few poor-value offerings had the potential to kill the idea of DLC, the whole concept would've been abandoned after the "Horse Armor" incident. When the Horse Armor hit there wasn't really a mainstream knowledge of DLC. It is killing it by simple market rules; if someone else is offering the same product with equal or higher quality and free, people will gravitate towards it. Amongst those some with the same entitlement issues that permeate piracy. In the end a big portion may end up reasoning "if mods are free why is the DLC that fulfills that same position cost money?" and it would be faulty logic. By releasing shoddy work instead of something to the standards of a AAA company, they are cheapening their brand. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Well, mods are PC-only, and I presume that most DLC revenue is console-based. Also, I'd argue that the more frightening possible trend is the one in the other direction-- the increasing importance of DLC is going to be a large disincentive for developers to release Mod tools, or to tolerate fans releasing modifications of their product without slapping them with a Cease & Desist. As to the "shoddy work" point, that is true of every product, everywhere. Of course poor DLCs will reflect badly on the developers who release it. Hopefully the poor DLCs will sell poorly, and the developers will try harder next time. (E.g., the ME2 DLCs have generally been received as improvements over what BW offered for DA:O.) Edited February 4, 2011 by Enoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The DLC market isn't being killed. In fact, it's growing. More and more devs and publishers are doing it on console and PC. Seems the consumer market is HAPPY that DLC is being offfered to them so they can continue to play and enjoy their favorite games. It's money well spent as opposed to using it on a game you may end up hating. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Well, mods are PC-only, and I presume that most DLC revenue is console-based. Also, I'd argue that the more frightening possible trend is the one in the other direction-- the increasing importance of DLC is going to be a large disincentive for developers to release Mod tools, or to tolerate fans releasing modifications of their product without slapping them with a Cease & Desist. As to the "shoddy work" point, that is true of every product, everywhere. Of course poor DLCs will reflect badly on the developers who release it. Hopefully the poor DLCs will sell poorly, and the developers will try harder next time. (E.g., the ME2 DLCs have generally been received as improvements over what BW offered for DA:O.) Now you have gone and scared me Hopefully they will continue to appreciate the work and love that modders have for games and will actually try to reach out to these communities. If anyone deserves a reward it's them. You make a good point, it is still a little early to tell which direction the DLC market will take. Even though I believe that most of the sales are because of completionist pressure, or the fact that you already bought the game and would like to extend the experience. If only they weren't so disappointing. As for ME2, the only DLC worth it's buck was Shadowbroker's Lair, everything else was just adding fancy crap to a game closed up to the modding communities. Not something that I enjoy. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 "Hopefully they will continue to appreciate the work and love that modders have for games and will actually try to reach out to these communities. If anyone deserves a reward it's them." No. they deserve NOTHING. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyDogMeat Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) If it hasn't been mentioned before, I think the preorder stuff enitices people who want the whole package, like me. I know it frustrates me when I learn there was equipment or a mini-mission I missed out on because I bought a certain version or something. Take Arkham Asylum for example. PS3 version has a bonus challenge mission where the Joker is controllable. If a person has both a PS3 & 360 they are probably going to lean towards the PS3 version if nothing else for that one extra bit of content. Edit: Enoch got it last page. Edited February 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 "Hopefully they will continue to appreciate the work and love that modders have for games and will actually try to reach out to these communities. If anyone deserves a reward it's them." No. they deserve NOTHING. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The car analogy is correct if you do it: They put together a complete car at the factory. Then when they ship it off, they take the stereo out and offer to put it back if you pay extra. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The car analogy is correct if you do it: They put together a complete car at the factory. Then when they ship it off, they take the stereo out and offer to put it back if you pay extra. A car stereo may be standard in most cars (although it hasn't always been) but if you want a fancy stereo, you pay extra. We can do this ad nauseum, if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 What staples are you talking about?The inventory. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Eh, only fools preorder or get the DLC outside of some gold edition type pack Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now