Your thoughts on DLC

[Tron Bonne]

The killed my dog thing was for me?
I don´t like Sony, less and less as time goes by, i never made it a secret, but i´m not biased or anything, i´ll buy a PS3 in 4 or 5 months.
Not because i adore Microsoft or anything, but because, now that there is competition (there was last gen, but i didn´t had the Xbox), i can see the flaws in Sony.
Sure, Microsoft is hardly perfect, not even close, but, just look at the 360 marketplace and the European PSN...i rest my case.
Last update (i read it on Kotaku), the Dead Space demo was released....how ridiculous is that?
It was released on the 360 on Nov 25 EVERYWHERE, US PSN on Nov 27, the game was released in October...that´s 4 months later...for a fricking demo that should be everywhere.
And that´s just one example, as the european PS3 owner should know.
I´m a gamer at heart, i´m all for the games, not the companies, that´s why i´ll buy a PS3, there are good games on Sony´s console (Resistance, Uncharted, LBP, Valkyrie Chronicles...)

Yeah, it was meant at you, somewhat semi-serious, somewhat semi-joking. It just seems you always try to take the negative stance on not just the company, but the PS3 and it's exclusive titles. I mean the only really good thing I've ever read of yours that was even remotely positive was that you plan to buy a PS3 someday and that KZ2 may be good after being hugely negative towards it.

I mean I'm not bashing you, if you dislike Sony or their practices I could really care less really, but I've always like commenting on what I perceive as bias and seeing the reaction.

You're by no means 'bad' or anything, I never meant that

 

[hippie_hunter]

is simply because Marketplace has more content.As for Tomb Raider, we know that Eidos is on the verge of being bought.
Time Warner is the front runner, but, Eidos already said that there is also a "mysterious suitor"...maybe Microsof will buy them, so, that´s why the TR DLC is exclusive.
Or Eidos want it to be so, that´s why they want to fall in their good graces.

Eidos is going to get bought by either Warner Bros. or Square-Enix.

With a 20% stake already in the company, it's most likely going to be Warner Bros. It seems as if they're really serious in getting in the video game market and they apparently want to use Eidos' video game properties as film properties (they're making the Tomb Raider reboot).

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Yeah, it was meant at you, somewhat semi-serious, somewhat semi-joking. It just seems you always try to take the negative stance on not just the company, but the PS3 and it's exclusive titles. I mean the only really good thing I've ever read of yours that was even remotely positive was that you plan to buy a PS3 someday and that KZ2 may be good after being hugely negative towards it.

I mean I'm not bashing you, if you dislike Sony or their practices I could really care less really, but I've always like commenting on what I perceive as bias and seeing the reaction.

You're by no means 'bad' or anything, I never meant that

No problem.
I have no problems with criticism, even the serious kind, as long as they are back up with some good arguments.
But i never said anything bad about the PS3 exclusives, hell, why would i if i´m going to buy one for those same games?
As for KZ2, the only thing i said was i wasn´t expecting it to be the masterpiece everyone talked about, and, can you blame me? With Guerrilla´s track record?
But i never said it was going to be a bad game, not even close.
The only thing you can point that i said was calling the PS3 a failure.
OK, i give you that *failure* was a bit harsh, but it is a dissapointment in comparison the Sony previous consoles, more even when Sony was expecting it to kick Microsoft´s ass when it came out.
That´s why it had the price tag it had, because they were expecting it to sell based on the brand name alone.
Sony even said, a few months before the PS3 release, something like, "the moment we came out, there will be no competition".
That´s another thing, the sheer arrogance of Sony.
Sure, it´s good for a laugh, but it gets ridiculous after a while.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Eidos is going to get bought by either Warner Bros. or Square-Enix.

I´m hoping for Time Warner, not Square-Enix.

 

[Timstuff]

$5 for a map pack - good
$8 for a new chapter - okay
$2 for a "new" costume that's already on the disc - bad
$5 for an unlock cheat code - terrible

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I don't mind DLC although, having come from PC gaming, I find the idea of paying for what are basically mods that happen to come from the devs annoying. But so long as they have substantial additional content, it's not a big deal. New characters, new songs, new levels, etc. are great.

My two biggest pet peeves about DLC are:

1) If pay-DLC is literally just something the devs couldn't manage to fit into the game before release, since that means they're double-charging you for s*** you should've had already if they'd been better at their jobs.

2) Micro-transactions where everything costs a little bit of money except for the absolute bare bones of the game.

Thankfully, DLC has gotten to the point where the majority of it doesn't seem to fall into either of those two categories anymore, so I'm cool with it.

 

[Spidey17]

Unless it is major (Fable, GTA IV, etc), it sucks. All the little things are ********, like horse armor, t-shirts for the playable character, nickel and diming is never cool. Hope DC is relegated to serious stuf from now on. Or maybe developers could just take the time to put everything in at once like last gen...

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, Fallout's DLC, for example, is basically an expansion pack--extra content that wasn't meant to be in the game initially, but the devs wanted to extend the life of the game so they created new content to add onto what you already have. Expansion packs have been around for decades. The delivery method is just a little different.

 

[Spidey17]

Expansion packs=ok, I don't think anyone hates these
bad DLC= there's more of this, little things like costumes, weapons, **** that should've made it in

 

[Timstuff]

Well, Fallout's DLC, for example, is basically an expansion pack--extra content that wasn't meant to be in the game initially, but the devs wanted to extend the life of the game so they created new content to add onto what you already have. Expansion packs have been around for decades. The delivery method is just a little different.

I'm still PO'd that I won't be able to play it though, particularly Broken Steel. I hated how Fallout 3 ended so abruptly, and Bethesda's not even going to bring the new level cap or post-ending play ability to the PS3 version.

 

[Matt]

Hate it. Its an excuse to release an incomplete game. :

 

[Timstuff]

Hate it. Its an excuse to release an incomplete game. :

As much as I like some of the downloadable expansions I've gotten for some games, I can't help but feel you are partially correct on that. I do think in some ways, developers are feeling less inclined to "go the extra mile" with their games because they feel like they can just release whatever they don't get around to as DLC. However, the same problem exists with the industry's "Sequelitis" also.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

DLC helps extend the life of a game, so im all for it. It also entices ppl to not trade the game in.

 

[Milu]

DLC that adds content not present in the game's original programming, or fixes some glitches =

DLC that unlocks stuff already present in the game's original programming =

DLC that unlocks stuff already present in the game's original programming + charging us for it =

 

[Spidey-Bat]

DLC helps extend the life of a game, so im all for it. It also entices ppl to not trade the game in.

Or wait for a price drop. Why pay $50 and then an additional $10 for content when you can wait and pay $50 or less for both?

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Or wait for a price drop. Why pay $50 and then an additional $10 for content when you can wait and pay $50 or less for both?

Not everyone wants to wait for a price drop. If you finish Fallout, enjoyed it and are thinking of trading it in, then Bethesda releases DLC, it stops you from doing so(if you want to continue to play Fallout that is).

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Not if you have a subscription rental service. I traded all my games in and I just rent them whenever I want to play them now. It's cheaper and you can always rent a game again if DLC comes out for it.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Not if you have a subscription rental service. I traded all my games in and I just rent them whenever I want to play them now. It's cheaper and you can always rent a game again if DLC comes out for it.

I would hate to have to do that. I much rather own than rent, with anything.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

It's functionally the same to me, as long as I get to play the games.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

It's functionally the same to me, as long as I get to play the games.

Yea i get that, i guess I'm more of a collector type of person. I view my games as not just games, but as collector pieces. Ever since i decided i wouldn't trade games in, iv been trying to grow my 360 catalog. I'm up to like 23 games now.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I realized that I very rarely play games more than once, so owning them doesn't really do me much good. They just take up space and gather dust.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Ah, yea i play game mutliple times. I mean i dont even know how many times iv played through Hitman:Blood Money.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I figure it'd probably be worth my time to play a different game instead of the same one. The only ones I play more than once are sprawling RPGs or games I'm a really huge fan of, like HL2.