Anyone else fed up with DLC?

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Queasy
If you don't like the DLC...don't buy it. Simple as that. If you think the DLC is a good value, buy it. It's just like any other game purchasing decision.

In Halo 3, there's a whole bunch of game modes online that require you to buy DLC. That's BS. I can't play a 16 player multiplayer match on Halo 3 without buying all of the content.

If there's one complaint for DLC, this is it.

The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument doesn't work for multiplayer games. DLC segregates the online community into the haves and the have-nots.

There's been quite a few times where friends have invited me to play Halo 3 or Call of Duty and I couldn't get in because I don't play them enough to spend 800 points on some maps.

If there's a game that did multiplayer DLC right, it's Crackdown - where only the host needed to have the extra content, and the person joining was allowed to use it.

Outside of those things, I have no problem with DLC. I've never felt slighted by a retail game.

 

[Golgatha]

DLC is a mixed bag for me. It can be well or ill implemented. For the most part, I feel that the good majority of DLC is just worthless crap, or is descent but should've been included with the original game. Nearly all of it is overpriced IMO also.


Good Implementations

The Lost and the Damned for GTA4.

Star Wars TFU extra missions.

Full versions of retro games on all systems.

Final Fantasy IV Sequel on WiiWare - It comes in episodic format and offers several hours for each $3 or so piece of the puzzle. Overall total cost is just shy of $40 for several enjoyable hours of gaming, which is about the cost of a Final Fantasy title on the NDS these days. Equivalent graphics, equivalent price, and the ability to pick and choose which side stories you want to explore FTW.

Free DLC - Add extra value to older games to spur more retail purchases well after the launch media blitz honeymoon period is over. It's a FTW for everyone!



Bad Implementations

CoD 4 $10 Map Pack that's free for the PC version (maps needed so your multiplayer options aren't limited...did I mention the PC version maps are free for download?).

Street Fighter 4 alternate costumes - C'mon, these should've been included with the game, as they were released on day 1 and included with the premium edition or whatever it was called!

Star Wars TFU character costumes (lets just say extra costumes or visual changes for all games period).

Blue Dragon - You can pay for items or features such as being able to play back FMV sequences (please don't give FF XIII any bright ideas about how to ream gamers too). As I recall, the ability to playback previous FMV sequences was part of most Final Fantasy games...all for free.

Little Big Planet - $1.99 a pop for extra virtual stickers and costumes...WTF! Seriously, if I purchased everything available, this would be like a $200 game. $140 of which has no resale value.

 

[Golgatha]

Also, I do wonder how retro games are going to be handled in the future. If a console has backwards compatibility, how will my DLC get transferred to the new console? I still play a lot of my PS1 and PS2 games on my PS3, but there isn't the factor of DLC to worry about for those games. If I play Star Wars TFU as a retro title for instance, will the DLC be available on the PS4 somehow? Or will backwards compatibility only be added as digital downloads in the future (this is my best guess...yeaaaa, I get to rebuy my library of games or get saddled with two separate consoles to not get screwed over)?

In summary, I think that DLC will make backwards compatibility with physical media a thing of the past. I think physical media won't be available after two more generations as well (say the Playstation 5 era of games), or if it is it will be a WGA type activation process for physical discs (e.g. if you don't have an internet connection, you can buy the data disc at a B&M store and then activate it on your console by calling an 800 number, which will then lock that disc to your console). In my e.g. the optical disc drive will probably be a $50 accessory, and the main console will just have a user replaceable hard drive (hopefully...here's looking at you Microsoft). Game makers get a huge chubby when they think about getting rid of the 2nd hand market after all.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Also, I do wonder how retro games are going to be handled in the future. If a console has backwards compatibility, how will my DLC get transferred to the new console? I still play a lot of my PS1 and PS2 games on my PS3, but there isn't the factor of DLC to worry about for those games. If I play Star Wars TFU as a retro title for instance, will the DLC be available on the PS4 somehow? Or will backwards compatibility only be added as digital downloads in the future (this is my best guess...yeaaaa, I get to rebuy my library of games or get saddled with two separate consoles to not get screwed over).

I've wondered that as well. All I can say is that if all the games people have purchased are not transferable from the 360/PS3/Wii to the next generation of consoles.....there will be an uproar the likes of which the games industry has never heard.

 

[Beev]

I just recently bought some of the DLC for Disgaea 3. I would say that ALL of it is stuff that wasn't ever planned on being in the game. The extra story chapters were amazing and well worth the $12.

The DLC for GTA4 is a good example of good DLC.

Pretty much everything EA does is fucking greedy though. "Here's some new football jerseys for $400!" (obvious exaggeration)

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Beev
I just recently bought some of the DLC for Disgaea 3. I would say that ALL of it is stuff that wasn't ever planned on being in the game. The extra story chapters were amazing and well worth the $12.

The DLC for GTA4 is a good example of good DLC.

Pretty much everything EA does is fucking greedy though. "Here's some new football jerseys for $400!" (obvious exaggeration)

I wish EA would do stats/roster updates for their sports games. With their recent change in direction to software as a service, I wouldn't be surprised to just see a Madden Football game come out with a $5.00 monthly usage fee (basically $60 per year and with no 2nd hand market for the game...EA just got another chubby) content updates.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: oznerol
The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument doesn't work for multiplayer games. DLC segregates the online community into the haves and the have-nots.

I've always thought the "don't like it, don't buy it" argument was a bit of a cop out anyway. People can do that AND still voice their displeasure over the situation.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Nowadays, it is apparent that developers are intentionally cutting a game short in order to gouge you for DLC (/cough BETHESDA /cough).

That is bullshit. Oblivion and Fallout 3 offer a huge chunk of content on the disc--DLC is not needed to enjoy either of those games. To claim that those titles, or even something like Saints Row 2, were released unfinished or somehow cut short just because DLC is available is absolutely ludicrous.

And are you honestly implying that NES or SNES games offered more content than today's games?

Cool story, bro. Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

I don't need to "imply" that NES and SNES games offered more content than today's games. They DID offer more true content than today's games.

You perceive "content" as an endless supply of similar and generic dungeons with no story or purpose that offer no real use or value other than mindlessly grinding, AKA, the bulk of the content of Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

Keep your head in the sand, and keep saying LALALALA! as you pay $60 for a twenty-hour special and $5-$10 for each piece of two-hour DLC.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Nowadays, it is apparent that developers are intentionally cutting a game short in order to gouge you for DLC (/cough BETHESDA /cough).

That is bullshit. Oblivion and Fallout 3 offer a huge chunk of content on the disc--DLC is not needed to enjoy either of those games. To claim that those titles, or even something like Saints Row 2, were released unfinished or somehow cut short just because DLC is available is absolutely ludicrous.

And are you honestly implying that NES or SNES games offered more content than today's games?

Cool story, bro. Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

I don't need to "imply" that NES and SNES games offered more content than today's games. They DID offer more true content than today's games.

You perceive "content" as an endless supply of similar and generic dungeons with no story or purpose that offer no real use or value other than mindlessly grinding, AKA, the bulk of the content of Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

Keep your head in the sand, and keep saying LALALALA! as you pay $60 for a twenty-hour special and $5-$10 for each piece of two-hour DLC.

If you can take a break from being so ridiculously awesome, can you clue us in on some of these older games that you think have so much more content?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: fatpat268
Some of the DLC seems like it should've been in the original game, especially when it's released so quickly after a game gets released (Fallout 3, I'm looking at you.).

I think of all the DLC I'm seeing lately, Fallout 3 seems like the one least likely to be included with the original game. It think it's been pretty clear they've been constantly working on the DLC for Fallout 3 after the game was shipped, and the first set came out months after the game came out.

Now if you look at a game like Call of Juarez: Brothers in Arms, they announced DLC pretty much day and date of the game's store release. And if you look at a lot of EA games coming out, there's literally dozens of $2-$12 DLC packs on PSN and XBL the week the game hits.

Calling out Bethesda is just crappy, if anything I want more DLC from them, not less. Pick a company that is blatantly ripping people off. (Harmonix/EA releasing Abby Road DLC AFTER Beatles' Rock Band comes out, and announcing that they're doing it months ahead of time? Yeah, that's bullshit IMO).

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: oznerol

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Nowadays, it is apparent that developers are intentionally cutting a game short in order to gouge you for DLC (/cough BETHESDA /cough).

That is bullshit. Oblivion and Fallout 3 offer a huge chunk of content on the disc--DLC is not needed to enjoy either of those games. To claim that those titles, or even something like Saints Row 2, were released unfinished or somehow cut short just because DLC is available is absolutely ludicrous.

And are you honestly implying that NES or SNES games offered more content than today's games?

Cool story, bro. Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

I don't need to "imply" that NES and SNES games offered more content than today's games. They DID offer more true content than today's games.

You perceive "content" as an endless supply of similar and generic dungeons with no story or purpose that offer no real use or value other than mindlessly grinding, AKA, the bulk of the content of Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

Keep your head in the sand, and keep saying LALALALA! as you pay $60 for a twenty-hour special and $5-$10 for each piece of two-hour DLC.

If you can take a break from being so ridiculously awesome, can you clue us in on some of these older games that you think have so much more content?

I was going to ask the same thing. Aside from the Final Fantasy games, and Zeldas what from the cartridge days had that much content? I could beat the mario and donky kong country games over a week, which is about the 10 hours the really low games take.

If you're only playing through Fallout and Oblivion for 20 hours then you're not getting the full experience. Mass effect took me a bit over 30 hours and I felt that was one of the shorter RPGs our right now.

Also, you must be a youngun as the NES and SNES games were at least as expensive as the current games if not more so... not even counting inflation and such. SNES games ranged from $50-80 depending on the game. Final Fantasy III (really FFIV these days) cost $80.

Games today are still a lot cheaper then they used to be, and there are still just as many long games as there used to be.

 

[sanzen07]

No one's forcing you to buy DLC add-on content. Stop your bitching.

 

[brblx]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: oznerol

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Nowadays, it is apparent that developers are intentionally cutting a game short in order to gouge you for DLC (/cough BETHESDA /cough).

That is bullshit. Oblivion and Fallout 3 offer a huge chunk of content on the disc--DLC is not needed to enjoy either of those games. To claim that those titles, or even something like Saints Row 2, were released unfinished or somehow cut short just because DLC is available is absolutely ludicrous.

And are you honestly implying that NES or SNES games offered more content than today's games?

Cool story, bro. Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

I don't need to "imply" that NES and SNES games offered more content than today's games. They DID offer more true content than today's games.

You perceive "content" as an endless supply of similar and generic dungeons with no story or purpose that offer no real use or value other than mindlessly grinding, AKA, the bulk of the content of Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

Keep your head in the sand, and keep saying LALALALA! as you pay $60 for a twenty-hour special and $5-$10 for each piece of two-hour DLC.

If you can take a break from being so ridiculously awesome, can you clue us in on some of these older games that you think have so much more content?

I was going to ask the same thing. Aside from the Final Fantasy games, and Zeldas what from the cartridge days had that much content? I could beat the mario and donky kong country games over a week, which is about the 10 hours the really low games take.

If you're only playing through Fallout and Oblivion for 20 hours then you're not getting the full experience. Mass effect took me a bit over 30 hours and I felt that was one of the shorter RPGs our right now.

Also, you must be a youngun as the NES and SNES games were at least as expensive as the current games if not more so... not even counting inflation and such. SNES games ranged from $50-80 depending on the game. Final Fantasy III (really FFIV these days) cost $80.

Games today are still a lot cheaper then they used to be, and there are still just as many long games as there used to be.

NES is pretty much exactly where we are right now. we might as well be awash in a sea of shitty identical 2d sidescrollers. only in the NES days, the only reason i was stupid enough to want crap games was because i was eight years old. which seems to be the mentality of the current generation.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: brblx

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: oznerol
<.....snip.....>


If you can take a break from being so ridiculously awesome, can you clue us in on some of these older games that you think have so much more content?

I was going to ask the same thing. Aside from the Final Fantasy games, and Zeldas what from the cartridge days had that much content? I could beat the mario and donky kong country games over a week, which is about the 10 hours the really low games take.

If you're only playing through Fallout and Oblivion for 20 hours then you're not getting the full experience. Mass effect took me a bit over 30 hours and I felt that was one of the shorter RPGs our right now.

Also, you must be a youngun as the NES and SNES games were at least as expensive as the current games if not more so... not even counting inflation and such. SNES games ranged from $50-80 depending on the game. Final Fantasy III (really FFIV these days) cost $80.

Games today are still a lot cheaper then they used to be, and there are still just as many long games as there used to be.

NES is pretty much exactly where we are right now. we might as well be awash in a sea of shitty identical 2d sidescrollers. only in the NES days, the only reason i was stupid enough to want crap games was because i was eight years old. which seems to be the mentality of the current generation.

I can see that. I think a big thing is that back in the NES days the majority of the users were little kids like that. Now that we've had adults that grew up with vid games it's becoming apparent that we need better stuff for the adults, and it just isn't catching up as quick.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

Have you even played Fallout 3? If you want to fully explore the game world, it's more like a hundred hours of content. Sure, you can blow through the main quest in like seven, but you're missing the whole point of the game.

Heck, even the cartridge-based Final Fantasy games really didn't have that much _content_ - it was mostly grinding. Ah, hunting giants near Elfheim, or whatever the elf city was called in FF1. I ran through the FF1 remakes MUCH faster when the difficulty got turned down. It's a surprisingly linear game.

Someone needs to take off those rose-colored glasses.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Cool story, bro. Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

Sure, if you rush through the game and do the main quest only. Chrono Trigger can be completed within a matter of hours if you fight Lavos right away, but it's disingenuous to pass that off as the length of the game and all that is has to offer.

I don't need to "imply" that NES and SNES games offered more content than today's games. They DID offer more true content than today's games.

That's just silly. Most NES games can be completed in an afternoon since they don't have the ability to save. SNES RPG lengths are similar if not shorter (not to mention games are relatively cheaper today) but I guess that doesn't matter since you will try to dismiss today's games as being filled with "false" or meaningless content.

You perceive "content" as an endless supply of similar and generic dungeons with no story or purpose that offer no real use or value other than mindlessly grinding, AKA, the bulk of the content of Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

I don't "perceive" content as anything other than what it is--the experience that makes up the game. The same could easily be said for almost any RPG including the beloved Final Fantasy series (come on, mindless grinding?). Games are repetitive by nature, which will be exaggerated if you don't enjoy the experience.

It's clear that you don't like the Bethesda games and that's fine. You also seem to be heavily jaded and blinded by nostalgia. But the point is that these games offer a tremendous amount of content for people who enjoy them. The existence of DLC does not somehow make them incomplete or magically shorter.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

Have you even played Fallout 3? If you want to fully explore the game world, it's more like a hundred hours of content. Sure, you can blow through the main quest in like seven, but you're missing the whole point of the game.

Heck, even the cartridge-based Final Fantasy games really didn't have that much _content_ - it was mostly grinding. Ah, hunting giants near Elfheim, or whatever the elf city was called in FF1. I ran through the FF1 remakes MUCH faster when the difficulty got turned down. It's a surprisingly linear game.

Someone needs to take off those rose-colored glasses.

Gotta love people cherry-picking my quote and not addressing the whole point. Sure, you could wander the wastes exploring generic dungeons populated with random enemies and loot that serve no purpose. If that's your thing, sure. I prefer content with a point, not one hundred random generic dungeons.

Hundred hours of content? Heh...that's some boring content. Hey look, a generic dungeon! Some random generic guys, some random generic loot, no real point! Hey look, another eerily similar generic dungeon! Some eerily similar random guys, some eerily similar random loot, no real point! x100

I'm not the one wearing rose-colored glasses. I can simply see that this facade of "content" that Fallout 3 and Oblivion claim is in fact nothing more than a small amount of content recylced over and over and over again.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: oznerol

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Nowadays, it is apparent that developers are intentionally cutting a game short in order to gouge you for DLC (/cough BETHESDA /cough).

That is bullshit. Oblivion and Fallout 3 offer a huge chunk of content on the disc--DLC is not needed to enjoy either of those games. To claim that those titles, or even something like Saints Row 2, were released unfinished or somehow cut short just because DLC is available is absolutely ludicrous.

And are you honestly implying that NES or SNES games offered more content than today's games?

Cool story, bro. Fallout 3 is a twenty-hour special, and that is being generous.

I don't need to "imply" that NES and SNES games offered more content than today's games. They DID offer more true content than today's games.

You perceive "content" as an endless supply of similar and generic dungeons with no story or purpose that offer no real use or value other than mindlessly grinding, AKA, the bulk of the content of Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

Keep your head in the sand, and keep saying LALALALA! as you pay $60 for a twenty-hour special and $5-$10 for each piece of two-hour DLC.

If you can take a break from being so ridiculously awesome, can you clue us in on some of these older games that you think have so much more content?

I was going to ask the same thing. Aside from the Final Fantasy games, and Zeldas what from the cartridge days had that much content? I could beat the mario and donky kong country games over a week, which is about the 10 hours the really low games take.

If you're only playing through Fallout and Oblivion for 20 hours then you're not getting the full experience. Mass effect took me a bit over 30 hours and I felt that was one of the shorter RPGs our right now.

Also, you must be a youngun as the NES and SNES games were at least as expensive as the current games if not more so... not even counting inflation and such. SNES games ranged from $50-80 depending on the game. Final Fantasy III (really FFIV these days) cost $80.

Games today are still a lot cheaper then they used to be, and there are still just as many long games as there used to be.

I still have my copy of Super Mario 3 that I bought brand new the day it came out. The same with my copy of Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Chrono Trigger, etc. You know what happens when you ASSUME, right?

Those games were expensive because they were CARTRIDGES, which was an expensive medium to manufacture. If they had been released on a CD format, they would have been $50 or less. Strawman argument is fallacious.

And I'd reckon that any Final Fantasy game from the SNES days on, Zelda game, Chrono Trigger, etc. has more "content" than Fallout 3 and Oblivion. And they did it without DLC.

It is amazing that consumers willing accept companies releasing halfway finished games then charging money for the rest of the game. The saying is true, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

The game companies are laughing all the way to the bank as they rush a game out the door, charge $60 for it, release a DLC pack the week after release, and all the fanbois eat it up and pay the $$$ and proclaim it the best thing ever!

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Gotta love people cherry-picking my quote and not addressing the whole point. Sure, you could wander the wastes exploring generic dungeons populated with random enemies and loot that serve no purpose. If that's your thing, sure. I prefer content with a point, not one hundred random generic dungeons.

Hundred hours of content? Heh...that's some boring content. Hey look, a generic dungeon! Some random generic guys, some random generic loot, no real point! Hey look, another eerily similar generic dungeon! Some eerily similar random guys, some eerily similar random loot, no real point! x100

I'm not the one wearing rose-colored glasses. I can simply see that this facade of "content" that Fallout 3 and Oblivion claim is in fact nothing more than a small amount of content recylced over and over and over again.

I'm not sure all your argument is on solid ground here. It's not like the old 2D RPGs didn't recycle content. Many of the old 2D Square RPGs have cave after cave for their dungeons with just different paths and a couple of different textures. And most of your time is spent just grinding against random enemy encounters... which are composed the same enemies over and over in any given area. The loot is the same way... the same stuff largely just drops over and over: "Hey, I just picked up my 34th tent!". I'd say this true even of the later SNES games.

Speaking of the SNES... you bring up SNES Zelda, but didn't that game basically attempt to lengthen the game by essentially giving you the same map, but slightly altered in the mirror world (or whatever it was called)? Sounds pretty much like the sort of thing your complaining about with modern games.

But go beyond RPGs and look at other games. There are countless 2D games that can be beaten in a single sitting. Even a classic like SMB1 can be beaten in under 10 minutes if you use the warps. Or think about all the old beat-em-ups (everything from Double Dragon to TMNT to Golden Axe), pretty much all of them can beaten in a single sitting.

Or let's consider the multiplayer modes and such that people are complaining are being left out of games only to be added back with DLC. During the era of games you're largely talking about such modes didn't even exist.

So while I'm definitely against a lot of DLC, I'm not really sure about this whole "content" debate when comparing old and modern games.

 

[Razgriz]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
However, too many game companies are exploiting it, deliberately removing necessary components of games, fully developed at time of release, in order to further bleed their customers dry.

This is the crux of the issue right here. Back in the day, when you bought a game, you got the entire game, period. Nowadays, it is apparent that developers are intentionally cutting a game short in order to gouge you for DLC (/cough BETHESDA /cough). Add in the fact that games cost $60 nowadays, and on average take about ten hours to beat (but wait, for $5, DLC will add another hour!), and gamers are getting royally screwed this generation.

There is also the issue that you're essentially paying for 1s and 0s and not a physical product. The only DLC I have purchased is some Rock Band songs, and I won't consider buying DLC for a game until it is released on disc in a Platinum Hits/Game of the Year edition.

I owned a ton of NES, SNES and PS1 games (probably 200 combined), but between my 360 and PS3, I don't even own ten games this generation. The game quality of this generation is pathetic, and DLC is one of the main culprits behind it, since developers know they can intentionally shaft the consumer on content and then charge them for it later. It has twisted the entire game development process, since instead of working to get all this cool content in the game, the developers can just say, "Ah, screw it, we'll just add it as paid DLC later!"

DLC :thumbsdown:

damn right...DLC is a bs trend and gamers nowadays are just eating it up. Companies now have no incentive to release a full game, they can just finish it halfway/ship it with bugs and charge $10-15 for 'content' or a 'patch' on top of the $60 for the rest. It's a slippery slope which does nothing for us, the gamers.

 

[Dumac]

I fucking HATE paid DLC, with a blazing hot passion. It is just another way for developers to try to nickel and dime customers. Look at Sims 3, with so much DLC available on release day that it probably costs more than the actual game to buy it all. Or other developers who put the content on the actual disc but make you download access to it. Or getting customers to pay for useless shit that should have been in the game to begin with (horse armor?).

What really sucks is that I always loved expansions. There was nothing like awaiting an expansion to a game you love, and then paying $30 to get another 40 hours of enjoyment out of the game. Even better was that the developers usually put time and effort into these expansions, and it showed. However, now with paid DLC, developers can release "mini expansions", which really are a crock of shit money grabbing scene. All they do is release a hardly worked on 5 hour expansion and charge $10 or $15 for it.

Really though, it is the fault of the consumer for buying this bullshit. (Notice: I haven't bought a single penny of DLC, excluding the expansion pack to Pixel Junk Monsters, if you count that as DLC)

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Queasy
If you don't like the DLC...don't buy it. Simple as that. If you think the DLC is a good value, buy it. It's just like any other game purchasing decision.

It isn't as simple as that. The "don't like it; don't buy it" is a cop-out argument. I don't like it, and I don't' buy it, but I still think that there is room to complain about something you don't like on an internet forum.

Especially when this DLC trend is causing developers to skip out on releasing the expansions that I love (when was the last real sized expansion?), and leaving out content that should have and could have easily been on the disc (day-of-release DLC and buying codes to unlock content?).

 

[mmntech]

As some of the others said, to me, DLC is worth it only if it's a significant expansion to the game. It's no different than the boxed expansion packs we had back in the day. However, with the price of games here back up to $70, its outrageous to ask for $5 or $10 just for a couple of cars as Burnout was doing. Considering you can pick up entire games on XBL and PSN for that, it just doesn't make sense. As someone above mentioned, there's also the controversy of publishers releasing DLC immediately after a game comes out, which could easily have been included. That's gouging, plain and simple. DLC done right is ok but there needs to be some sort of set pricing scheme and release timetable for it so it's fair to consumers. MS, Sony, and Nintendo all have the power to regulate that, as they do with other content.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Queasy
If you don't like the DLC...don't buy it. Simple as that. If you think the DLC is a good value, buy it. It's just like any other game purchasing decision.

It isn't as simple as that. The "don't like it; don't buy it" is a cop-out argument. I don't like it, and I don't' buy it, but I still think that there is room to complain about something you don't like on an internet forum.

Especially when this DLC trend is causing developers to skip out on releasing the expansions that I love (when was the last real sized expansion?), and leaving out content that should have and could have easily been on the disc (day-of-release DLC and buying codes to unlock content?).

I didn't say you couldn't complain. A vote with your dollar will probably have more impact though. Lame DLC should be called out. But I refuse to lump all DLC together to complain about and think DLC done right should be praised.

DLC is still very much in it's infancy so I think alot of developers are still working out the best way to handle it. Bethesda used Oblivion to experiment with different sized DLC (from horse armor to Shivering Isles) and still seems to be using Fallout 3 to narrow their focus on DLC moving forward. I believe others are doing the same.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Also, you must be a youngun as the NES and SNES games were at least as expensive as the current games if not more so... not even counting inflation and such. SNES games ranged from $50-80 depending on the game. Final Fantasy III (really FFIV these days) cost $80.

Yep. I remember getting NES Mario 2 for $70 Canadian. Most new SNES games were $70. The AAA titles like Chrono Trigger and Super Mario RPG would cost over $100. I remember the Playstation 1 having $50 new games and I thought "wow that's cheap" and the best selling PS1 games with the green label were only $20! Cheap games was why the PS1 beat the N64. N64 was still using ROM cartridges, so their games were still $70-80 new whereas the PS1 games were always $50.

It's also worth noting that Chrono Trigger and Mario RPG would count as "twenty hour specials". In Chrono Trigger, that part of the game called "the fated hour" is optional. You can either go kill Lavos or you can do each person's quests like the rainbow shell, ozzy's castle, fixing the forest, the black omen, the robot factory, etc. It always takes me at least 30 hours to beat Chrono Trigger, but it could probably be done in less tan 10 if you skipped all of the optional parts.

Hundred hours of content? Heh...that's some boring content. Hey look, a generic dungeon! Some random generic guys, some random generic loot, no real point! Hey look, another eerily similar generic dungeon! Some eerily similar random guys, some eerily similar random loot, no real point! x100

I think it's the music that kills Fallout 3 and earns Chrono Trigger a place in history. The reason I always do the rainbow shell quest in Chrono Trigger is because I love that dungeon's music. Fallout 3 has no good music, so it feels dull.

Also, Fallout 3's optional content isn't totally random and stupid. Most of it is somewhat interesting because it gives a sense of what the environment is like now and what it was before. The whole Tennpenny thing was well done. The city system is annoying as hell; I think it would have been better to just have above ground streets connecting everything instead of subways. It was nice to roam around the factories and read the ridiculous things scattered throughout such as the 911 call where it's obvious that the attacker is the one talking on the phone or the corporate email telling employees not to shove feces in the vending machine and stop attacking it with fire extinguishers. Oh and what to do in response to a "hostile takeover" involves taking cover behind your desk and using a gun. The oasis mission was interesting. The violin mission was nice because it gave a reason to explore the vaults and learn some of the twisted stories about clones, one of the vaults is designed to fail after 20 years, the violin vault has high frequency sound to make people crazy, the clone vault had a lack of entertainment and something like 10x the normal supply of weapons just to see what happens. It's really a great game if you give it a chance.

Those games were expensive because they were CARTRIDGES, which was an expensive medium to manufacture. If they had been released on a CD format, they would have been $50 or less. Strawman argument is fallacious.

Old games were still extremely expensive compared to today's games. Even if you take off $20 to account for the cost of the ROM cartridge, how much was Megaman? $40 US? Now how much was Megaman 9 which is basically Megaman 2 but hard as fuck? It was only $10. We were getting ripped off like crazy back in the NES and SNES days.