Bethesda Won't Commit To PS3 Fallout 3 Getting Ability To Play Post-Ending!

[Reasonable]

madskillz said:

Reasonable said:

madskillz said:
Interesting. When the DLC was announced for the 360/PC, PS3 bots were like 'So what.' Now, as details emerge and they find out they can play past the credits ... ahhhh ... they are screaming bloody murder. What's the deal? The DLC is extra content and an expansion that would naturally allow you to play past the credits.

It's not a conspiracy or the like - it wasn't like it was hidden, but that's what DLCs are, most times. FO3 owners on the Box and PC knew it would be an expansion.

What is there left to discuss?!

While PS3 owners shouldn't be going 'arghh unfair' I do think whether this type of thing is good for the consumer is something to discuss.

And when I say consumers I mean the average joe who doesn't check the internet to see if a game that takes his fancy is going to have paid for DLC on one system not available on another.

IMHO this trend of exclusive DLC is not good for gamers and I mean in all cases, whether the PS3, 360 or Wii versions get it. It's just a competitive weapon too far in my opinion. I'd rather developers had to place their bets fully and either be fully exclusive or fully multi-platform. Same for timed exclusives as well - another dumb competitive idea that I'd like to see the back of.

Maybe it's just my more PC gaming background, but I can't believe console gamers accept this as fair play to the extent they seem to. It's like buying a game and finding you have extra levels because you have an NVIDA card instead of ATI.

 

 

 

Consider this:

Without exclusive content/games on the table: Last gen would have shaken out a lot differently. Console-exclusive games killed the Xbox. The PS2 thrived with exclusive content like GTA, Final Fantasy, God of War, SOCOM, GT and other games. The Xbox was forced to play catch-up the entire time. Add to the fact that the NVidia lawsuit ended the Xbox's life and that's game over. Microsoft learns from their mistakes. They made a console and put it out first this gen. So what the RROD effected a lot of the first, second and even third wave of consoles. So what the Box could eat your disc. So what it wasn't a PS3. So what it doesn't have an HD player built in. What is had was ... a head start. Devs could spend more time with the console and get comfortable with it. They could build a following, and not have to feel obligated to try and design games with the more-than-difficult PS3 framework. And let's just be real - what if you found out MS offered them peanuts for the feature - the ability to play past your death? They likely paid for the content, but Sony could have offered to do the same thing.

Sony, my friend, is living off the past glory of the PS brand. They are like 'We don't pay for extra content.' MS is just laughing its way to the bank. They want to create tons of advantages over last-gen's past champ. They want to give gamers an awesome gaming experience, with stuff the much-more-expensive PS3 can't offer.

In the end, you and others may not feel the extra content is worth it, but a lot of other gamers don't feel the way you do.

Just look at how SONY is becoming more like MS - from their faux achievements - trophies - to adding rumble (which those clowns said was so last gen) to their controllers.

Business is business. You gain market share, you gain a following, you gain profits by being cutthroat. Successful businesses will do what it takes to make customers notice them and buy their product.

Everyone bought their console because they were sure it would have the best lineup. It's the manufacturers' fault if a console doesn't get the extra content and the like.

MS is making sure folks aren't just harping on lower price as the reason for better sales on the 360. Look at software, look at the extra content and expansions, look at the exclusive games. All of that adds a healthy advantage for MS.

 

Nothing I'd disagree with there, except again you miss I'm not saying DLC is worth it or not, I'm saying is it good for the consumer.  As the economy shows unrestrained business is not necessarily good for us, and my point is should we be allowing such business practices as buying exclusive DLC, particularly game changing DLC.

For the record I believe the current trend on DLC should be halted.  That's nothing to do with the DLC, it's content, who wants to pay who doesn't - it's to do with a view on acceptable levels of competition and unacceptable levels of competition.