By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - The importance of the DLC's. EA wants my money.

Doobie_wop on 01 April 2011
Games4Fun said:
Doobie_wop said:

DLC is great, adds more of what I love to what I love. It's also all optional and rarely ever hurts the main game, they aren't taking missions out of the original game and then selling it as DLC, they are creating DLC to add on top of the original game.


Except that is not always the case. Look at MK they are already talking about its DLC. They should have already been part of the game if they where wanting to put them in. YOu can say they are not takin gout missions and all from the original game, but when those things are being worked on and in cases are already done before a game comes out, Its a farce. The sooner DLC is gone the better. You could argue but what about when a game releases with a ton of glitches they need to fix them. They should have fixed any game breaking glitches before releaseing it and making you part of their testing teams. Its given companies a easy way to be lazy/save money/and make more money off you.

Plenty of games have been released in the past (last gen) that have been filled with issues, patches have stopped that from happening. Look at Metroid: Other M on the Wii, it had a game breaking issue and people had to send away their SD cards or Wii to fix the issues. That wouldn't have happened if they had a decent patching system in place. Developers aren't perfect, they can spend a whole year checking a game for busg and one can still get pass them, patching fixes that and I'm happy with it.

This is coming from someone who bought random games as a kid, came home and said game would barely run or glitched so badly that it was unplayable. 



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Around the Network
Games4Fun on 01 April 2011
Doobie_wop said:
Games4Fun said:
Doobie_wop said:

DLC is great, adds more of what I love to what I love. It's also all optional and rarely ever hurts the main game, they aren't taking missions out of the original game and then selling it as DLC, they are creating DLC to add on top of the original game.


Except that is not always the case. Look at MK they are already talking about its DLC. They should have already been part of the game if they where wanting to put them in. YOu can say they are not takin gout missions and all from the original game, but when those things are being worked on and in cases are already done before a game comes out, Its a farce. The sooner DLC is gone the better. You could argue but what about when a game releases with a ton of glitches they need to fix them. They should have fixed any game breaking glitches before releaseing it and making you part of their testing teams. Its given companies a easy way to be lazy/save money/and make more money off you.

Plenty of games have been released in the past (last gen) that have been filled with issues, patches have stopped that from happening. Look at Metroid: Other M on the Wii, it had a game breaking issue and people had to send away their SD cards or Wii to fix the issues. That wouldn't have happened if they had a decent patching system in place. Developers aren't perfect, they can spend a whole year checking a game for busg and one can still get pass them, patching fixes that and I'm happy with it.

This is coming from someone who bought random games as a kid, came home and said game would barely run or glitched so badly that it was unplayable. 


Wii can have patches thats how COD keeps getting debugged and WiiWare games like MM9 and 10 get extra content. Speaking of CoD its probably the perfect example of a game that should have been worked on more before release for all consoles. Yet for some reason it got scored really high with 100's of bugs that are game breaking. Well bugs that made a lot of perks weapons  and at least in Wii's case online not even working properly. It would have scored much less if there had been no way to use the customers as the testers as it should have been. A lot of devs have gotten lazy and really dont care if you are paying 40-60 for a game on day one full of bugs. They will just fix it later and maybe not at all. Its sad really. I never have encountered the Other M bug after 4 playthroughs so I guess im a lucky one. It would be interesting to see which companys release and how often games full of bugs, that even with patches never work completely right.

Oh I should have probably added. That not last gen as I never encountered any game breaking bugs, but during the NES and Sega days when we rented a game that have game breaking bugs we simply looked on the game and saw who made it and rarely messed with that company again. Which is exactly how it should be. Which is why Activision is back on my never buy a game from them again list. THough to be honest I have only bought two from them in the last 3gens.



Doobie_wop on 01 April 2011
Games4Fun said:
Doobie_wop said:
Games4Fun said:
Doobie_wop said:

DLC is great, adds more of what I love to what I love. It's also all optional and rarely ever hurts the main game, they aren't taking missions out of the original game and then selling it as DLC, they are creating DLC to add on top of the original game.


Except that is not always the case. Look at MK they are already talking about its DLC. They should have already been part of the game if they where wanting to put them in. YOu can say they are not takin gout missions and all from the original game, but when those things are being worked on and in cases are already done before a game comes out, Its a farce. The sooner DLC is gone the better. You could argue but what about when a game releases with a ton of glitches they need to fix them. They should have fixed any game breaking glitches before releaseing it and making you part of their testing teams. Its given companies a easy way to be lazy/save money/and make more money off you.

Plenty of games have been released in the past (last gen) that have been filled with issues, patches have stopped that from happening. Look at Metroid: Other M on the Wii, it had a game breaking issue and people had to send away their SD cards or Wii to fix the issues. That wouldn't have happened if they had a decent patching system in place. Developers aren't perfect, they can spend a whole year checking a game for busg and one can still get pass them, patching fixes that and I'm happy with it.

This is coming from someone who bought random games as a kid, came home and said game would barely run or glitched so badly that it was unplayable. 


Wii can have patches thats how COD keeps getting debugged and WiiWare games like MM9 and 10 get extra content. Speaking of CoD its probably the perfect example of a game that should have been worked on more before release for all consoles. Yet for some reason it got scored really high with 100's of bugs that are game breaking. Well bugs that made a lot of perks weapons  and at least in Wii's case online not even working properly. It would have scored much less if there had been no way to use the customers as the testers as it should have been. A lot of devs have gotten lazy and really dont care if you are paying 40-60 for a game on day one full of bugs. They will just fix it later and maybe not at all.

That isn't true though, it must be your nostalgia, but so many games were broken before this generation and we as consumers had no way of fixing them without returning the game and getting our money back. Grand Theft Auto 3 was a mess, you'd fall through the ground at random, things would constantly get stuck in the geometry and it'd freeze or glitch like crazy. We just chose to ignore the issues that games had because we couldn't fix them, we were too ignorant to make it an issue or we had no way of making it known to everyone else.

Most games get patched quickly and easily these days and they are sometimes for the smallest things (slight screen tearing in Darksiders, slight pause in Lords of Shadow, bug in Medal of Honour). Hell, GT5 was probably the most content filled game of the last few years and they still released a massive patch adding in a whole bunch of free new features and fixing any issues that the community may have had with the game.

Devs aren't lazy, it's just that there are some bad devs, which is same thing as the past, you had the good devs and the bad devs. Good devs will release a tight game with barely any issues, bad devs will release a game filled with issues, the difference today is that the bad devs still have a chance at fixing the serious issues that they had with their game. 



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Games4Fun on 01 April 2011
Doobie_wop said:
Games4Fun said:
Doobie_wop said:
Games4Fun said:
Doobie_wop said:

DLC is great, adds more of what I love to what I love. It's also all optional and rarely ever hurts the main game, they aren't taking missions out of the original game and then selling it as DLC, they are creating DLC to add on top of the original game.


Except that is not always the case. Look at MK they are already talking about its DLC. They should have already been part of the game if they where wanting to put them in. YOu can say they are not takin gout missions and all from the original game, but when those things are being worked on and in cases are already done before a game comes out, Its a farce. The sooner DLC is gone the better. You could argue but what about when a game releases with a ton of glitches they need to fix them. They should have fixed any game breaking glitches before releaseing it and making you part of their testing teams. Its given companies a easy way to be lazy/save money/and make more money off you.

Plenty of games have been released in the past (last gen) that have been filled with issues, patches have stopped that from happening. Look at Metroid: Other M on the Wii, it had a game breaking issue and people had to send away their SD cards or Wii to fix the issues. That wouldn't have happened if they had a decent patching system in place. Developers aren't perfect, they can spend a whole year checking a game for busg and one can still get pass them, patching fixes that and I'm happy with it.

This is coming from someone who bought random games as a kid, came home and said game would barely run or glitched so badly that it was unplayable. 


Wii can have patches thats how COD keeps getting debugged and WiiWare games like MM9 and 10 get extra content. Speaking of CoD its probably the perfect example of a game that should have been worked on more before release for all consoles. Yet for some reason it got scored really high with 100's of bugs that are game breaking. Well bugs that made a lot of perks weapons  and at least in Wii's case online not even working properly. It would have scored much less if there had been no way to use the customers as the testers as it should have been. A lot of devs have gotten lazy and really dont care if you are paying 40-60 for a game on day one full of bugs. They will just fix it later and maybe not at all.

That isn't true though, it must be your nostalgia, but so many games were broken before this generation and we as consumers had no way of fixing them without returning the game and getting our money back. Grand Theft Auto 3 was a mess, you'd fall through the ground at random, things would constantly get stuck in the geometry and it'd freeze or glitch like crazy. We just chose to ignore the issues that games had because we couldn't fix them, we were too ignorant to make it an issue or we had no way of making it known to everyone else.

Most games get patched quickly and easily these days and they are sometimes for the smallest things (slight screen tearing in Darksiders, slight pause in Lords of Shadow, bug in Medal of Honour). Hell, GT5 was probably the most content filled game of the last few years and they still released a massive patch adding in a whole bunch of free new features and fixing any issues that the community may have had with the game.

Devs aren't lazy, it's just that there are some bad devs, which is same thing as the past, you had the good devs and the bad devs. Good devs will release a tight game with barely any issues, bad devs will release a game filled with issues, the difference today is that the bad devs still have a chance at fixing the serious issues that they had with their game. 


???? not sure what you are referring to that I have bolded 1st.  2nd bolded Eh i call them lazy you call them bad in the end we mean the same thing. I just say lazy because there is no way they dont know that many bugs are in there if they had done a decent amount of testing. I in the last few gens rarely have come acrossed any big bugs and not any gamebreaking bugs. So more examples might help me think of some (not GTA as I dont like them and dont play them). Still in the end we will have to agree to disagree. If I buy a game and its full of game breaking bugs the day I buy it im likely not going to be buying any game that company makes for quite some time. Unless of course it is from a company that has plenty of games I enjoyed already out. Still i will be very weary of it for some time. Even when they fix them.



sergiodaly on 01 April 2011
radiantshadow92 said:
sergiodaly said:
radiantshadow92 said:

For this example i agree with you. But as a whole i do not see DLC as abuse, i see it as extra. You know what you are buying before you buy and anything extra comes at a price. Which is fine by me. I just wish Sucker Punch could do the same as EA sometimes because i want some inFAMOUS DLC xD

well i wish sucker punch never gets into that... inFamous was very good by its own and dont need anything else imo... and sucker punch is doing the efford so inFamous 2 will never ever need any type of DLC (other than new powers) since the comunity can build and upload missions so others can play user created missions, if you have that, what do you need DLC for???

Some new powers for inFAMOUS one would be great. I still play it, and see tons of bugs that could have been patched yet they show no support after the game was released. What up with that?! I mean yeah the game is amazing, but some dlc don't hurt.

fair enough... patchs are way different from DLC or payed DLC... i also think inFamous one could have some extra powers in DLC, but not payed DLC... things like that could be given away when you plat the game or something. Sucker Punch did not give much support after release, i will give you that... but payed DLC is not the anwser imo...

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Around the Network
izaaz101 on 03 April 2011

There'll come a day when you have to purchase DLC in order to gain access to the last level of a game.



MrBubbles on 03 April 2011

DLC is not an "extra" when the day the game is released there is TONS of shit already on the Marketplace.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

radiantshadow92 on 03 April 2011
MrBubbles said:

DLC is not an "extra" when the day the game is released there is TONS of shit already on the Marketplace.


They do that so that people don't buy used copies of the games. Honestly, i think EA has been going about it fine. They sell a special edition which enables the download of the dlc and if you buy it used then you are screwed, which is the way i think it should be. Buying a game for 5 dollars cheaper and not giving the devs anything is just fucked up.



Killiana1a on 03 April 2011

Every publisher is guilty of this scam where the DLC is on the game disc, but you have to pay for it in order to activate it.

Blaming EA is as easy as hating Activision due to Kotick. You decide which is the greater evil. The company which will ban you from playing Dragon Age 2 because you call them "devils" in a forum post on one of their dev's websites or some head honcho who makes ludicrous statements, while killing their own golden cows?



radiantshadow92 on 04 April 2011
RolStoppable said:
radiantshadow92 said:
MrBubbles said:

DLC is not an "extra" when the day the game is released there is TONS of shit already on the Marketplace.

They do that so that people don't buy used copies of the games. Honestly, i think EA has been going about it fine. They sell a special edition which enables the download of the dlc and if you buy it used then you are screwed, which is the way i think it should be. Buying a game for 5 dollars cheaper and not giving the devs anything is just fucked up.

Selling a game for $60 that isn't worth that much is worse. That's why copies end up in the used games store in the first place.

Companies could use DLC to reward people who keep their copies and don't sell them back. A new copy (at standard price) comes with a code that gives you access to all DLC that will be free of charge. People who buy used need an online pass to access all that free DLC. There, that's a much more consumer friendly solution which ultimately would benefit companies more than their current practices.

Thats exactly what EA does.....Thats what i was saying lol