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

Forums - Gaming - this is one of the funniest tings i ever so and so true

wolfofthepack on 19 March 2013
crissindahouse said:
wolfofthepack said:
crissindahouse said:
 

sure but the game itself is still playable and the extra stuff of the past was something only very few gamers even needed. now they give people who don't need all that a game they can play through and be happy with it for the same price as years ago (i even pay less nowadays as 15 years ago) and for those who want more they give us dlc. gamers always complain about almost everything when they talk about developers but they never want to accept they they are probably the reason for some problems in the industry.

they want games which need 5-10x as many people to work on it (and loan costs are a big factor in this branch) but they don't want to pay maybe 20% more for those games then. 

yes we get day one dlc nowadays but why? because otherwise the game can't be profitable nowadays. if they could take 70 or 80 dollar instead of 60 for the games we would probably not have the day one dlc anymore. and i even prefer this new system because i don#t really miss the dlc stuff in most games which means instead of paying 20 bucks more for every game (which would be fair) i pay still the same or even less as 10-15 years ago and only have to buy dlc for very few games like halo. for me, gaming is cheaper as in the past even with some dlc i buy for very few games, not sure what i can complain about that.


u pay less cause u get less nowadays how long are campaings now?  they stick u with nonsense miultpalyer aimlessly killing ! and then brng out dlc that could have been put there in the first place to give the game substance and more to do! thats y i stay away from certain genres  particularly shooters

like i said, if you as gamer don't want to pay for the increasing costs it's your problem and not the developers fault. you can't expect to get still the same amount of content as 10 or 15 years ago and have 10x as many people working on the game who even need a loan increase from time to time because they also have to live.

i'm pretty sure developers would love to get 100 euro for a game. i'm also sure if they could sell the same amount of games for 100 euro, that we wouldn't have so much dlc nowadays and that we would have maybe bigger worlds in games but they don't get the money and they have to work with what they get or can expect to get.

and that is y studios are closing down and developers being laid off u expect us to buy these nonsense with shorter campaigns and  nonsense multi player! we know wat we had long ago and most people are not willing to accept !  i have no problem pay 100 euro or wateva for a game when i know i am getting a game with substtance and worth my money dont tell me day 1 dlc or dlc coming on this day only to find out it was on the disc to begin with and u are simply send some code or wateva to unlock it! so if u want to settle for less and indugle this pratice be my guess!



Around the Network
radiantshadow92 on 19 March 2013

for those thinking that parts of games are being cut out before release u have no proof and journalist would jump on the chance to report it. I will however complain about how dlc is being managed. its so confusing these days



wolfofthepack on 19 March 2013
radiantshadow92 said:
for those thinking that parts of games are being cut out before release u have no proof and journalist would jump on the chance to report it. I will however complain about how dlc is being managed. its so confusing these days


K kool so justify day 1 dlc for me please!



sethnintendo on 19 March 2013
Barozi said:
JoeTheBro said:
Barozi said:
Just because you think this is the truth doesn't make it true.


Sure, but it is true.


that is your opinion.

Just look at Blizzard....  They used to release one expansion pack per game (excluding WoW).  Now they split SC2 into 3 parts probably with the influence of Activision.

Civ 5 has 1 expansion pack already released and another one announced.  Civ3 had 2 expansions (not sure on 4 but probably 2 or 3 expansions).  Now you have DLC for individual races, scenarios, maps, etc on top of expansion packs.  So now you have expansion packs on top of DLC for Civ5.



radiantshadow92 on 19 March 2013
wolfofthepack said:
radiantshadow92 said:
for those thinking that parts of games are being cut out before release u have no proof and journalist would jump on the chance to report it. I will however complain about how dlc is being managed. its so confusing these days


K kool so justify day 1 dlc for me please!


its a gift to day 1 buyers of the game what else is there to explain?  day 1 dlc is usually dlc when u buy the game new though in which case it supports buyers to get the game new. Also back to day 1 dlc, it usually isn't more then a skin or gun.



Around the Network
radiantshadow92 on 19 March 2013
sethnintendo said:
Barozi said:
JoeTheBro said:
Barozi said:
Just because you think this is the truth doesn't make it true.


Sure, but it is true.


that is your opinion.

Just look at Blizzard....  They used to release one expansion pack per game (excluding WoW).  Now they split SC2 into 3 parts.  Probably with the influence of Activision.  Civ 5 has 1 expansion pack already released and another one announced.  Civ3 had 2 expansions (not sure on 4 but probably 2 or 3 expansions).  Now you have DLC for individual races, scenarios, etc on top of expansion packs.  So now you have expansion packs on top of DLC.

ok u really wanna get into sc2 lol. First of all, Sc1 also had an expansion called broodwar so this isn't anything new. secondly, the new hots campaign has the same ammount of missions that WOL had AND it adds so many new units. the expansions are things they have been working on for years and continue to do so and its so that they can fix past mistakes with balance and unit design and refresh the entire scene with new units. There is no similarity between expansions and dlc. Expansions expand the game usually to extend the life of the original. sc2 has had no dlc since release just constant support and patches from blizz.



Barozi on 19 March 2013
wolfofthepack said:
crissindahouse said:
wolfofthepack said:
crissindahouse said:

don't know, i still have the feeling that games are "complete" when i buy them even without dlc. people complain a lot about day one dlc but it's not as if i would miss that if i wouldn't know abou it. sometimes i think people only complain because they know there is a dlc, if there wouldn't be a dlc they wouldn't really recognize that they miss something in the game.

but hey gamers, it's your fault that we have so much dlc stuff nowadays, you didn't want to pay more for the games even with a lot of increasing costs for game development so it's you own fault. i mean, what is the difference if i "have to" buy some dlc for 20 bucks or if i would buy a game for 80 bucks nowadays instead of 60 to get the full game with dlc included? i pay even less for games as 10 years or more ago, i don't really see the problem.

gamers are really the only people i know who aren't willing to pay more for their hobby as years ago even when inflation is something everyone should expect..



dont agree with u at all take for  1 example resident evil 4 when the game is completed  look how much tings open up after ! this is how it use to be long time with those kind of games after the main quest they then offer side quest and and other story additional but now instead of that they are passing it of as payable DLc that is being completed the same time as the relevant game . Am not complaining about it cause i have never bought a dlc or add on and dont plan to  ever ! i just thought the pic was very funny but same time tru !

sure but the game itself is still playable and the extra stuff of the past was something only very few gamers even needed. now they give people who don't need all that a game they can play through and be happy with it for the same price as years ago (i even pay less nowadays as 15 years ago) and for those who want more they give us dlc. gamers always complain about almost everything when they talk about developers but they never want to accept they they are probably the reason for some problems in the industry.

they want games which need 5-10x as many people to work on it (and loan costs are a big factor in this branch) but they don't want to pay maybe 20% more for those games then. 

yes we get day one dlc nowadays but why? because otherwise the game can't be profitable nowadays. if they could take 70 or 80 dollar instead of 60 for the games we would probably not have the day one dlc anymore. and i even prefer this new system because i don#t really miss the dlc stuff in most games which means instead of paying 20 bucks more for every game (which would be fair) i pay still the same or even less as 10-15 years ago and only have to buy dlc for very few games like halo. for me, gaming is cheaper as in the past even with some dlc i buy for very few games, not sure what i can complain about that.


u pay less cause u get less nowadays how long are campaings now?  they stick u with nonsense miultpalyer aimlessly killing ! and then brng out dlc that could have been put there in the first place to give the game substance and more to do! thats y i stay away from certain genres  particularly shooters

You should replay older games now and you will realize that most of them are only longer because they backtrack a lot. That bad game design was pretty common a generation or two ago. Now developers are getting punished for it and it's the exception.
The next part is unclear objectives where you're running around a level and have no clue what to do or where to go.
And finally "new" areas that use exactly the same terrain, textures, buildings whatever. Pretty much a copy of a previous area/level. Also a bad way to extend campaigns.

Adding all those stuff, A game like Call of Duty would suddenly be 10 hours long instead of 5 or 6. But at the cost of quality.

It's okay if you don't like multiplayer, but it's a fact that it's adding more replay value than anything else you could do.



sethnintendo on 19 March 2013
radiantshadow92 said:
sethnintendo said:
Barozi said:
JoeTheBro said:
Barozi said:
Just because you think this is the truth doesn't make it true.


Sure, but it is true.


that is your opinion.

Just look at Blizzard....  They used to release one expansion pack per game (excluding WoW).  Now they split SC2 into 3 parts.  Probably with the influence of Activision.  Civ 5 has 1 expansion pack already released and another one announced.  Civ3 had 2 expansions (not sure on 4 but probably 2 or 3 expansions).  Now you have DLC for individual races, scenarios, etc on top of expansion packs.  So now you have expansion packs on top of DLC.

ok u really wanna get into sc2 lol. First of all, Sc1 also had an expansion called broodwar so this isn't anything new. secondly, the new hots campaign has the same ammount of missions that WOL had AND it adds so many new units. the expansions are things they have been working on for years and continue to do so and its so that they can fix past mistakes with balance and unit design and refresh the entire scene with new units. There is no similarity between expansions and dlc. Expansions expand the game usually to extend the life of the original. sc2 has had no dlc since release just constant support and patches from blizz.

Oh I will get into SC2 if you want...  I used to be a big time Blizzard fan.  So they added more single player missions while splitting into 3?  Isn't that a fucking given?  You might not be butthurt about what Blizzard did with SC2 but plenty of SC1 fans will easily disagree with you. 

You want to know a game mixing DLC with expansions?  Just look at my Civ5 example.



radiantshadow92 on 19 March 2013
sethnintendo said:
radiantshadow92 said:
sethnintendo said:
Barozi said:
JoeTheBro said:
Barozi said:
Just because you think this is the truth doesn't make it true.


Sure, but it is true.


that is your opinion.

Just look at Blizzard....  They used to release one expansion pack per game (excluding WoW).  Now they split SC2 into 3 parts.  Probably with the influence of Activision.  Civ 5 has 1 expansion pack already released and another one announced.  Civ3 had 2 expansions (not sure on 4 but probably 2 or 3 expansions).  Now you have DLC for individual races, scenarios, etc on top of expansion packs.  So now you have expansion packs on top of DLC.

ok u really wanna get into sc2 lol. First of all, Sc1 also had an expansion called broodwar so this isn't anything new. secondly, the new hots campaign has the same ammount of missions that WOL had AND it adds so many new units. the expansions are things they have been working on for years and continue to do so and its so that they can fix past mistakes with balance and unit design and refresh the entire scene with new units. There is no similarity between expansions and dlc. Expansions expand the game usually to extend the life of the original. sc2 has had no dlc since release just constant support and patches from blizz.

Oh I will get into SC2 if you want...  I used to be a big time Blizzard fan.  So they added more single player missions while splitting into 3?  Isn't that a fucking given?  You might not be butthurt about what Blizzard did with SC2 but plenty of SC1 fans will easily disagree with you. 

You want to know a game mixing DLC with expansions?  Just look at my Civ5 example.

any long time blizz fan is still their fan because sc2 is an amazing game. esports has never been bigger and sc2 pro players earn more then sc1 players ever could with bw. every bw player is now an sc2 pro player and the scene hasnt been happier since the release of hots. please point me to the sc1 fans that are butthurt over sc2 because the truth is that its not even 1 percent of sc2 fans. anyone that visits teamliquid or screddit *the two biggest starcraft sources and where the community lives* would know this.



Barozi on 19 March 2013
radiantshadow92 said:
wolfofthepack said:
radiantshadow92 said:
for those thinking that parts of games are being cut out before release u have no proof and journalist would jump on the chance to report it. I will however complain about how dlc is being managed. its so confusing these days


K kool so justify day 1 dlc for me please!


its a gift to day 1 buyers of the game what else is there to explain?  day 1 dlc is usually dlc when u buy the game new though in which case it supports buyers to get the game new. Also back to day 1 dlc, it usually isn't more then a skin or gun.

I just don't know why people think that certain DLC content would've been in the game if DLC never existed.
Apparently all developers used to be cool back in the days and would've given you that stuff for free, because they were bored or felt generous and now because of DLC they're all evil and cheap.
In a sense, the first part is true. Why ? Because skins used to be the same for everything just with a different colour. Takes 2 minutes to create one. Same for "new" characters. They simply use a template of an already existing character.

Games are getting more complex now, so it's understandable that there are less characters, outfits or whatever in games. And if they try to add a new one it takes much much much longer than just 2 minutes, so it's clear that the publishers who are paying the devs want some money back.
But that's no reason to think that this stuff would've been in the game if it weren't for DLC.