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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - All Day 1 DLC is a BIG F*** You To Us Gamers, Agree or Disagree? (Releasing A Game Thats Incomplete for Extra $$)

AZWification on 23 April 2014

I am pretty indifferent to day 1 DLC and I generally tend to avoid it. On-disc DLC on the other hand makes me want to punch a puppy! >:(



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Around the Network
brendude13 on 23 April 2014
Kasz216 said:

Except generally developers don't know what needs patching until after people play it.

Once the game goes gold, as far as they know it's perfect.

I really, really disagree with this.

Unless it's an infrequent or insignificant bug, developers know about it.



Ponyless on 23 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kasz216 said:
Here is the thing. It's not like developers finish the game, and then it's released the next day.

There is at LEAST a couple week period after printing the cds, boxing the games and shipping them out.



So why not day 1 DLC if it was completed between CD Printing and release day? They should just wait 6 months to make people happy?

Well that probably explains why so many games are released broken. The devs get busy with DLC instead of priortising patches for their broken games.

I know people will argue with this but almost every PS3 game ive had has required me to install a patch, so its not like the games dont need patching.

Its not logical to release paid content for an incomplete game before releasing the patches which fix the game to the standard it should have been at when it went gold.


Except generally developers don't know what needs patching until after people play it.

Once the game goes gold, as far as they know it's perfect.

I'm having a  really really really hard time imagining someone at EA staring at Battlefield 4 or someone at Bethesda staring at skyrim or fallout new vegas and thinking to themselves "Hmm you know what, this game is perfect, definitely no issues that make the game crash on you within the first 20 minutes or corrupt your save Data,  A+ game right here"



DarkD on 23 April 2014
brendude13 said:
Kasz216 said:

Except generally developers don't know what needs patching until after people play it.

Once the game goes gold, as far as they know it's perfect.

I really, really disagree with this.

Unless it's an infrequent or insignificant bug, developers know about it.


Bugs are covered by coders, not by graphics artists or animators.  Those people don't really have anything to do even as early as beta.  They usually get jobs like advertising and maybe touching up the odd graphics.  Tell me, exactly where are coders in DLC?  They are the people who fix bugs, and allow new effects to take place.  For instance, if they want to add a weapons maintenance feature to a game, that would be DLC that a coder is responsible for.  A change of outfit is one that graphics artists are responsible for.  



prayformojo on 24 April 2014
naruball said:
prayformojo said:
naruball said:
prayformojo said:
Here's the deal. Back in the day, when consoles weren't connected to the internet, companies COULDN'T chop up a game and sell it for more than whatever retail was. Now that they can, they are. It's not like they are getting more greedy. It's just that they have new ways to BE greedy and they're taking advantage of it.

If people don't like it, find a new hobby or play indie only. That's my opinion.

Also, back in the day the games were much, MUCH shorter. You could literally beat some of them in less than an hour. Without any cheats or anything. There was no way to save your progress or similar check points. The difficulty made games seems longer than they were. Do you think that in terms of content we don't get more now even without the dlc? From my experience, it sure seems to be the case.

Do we get more than the NES days? Sure. But the PS2 ear? No way. Games like, say, Mortal Kombat? Back on the PS2, they let you unlock rosters. Now? You have to buy those fighters etc. Games were much more packed 10 years ago then they are now...and ten bucks cheaper to boot lol

Good point. I forgot about the ps2 era. I didn't game that much back then, so I'm not sure whether overall things were better, but I assume they were. The difference now is that in order to create AAA games, the development cycle is much longer if a company wants to create good graphics. If you go to the comment section of the latest spiderman game, you'll see that everyone is bashing it for its non spectacular graphics. So, the cost of production must have risen after the ps2 era, hence several studios closing after  a game or two failing to sell well. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think since the HD era, games cost more, but don't necessarily sell more, so the developers have to make more money from each game somehow. Special editions help and so does DLC.


You are correct. AAA games do cost alot more now than they did then. But do they cost so much more as to warrant (in some cases) another $30.00? I don't know. But then again, that shouldn't be our concern as consumers. We don't owe publishers anything.We shouldn't be made to feel like we need to pay upwards of $80.00 for a game. If these developers can't make a profit on a game at $60.00, maybe it's time they changed how they do business.



Around the Network
vizunary on 24 April 2014

It's completely bullshit, but then again people keep buying it so we f**k ourselves with this one. Just Say No To Crack... And Day One DLC



naruball on 24 April 2014
prayformojo said:
naruball said:

Good point. I forgot about the ps2 era. I didn't game that much back then, so I'm not sure whether overall things were better, but I assume they were. The difference now is that in order to create AAA games, the development cycle is much longer if a company wants to create good graphics. If you go to the comment section of the latest spiderman game, you'll see that everyone is bashing it for its non spectacular graphics. So, the cost of production must have risen after the ps2 era, hence several studios closing after  a game or two failing to sell well. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think since the HD era, games cost more, but don't necessarily sell more, so the developers have to make more money from each game somehow. Special editions help and so does DLC.


You are correct. AAA games do cost alot more now than they did then. But do they cost so much more as to warrant (in some cases) another $30.00? I don't know. But then again, that shouldn't be our concern as consumers. We don't owe publishers anything.We shouldn't be made to feel like we need to pay upwards of $80.00 for a game. If these developers can't make a profit on a game at $60.00, maybe it's time they changed how they do business.

I do think they do. Maybe I'm wrong or simply wasn't following news so closely during the ps2 era, but AAA games like Tomb Raider prove that production costs have increased more than people realize. Same with FF13. In order to create such good graphics, complicated worlds etc. the resource needed must be insane. Financial reports from different companies show that games like Just Dance are the real goldmines. It is also the reason that the wii made so much money for ninty last gen. The games might be great, but in terms of resources needed are nowhere near the equivalant ps4/30 games.

As for the consumer, it seems to me that he doesn't mind paying for DLC as long as he doens't know that it's on disc. In other words, what they need to do is make a game, remove features and sell them to you later. That way both the consumer and the publisher are happy. As a consumer, I have realistic expectations from a developer. I don't want them to go bankrupt because I'm the customer and thus always right.

The only two types of DLC that I think should be criticized is Asura's Wrath, which requires you to buy an expensive dlc to see the freaking ending of the game and COD by removing guns from previous games and selling them later as DLC. Everything else is fine. I don't buy DLC (with very few exceptions) but I have no problem with people paying money to get Ryu in the same outfit, but different colour.



sales2099 on 24 April 2014

Well if suckers buy it, why should they stop?

Hit them where it hurts, their quarterly statement. Wait a year for the "Complete package edition" with all DLC included for a fraction of the cost.

I know asking for a gamer to use willpower is like asking a thirsty man in the desert to not have a drink of water but we should at least try



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Alby_da_Wolf on 24 April 2014
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Agreed and so is On-Disc DLC

Well, on-disc DLC is even worse actually. Anyway, both, together with the high price buying all the best expansions/later DLC can already reach also for games that aren't plagued by such fishy policies, make me want even more to wait for later complete editions and avoid buying day one.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


prayformojo on 24 April 2014
naruball said:
prayformojo said:
naruball said:
 

Good point. I forgot about the ps2 era. I didn't game that much back then, so I'm not sure whether overall things were better, but I assume they were. The difference now is that in order to create AAA games, the development cycle is much longer if a company wants to create good graphics. If you go to the comment section of the latest spiderman game, you'll see that everyone is bashing it for its non spectacular graphics. So, the cost of production must have risen after the ps2 era, hence several studios closing after  a game or two failing to sell well. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think since the HD era, games cost more, but don't necessarily sell more, so the developers have to make more money from each game somehow. Special editions help and so does DLC.


You are correct. AAA games do cost alot more now than they did then. But do they cost so much more as to warrant (in some cases) another $30.00? I don't know. But then again, that shouldn't be our concern as consumers. We don't owe publishers anything.We shouldn't be made to feel like we need to pay upwards of $80.00 for a game. If these developers can't make a profit on a game at $60.00, maybe it's time they changed how they do business.

I do think they do. Maybe I'm wrong or simply wasn't following news so closely during the ps2 era, but AAA games like Tomb Raider prove that production costs have increased more than people realize. Same with FF13. In order to create such good graphics, complicated worlds etc. the resource needed must be insane. Financial reports from different companies show that games like Just Dance are the real goldmines. It is also the reason that the wii made so much money for ninty last gen. The games might be great, but in terms of resources needed are nowhere near the equivalant ps4/30 games.

As for the consumer, it seems to me that he doesn't mind paying for DLC as long as he doens't know that it's on disc. In other words, what they need to do is make a game, remove features and sell them to you later. That way both the consumer and the publisher are happy. As a consumer, I have realistic expectations from a developer. I don't want them to go bankrupt because I'm the customer and thus always right.

The only two types of DLC that I think should be criticized is Asura's Wrath, which requires you to buy an expensive dlc to see the freaking ending of the game and COD by removing guns from previous games and selling them later as DLC. Everything else is fine. I don't buy DLC (with very few exceptions) but I have no problem with people paying money to get Ryu in the same outfit, but different colour.

I guess the market will decide what it wants to support. I know personally, I am not willing to pay more than $60.00 for ANY game. Gaming is entertainment and thus, not #1 on my list of priorities. Maybe when I was 21 years old, you'd have seen me spending $1,000 in games on a $1,500 TV, dressed in rags, bumming my Mom's car and using a 10 year old gheto PC. But I'm not that way anymore. So if games continue on this sort of incline, I guess it'll be indie for me. Which, isn't all that bad really considering how good they've gotten.