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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Xenoblade Chronicles X will have paid DLC quests

sundin13 said:
Dr.Vita said:


They released already DLC's on Mario Kart 8.


I know...but for some reason people decide to assume the worse whenever the mention of DLC comes up in relation to Nintendo.


To be honest, for many people this could also be due to the fact that many Nintendo fans (especially here on vgchartz) have been quite vocal about DLC and how it is ruining gaming (a point I partially agree with, to tell the truth, I have never bought DLC myself but I have bought Gold Editions where it is added, or GOTY editions). But the same folks are mostly quite accepting of Nintendo's DLC. For me; DLC is not good news no matter who makes it and you often get very little content for an unfair price (Oblivion and Dragon Age:Origins are the most ridiculous examples here).

Expansion packs are cool and I get those all the time, especially the bigger ones for strategy games and the like, but DLC is a blight on the industry imo.



Around the Network
Mummelmann said:

To be honest, for many people this could also be due to the fact that many Nintendo fans (especially here on vgchartz) have been quite vocal about DLC and how it is ruining gaming (a point I partially agree with, to tell the truth, I have never bought DLC myself but I have bought Gold Editions where it is added, or GOTY editions). But the same folks are mostly quite accepting of Nintendo's DLC. For me; DLC is not good news no matter who makes it and you often get very little content for an unfair price (Oblivion and Dragon Age:Origins are the most ridiculous examples here).

Expansion packs are cool and I get those all the time, especially the bigger ones for strategy games and the like, but DLC is a blight on the industry imo.


Evaluating DLC still should be on a case by case basis, so when I see people kicking and screaming about the mere mention of DLC in a 300 hour game, I can't help but think that this is simply too much.

While I too don't often purchase DLC, I have rarely played a game where I felt like I needed to. I think there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere between acceptable DLC and bad DLC, and I think that DLC in a 300 hour game is so radically far on the acceptable side of that line. Only when the game doesn't feel like a complete package, or the game employs certain shady mechanisms should DLC really be criticized imo.

When you have games like Evolve which seem to exist as a marketplace for overpriced DLC, that should be criticized. When you have full priced games like The Last of Us utilizing Pay to Win mechanics in its multiplayer, that should be criticized. Unexplained DLC quests in a game with 300 hours worth of content? At least wait until we know what the DLC is before freaking out.



sundin13 said:
Mummelmann said:

To be honest, for many people this could also be due to the fact that many Nintendo fans (especially here on vgchartz) have been quite vocal about DLC and how it is ruining gaming (a point I partially agree with, to tell the truth, I have never bought DLC myself but I have bought Gold Editions where it is added, or GOTY editions). But the same folks are mostly quite accepting of Nintendo's DLC. For me; DLC is not good news no matter who makes it and you often get very little content for an unfair price (Oblivion and Dragon Age:Origins are the most ridiculous examples here).

Expansion packs are cool and I get those all the time, especially the bigger ones for strategy games and the like, but DLC is a blight on the industry imo.


Evaluating DLC still should be on a case by case basis, so when I see people kicking and screaming about the mere mention of DLC in a 300 hour game, I can't help but think that this is simply too much.

While I too don't often purchase DLC, I have rarely played a game where I felt like I needed to. I think there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere between acceptable DLC and bad DLC, and I think that DLC in a 300 hour game is so radically far on the acceptable side of that line. Only when the game doesn't feel like a complete package, or the game employs certain shady mechanisms should DLC really be criticized imo.

When you have games like Evolve which seem to exist as a marketplace for overpriced DLC, that should be criticized. When you have full priced games like The Last of Us utilizing Pay to Win mechanics in its multiplayer, that should be criticized. Unexplained DLC quests in a game with 300 hours worth of content? At least wait until we know what the DLC is before freaking out.


I agree with your point about evaluating each case, my problem with DLC is that is more often than not quite useless and it sets precedence for unfair pricing on low value content, which impacts the whole industry in a negative way.
This might be good DLC, who knows, I just sometimes find it strange when someone is fiercely opposed to a concept or idea for a long time, only to fully accept it when someone they're a fan of does the same thing (not talking about you here, I've been here a long time and I know most veteran users' stance on DLC since the early years of the 7th gen).

There is good DLC as well, but that is rather the exception to the rule, unfortunately.



People should stop complaining about DLCs. Everybody loves shiny games with newer tech, massive open worlds and everything that costs millions to develop. But when the game is out, everyone complains that 60 bucks is to much, DLCs are an absurd, etc.



Are you sure that this card isn't a simple "download the game" card?



Around the Network
sundin13 said:

When you have games like Evolve which seem to exist as a marketplace for overpriced DLC, that should be criticized. When you have full priced games like The Last of Us utilizing Pay to Win mechanics in its multiplayer, that should be criticized. Unexplained DLC quests in a game with 300 hours worth of content? At least wait until we know what the DLC is before freaking out.


Do you know what you are talking about? I play this game online all the time and even played competitions. The DLC perks and guns are far from the best ones, actually most of them suck. The DLCs add three types of new things:

- Perks: most DLC ones aren't the best available. The best DLC perk is the scavenger, that gives you more ammo per kill and combines well with the burst rifle or other ammo hungry guns, but you can simply use creator/medic and get extra points to buy ammo (and you can also use for body armor and upgrades).

- Weapons: the best DLC weapon is the enforcer. The rest are pretty weak and gimmicky. Best weapons in the game are the burst rifle, semi auto and hunting rifle. The old west rifle from the DLC is good, but it loses to the semi auto most of the times and its on par with the burst in medium distances. Close quarter, burst rifle always beats it.

- Purchasable weapons: that's the most ridiculous. The only half way decent purchasable from the DLCs is the specter, but since it's stealth oriented you aren't getting more advantage than a shiver or bow. The definitive purchasable weapon is the shotgun, a regular game weapon. It beats all the other in close quarters and you can even take an entire team if you gets a surprise attack. The military sniper (regular too) is great too, the El Diablo is good. The rest is pretty much just for fun.

Playing with serious players what you have is guys with burst rifles, semi auto, runners with shorties and snipers with hunting rifles. Purchasables are only for shotguns and military snipers. Perks will be maily creator, sharphooter and medic. That's what competitive players use.



torok said:

Do you know what you are talking about? I play this game online all the time and even played competitions. The DLC perks and guns are far from the best ones, actually most of them suck. The DLCs add three types of new things:

- Perks: most DLC ones aren't the best available. The best DLC perk is the scavenger, that gives you more ammo per kill and combines well with the burst rifle or other ammo hungry guns, but you can simply use creator/medic and get extra points to buy ammo (and you can also use for body armor and upgrades).

- Weapons: the best DLC weapon is the enforcer. The rest are pretty weak and gimmicky. Best weapons in the game are the burst rifle, semi auto and hunting rifle. The old west rifle from the DLC is good, but it loses to the semi auto most of the times and its on par with the burst in medium distances. Close quarter, burst rifle always beats it.

- Purchasable weapons: that's the most ridiculous. The only half way decent purchasable from the DLCs is the specter, but since it's stealth oriented you aren't getting more advantage than a shiver or bow. The definitive purchasable weapon is the shotgun, a regular game weapon. It beats all the other in close quarters and you can even take an entire team if you gets a surprise attack. The military sniper (regular too) is great too, the El Diablo is good. The rest is pretty much just for fun.

Playing with serious players what you have is guys with burst rifles, semi auto, runners with shorties and snipers with hunting rifles. Purchasables are only for shotguns and military snipers. Perks will be maily creator, sharphooter and medic. That's what competitive players use.

Mostly talking about this article, which pretty clearly explains it:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-dlc-is-not-okay-290010.phtml

Those who pay money have a clear, objective advantage over those who do not. While the severity isn't on the level of Korean Pay to Win, its still worth complaining about



DLC isn't always bad.



daredevil.shark said:
For comparisons sake witcher 3 is bigger than xenoblade chronicles x and will have free DLC.

Please provide me the address to which to send this well-earned cookie. Make it fast because cookies turn stale.

Smeags said:
Hopefully they'll be more Skyrim (Hearthfire, Dawnguard, Dragonborn) and less... XenoBlade Chronicles.

You will turn in six ultra-rare rainbow beetles as represented by randome glowing blue spheres, and you will like it!

Ryudo said:
daredevil.shark said:
For comparisons sake witcher 3 is bigger than xenoblade chronicles x and will have free DLC.

No it's  smaller. CDprojekt confirmed it was 136 in total and XCX is confirmed to be over 150 Square miles. Xenoblade on Wii was 30 square miles.   They said over 400 Square KM which is 150 or so Square miles. XCX is larger plus unlike Witcher or FFVX you have vertical space to explore since you can fly and explore tops of cliffs and inside volcanos.

Dick waving contests were so much more fun before some idiot come up with this stupid "standardized units of measurement" idea. >=(

KLAMarine said:
DLC isn't always bad.

Conversely, it's rarely good.



sundin13 said:

Mostly talking about this article, which pretty clearly explains it:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-dlc-is-not-okay-290010.phtml

Those who pay money have a clear, objective advantage over those who do not. While the severity isn't on the level of Korean Pay to Win, its still worth complaining about


The problem is that the guy isn't a serious player, because most of his points just show that he is one of the guys that rush againts people with guns that have a situational advantage. You don't try to fight a hunting rifle at distance, you don't take a shotgunner in close quarters. His points:

"The Frontier Rifle sits in between the Semi-Auto Rifle and the Hunting Rifle in terms of damage and fire rate; it takes two shots to down where the Semi-Auto takes three and it has a better fire rate than the Hunting Rifle. The result is a gun that downs more quickly than the other comparable weapons. Two shots from the Frontier Rifle can land before two from the Hunting Rifle or three from the Semi-Auto. In a one-on-one face-to-face encounter, the Frontier Rifle comes out on top."

You will never beat a hunting rifle at a direct face-to-face. It downs with one headshot and that's fairly easy with that gun. It beats the semi auto at medium distance, but it's useless at shorter distance while the semi auto isn't. Semi auto is the jack of all trades and it does it well.

"The Tactical Shotgun exists in a similar space as the Frontier Rifle. It isn't unequivocally better than the comparable base game weapons, but it enjoys some advantages. The most obvious benefit it has over the Shotgun and the Double Barrel is increased range, able to down in two shots from a range that either of the others would fumble to do anything worthwhile. Less apparent is that it can be equipped as a starting weapon where the other long shotguns are both "purchaseables," only attainable during a match after scoring enough points. Embedded in that purchase is the opportunity cost of not saving up for ammunition, weapon upgrades, or armor."

It's a higher range, much weaker shotgun. The guy compares it with the shotgun. Stop, just stop. Shotgun is a beast, you can kill 3 guys in face to face with some luck. No other weapons does that. Even in this case, it isn't invencible, you just have to know how to beat it. Tactical shotgun loses to semi auto in long distance firefights and loses to the burst rifle in close quarters and medium distances if the guy knows how to use it (I down any tactical shotgun noob hands downs with 1 or 2 bursts).

"However, the most egregious offender in the Tactical Weapons pack is the Crossbow. It's difficult to measure the advantage it gives because there is no other comparable weapon. It fires silently like the Bow but doesn't arc. Nominally, it can down in two shots, but it has a special ability that makes it absurdly powerful in some situations. After hitting an enemy with it, that enemy will bleed until he heals or is downed. This also lets the shooter see where the target is and what he's doing during that time period."

Purchasable weapons have a trade off. You have to allocate points that could be for perks to keep it on the loadout and you have to buy the weapon and its ammo with parts that could get upgrades and body armor. So it has to rock. The crossbow downs with 2 shots. That's awful. The hunting rifle does it, bow does it (it gets faster after level 2 upgrade) and other guns do it too. The only decent aspect is the bleeding, but that's simply too slow. Want a purchasable gun? Shotgun. Downs a guy with full body armor with one single shot to the legs. It spreads the bullets so you can hit 2 or 3 close targets simultaneously. That's something now other weapon does. That's why this one matters. The other good one is military sniper, because you execute the guy with the HS instead of downing him.