"Here's your new game - Wait 5 months for the rest of it in DLC!" - Games

The other day I went to the store and bought Red Dead Redemption. When I opened up the game, a slip of paper fell out. It was an advertisement for co-op DLC that was set to be released god knows when. This pissed me off to a great intensity. Games are starting to act like this is commonplace in the industry, when it shouldn't be happening at all. If you're going to advertise some $10 DLC for a game [B]IN THE GAME BOX[/B], why the fuck couldn't you just put the game off a little while and include it in the actual game? It's like ordering a burger and having to pay an extra $5 for any toppings and $10 for a side of fries 2 months later. Does this piss anybody else off?

OMG DUDE- Dude guess what? [i]The RDR DLC is free.[/i] :downs:

[QUOTE=G71tc4;22274172]The other day I went to the store and bought Red Dead Redemption. When I opened up the game, a slip of paper fell out. It was an advertisement for co-op DLC that was set to be released god knows when. This pissed me off to a great intensity. Games are starting to act like this is commonplace in the industry, when it shouldn't be happening at all. If you're going to advertise some $10 DLC for a game [B]IN THE GAME BOX[/B], why the fuck couldn't you just put the game off a little while and include it in the actual game? It's like ordering a burger and having to pay an extra $5 for any toppings and $10 for a side of fries 2 months later. Does this piss anybody else off?[/QUOTE] companies have to abide by their schedules. dlc is a great way of finishing off stuff that would've been scrapped because it couldn't make it in time for the final product.

Yes it pisses me of extremely. A lot of things have changed in gaming now a days. Back in the old days a good game was polished up and had all the content already in it before it was released. Now its all about getting it out the door as fast as possible and worrying about patching it or adding content later. This is a big problem for people such as myself who don't have regular access to online game play.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;22274213]OMGOMG DUDE- DUDE, THE RDR DLC IS FREE! :downs:[/QUOTE] Okay, the example still stands. The prime example of a [I]payed[/I] version of that would be MW2, but everyone knows it's a shit heap already.

Anyways... [editline]01:35AM[/editline] [QUOTE=G71tc4;22274246]Okay, the example still stands. The prime example of a [I]payed[/I] version of that would be MW2, but everyone knows it's a shit heap already.[/QUOTE] But they waited a few months, not as you described.

[QUOTE=Soupernoob;22274236]Yes it pisses me of extremely. A lot of things have changed in gaming now a days. Back in the old days a good game was polished up and had all the content already in it before it was released. Now its all about getting it out the door as fast as possible and worrying about patching it or adding content later. This is a big problem for people such as myself who don't have regular access to online game play.[/QUOTE] Makes me think of the PS2. If a bug was shipped with the game, so be it, but still it seemed like a more complete game, since they couldn't add on what they couldn't be assed to on release.

I wouldn't want a game to be delayed a few months because of DLC coming out in that time frame.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;22274248]Anyways... [editline]01:35AM[/editline] But they waited a few months, not as you described.[/QUOTE] What did I not describe?

Damnit. Automerge.

Actually, for the 360, a major reason for the release of DLC isn't really the fact that they're lazy. Part of it is fitting the entire game on to the 360's comparatively small (to the PS3) disc size. DLC is a good way to get around that. The main reason for the price is that Microsoft FORCES companies to put a price tag on their DLC. Valve even said that, had they had the choice, the L4D DLC for the 360 would have been free, but Microsoft wouldn't allow it. I would assume it's to cover the cost of hosting the content on Microsoft's servers. Hell, the developers of Lost Planet 2 had to cut shit from their game because they both a) needed to fit the game on the disc and b) didn't want to put out a bunch of DLC.

Usually companies do this for DLC when they started working on the DLC after the game was finished and the time after release to the DLC release is bug testing and making sure it's completed. But companies like Activision where they put it on the disc are different.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;22274282]I wouldn't want a game to be delayed a few months because of DLC coming out in that time frame.[/QUOTE] That's not my point, my point is mainly against paid DLC. RDR is just what got me thinking about it. Dragon Age Origins, MW2, shit like that.

[QUOTE=G71tc4;22274272]Makes me think of the PS2. If a bug was shipped with the game, so be it, but still it seemed like a more complete game, since they couldn't add on what they couldn't be assed to on release.[/QUOTE] You just invalidated your own arguement. You said that game devs should makes sure that there are no bugs the first time around, using old games as an example. You just said that older games had bugs, but you accepted them because they couldn't get fixed. So, why would you complain when they can be?

[QUOTE=G71tc4;22274283]What did I not describe?[/QUOTE] You want them to delay a game so they can add the DLC in for no extra cost. You basically implied that that they should have delayed MW2 a few months to add the stimulus package. (Not that the game should have happened at all... :buddy:) [editline]01:39AM[/editline] [QUOTE=G71tc4;22274302]That's not my point, my point is mainly against paid DLC. RDR is just what got me thinking about it. Dragon Age Origins, MW2, shit like that.[/QUOTE] Oh I thought you're argument was that DLC was coming out to soon or something.

[QUOTE=Xionasis;22274305]You just invalidated your own arguement. You said that game devs should makes sure that there are no bugs the first time around, using old games as an example. You just said that older games had bugs, but you accepted them because they couldn't get fixed. So, why would you complain when they can be?[/QUOTE] Every game is going to have bugs, I never said that they had to make sure there were no bugs.

[QUOTE=G71tc4;22274302]That's not my point, my point is mainly against paid DLC. RDR is just what got me thinking about it. Dragon Age Origins, MW2, shit like that.[/QUOTE] Also, Dragon Age is a terrible example. The DLC might as well be a whole other game, there is so much content. You are basically paying $5-$10 for something that should be $50 at least.

DLC is more commonly used as a way to release what is necessary for the game on release (Core story, multiplayer, etc.) and then release the finer tuned things (online modes, new items in singleplayer which have no direct impact on the main story) so they don't have to delay the release 6-12 months.

DLC is probably the best thing to have happened to the gamers. We complain about bugs, and the devs ship fixes for free. It makes devs more amazing and the gamers will buy their games much more because of excellent support. [editline]08:45AM[/editline] Also what everyone else said.

Red Dead Redemption's first of three DLC will be releasing next month.

I've just always seen DLC as a way to extend my experience. If it costs more money, well, I payed for the original content, so why would I not pay a fraction of that amount for a fraction of the amount of the original content? If you don't want it, don't buy it. It is extra content which, in most cases, means that you do not need it to play/enjoy the game.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;22274213]OMG DUDE- Dude guess what? [i]The RDR DLC is free.[/i] :downs:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Soupernoob;22274236]Back in the old days a good game was polished up and had all the content already in it before it was released.[/QUOTE] Since when?

[B]Good games[/B] still are polished up and have all the content already in them before they are released. DLC wasn't possible with console games, and with PC games it was just [B]expansions.[/B]

RDR doesn't even NEED DLC. It's already a fucking amazingly complete game. These will just be a plus.

It being free is also nice.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;22274385]DLC is probably the best thing to have happened to the gamers. We complain about bugs, and the devs ship fixes for free. It makes devs more amazing and the gamers will buy their games much more because of excellent support. [editline]08:45AM[/editline] Also what everyone else said.[/QUOTE] DLC isn't bug fixes. DLC is a downloadable pack of content, whether it's new missions, new weapons, new whatever. Bugfixes are, and should be, free updates. In my opinion game companies should go back to expansion packs. If you're going to sell something for $30 as an add-on to a pre-existing game, it'd better be worth it. Companies have to [b]work[/b] on X-packs, they can't put out 5 maps for $30 and expect great feedback. DLC just isn't worth it in my opinion. It takes too long to come out, and when it finally is out, I play it for a couple of hours and never touch it again. DLC is short and pathetic. I have no complaints about what VALVe does though, their little additions to L4D2 and TF2 are welcome, especially since they're free and the game is just as replayable without them.

[QUOTE=dragon1972;22275640]DLC isn't bug fixes. DLC is a downloadable pack of content, whether it's new missions, new weapons, new whatever. Bugfixes are, and should be, free updates. In my opinion game companies should go back to expansion packs. If you're going to sell something for $30 as an add-on to a pre-existing game, it'd better be worth it. Companies have to [b]work[/b] on X-packs, they can't put out 5 maps for $30 and expect great feedback. DLC just isn't worth it in my opinion. It takes too long to come out, and when it finally is out, I play it for a couple of hours and never touch it again. DLC is short and pathetic.[/QUOTE] I don't know what sort of hellish world you live in that DLC costs $30, but I feel sorry for you. Sure some of it can be overpriced, but saying that it is $30 is rediculous.

[QUOTE=Xionasis;22275665]I don't know what sort of hellish world you live in that DLC costs $30, but I feel sorry for you. Sure some of it can be overpriced, but saying that it is $30 is rediculous.[/QUOTE] I was saying that if you made an expansion pack with 5 maps it wouldn't work out.

That's why they aren't expansion packs.