[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32616492]I love the way valve does dlc. You buy this game and we will update it for a few years for free.[/QUOTE]
Valve also has the largest videogame content distribution platform to fund these things with
other developers need to make money from what they create.
i don't care if the content is 0-day even. games often go gold a while before they are released.
I'm perfectly fine with downloadable content.
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=latin_geek;32727289]I think what pisses me off most about DLC, more than day-one shit or even $15 mappacks, is DLC that is just a key that unlocks data that you had on launch day. The content's there, and they're making you wait and pay more for it. That's just a shit move.
Bethesda has the right idea for DLC, just look at the amount of shit any of the New Vegas DLC have.[/QUOTE]
That's unlockable content. Downloadable content implies that you download it.
It's bad but good. It depends on the game really.
I'd honestly pay for C:SS DLC.
I'm not retarded, I just love good games.
But games like BF3/Dead Island just made to get money, I'll pass.
I miss expansion packs. Age of Mythology's expansion added loads of stuff to the game - an entire new class of gods, a bunch of maps, new terrain, an entire new campaign, an additional age and unit for the existing classes, and probably other things that I can't think of at the moment.
Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots added the conquer the world campaigns, several new races, and more maps.
Quake 1 and 2 expansions were entire new campaigns, along with some new enemies, items, and weapons.
Where did all the love go?
Depends on how it's done. However lately I've been exposed to the horrors of 'on disk DLC' which is pretty much code for, selling you shit you've already bought.
TBH, I fucking hate DLC. It's just the really consumer-unfriendly way it's used like the aforementioned "Cut Content DLC" or the "$15 but actually worthless DLC" or the "only $5 but is so insignificant that it should've been included in an update DLC"
I can't say I was happy with expansion packs either my most hated expansion-heavy game being The Sims Series because EA basically charges up to $30 for shit that was already in the previous game.
I personally don't like DLCs. I miss the time when expansion packs existed, they added tons of new shit. GTA4 had two expansions. The dlc most of the time is pre-planned and they cut shit out of games to release them faster and then cash in more. Instead of paying 60$ for the full game, they can release a game with cut content faster but sell it for the same price. Then release 20$ dlc on top.
It's crazy dosh there.
if its made after the game is completed, thats fine
if its made before the game is completed, you're just trying to get more money
[QUOTE=sadcreamcone;32896474]if its made after the game is completed, thats fine
if its made before the game is completed, you're just trying to get more money[/QUOTE]
Lol that's completly wrong.
If its made after the game is completed and in stores, it's made for you to give them more money.
No game comes out with DLC when it's released -.-
[QUOTE=TaoAmano;32896822]
No game comes out with DLC when it's released -.-[/QUOTE]
Haha what
I don't mind pre-order exclusives as long as it's stuff like what Brink had - that is, a few nice skins, but nothing very substantial.
As far as post-release DLC goes, I just have a few rules. Don't release DLC only a few weeks after the game came out, have a good price-to-content ratio (ie, not a couple of maps for $15), and the golden rule: [i]don't make us pay for shit that's already on the disc![/i]
[QUOTE=TaoAmano;32896822]Lol that's completly wrong.
If its made after the game is completed and in stores, it's made for you to give them more money.
No game comes out with DLC when it's released -.-[/QUOTE]
Gears of war 3
Good when it's [b]extra[/b] content, not content that should have been in the game to begin with that was simply held back to make a few extra bucks.
I just think that my 60 dollars should go to all development before the release. But after release, Go crazy I don't care.
It's a two-way street.
One is that is provides more content for the game, either making it more enjoyable or less pleasurable. Another is that depending on the price range, it can be worth the money, or just be money going down the drain. Sometimes it'll be done to provide the video game with more story development, other times it could just be for some dumb map, much like how CoD has been or how the Trainsworks on Steam has DLC over $6000USD. So really, it could go either way, it just depends if the consumer is satisfied.
Rockstar DLC is awesome. Map packs etc. suck.
I really do not like the DLC thing that has been introduced in the game industry. The issue is that the amount of gameplay value and overall content is so minimal at most times. Then developpers claim that it is only a small DLC. I really liked expansion packs which offered a lot more for a better price. Sometimes the DLC pricetags are simply not justified.
Although the GTA4 and New Vegas DLCs were great, but I consider them more as an expansion pack.
[QUOTE=healthpoint;32897397]Good when it's [b]extra[/b] content, not content that should have been in the game to begin with that was simply held back to make a few extra bucks.[/QUOTE]
Yeah this, DLC is cool as long as it's something big or not too pricey (*cough* I'm looking at you Black Ops), but unfortunately that's the top priority of the industry, profit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.