PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
Not really against DLC, just against something that should have been in at release (aka, more maps) being sold later for money, splitting the playerbase into those who do, and those who do not want to spend extra money.
Aliens vs Predator
- Thread starter Ronin Storm
- Start date
Not really against DLC, just against something that should have been in at release (aka, more maps) being sold later for money, splitting the playerbase into those who do, and those who do not want to spend extra money.
Traxata
Junior Administrator
I'm far from against DLC, apart from the latest Borderlands DLC (I haven't got the money to buy it yet) I've bought all of them
Traxata
Junior Administrator
Oh, to go along with this DLC, buy AvP for £17 on steam!
http://store.steampowered.com/app/10680/
33% off all weekend.
Also, the map pack is £4.99
http://store.steampowered.com/app/10680/
33% off all weekend.
Also, the map pack is £4.99
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
I will most likely not be buying this because i have seen no value in playing this game with strangers, and the amount of time to play with ppl i know(or at least ppl via outofgamevoip) is while refreshing, and enjoyable every time not something i'd do every night - unlike say Alienswarm.
Silk
Well-Known Member
Because it gives games companies a reason to charge for things that should (often) have been in the game in the first place.
They're rarely value for money.
I never minded paying for Blizzard "expansion packs" because they were usually full games rather than a couple of levels bolted on for £10. If DLC becomes value for money, I'll embrace it.
Til then, it's just a rip off.
G
Gombol
Guest
Maps like what they just released for AVP, extra levels, etc.
If it's something you want and don't feel like paying for it
And that.
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
Ok, why do you feel that these things *should* have been in the game in the first place?
A lower initial cost together with appropriate prices for extras seems like a good deal - you're spending less to see if you like the game, then if you do you can buy the extras and continue experiencing something new
A lower initial cost together with appropriate prices for extras seems like a good deal - you're spending less to see if you like the game, then if you do you can buy the extras and continue experiencing something new
Silk
Well-Known Member
£25 isn't a lower initial cost, all new pc games cost that (or less) if you know where to shop. 7 maps included is weak. They probably had the extra maps developed @ release but took them out to make extra money.
This is why I'm against DLC at the mo - it's stupid piddly little extras that may as well just be included. By splitting maps out and charging for them, they split the player base thinly because not everyone will buy those maps.
When DLC becomes fat expansion packs which add a lot of depth to a game you should have played to death by then, then we're talking. Everybody would want to buy that. I'm talking starcraft: brood war and wc3: frozen throne.
I just cba having to buy maps for a MP game - I want to buy the game, download free additional player content or mod that proves popular, and that's it. I don't want to have to splash out on the latest shiny map all the kids have run off to play. It'd be akin to paying a £7 door charge to get into a cinema, then paying £7 for your film, then paying £3 to see an extra 30 minutes of footage which everyone's talking about so you "have" to see.
Right now most DLC milks people, basically. But DLC has the potential to be great once companies start bringing out content that's clearly had time and effort put into it. I'm happy to pay if I know they've actually spent time, effort and money on the content. As opposed to a handful of maps being greedilly removed from the original game to get more £££'s - I think you're naive if you can't see that's what this is.
This is why I'm against DLC at the mo - it's stupid piddly little extras that may as well just be included. By splitting maps out and charging for them, they split the player base thinly because not everyone will buy those maps.
When DLC becomes fat expansion packs which add a lot of depth to a game you should have played to death by then, then we're talking. Everybody would want to buy that. I'm talking starcraft: brood war and wc3: frozen throne.
I just cba having to buy maps for a MP game - I want to buy the game, download free additional player content or mod that proves popular, and that's it. I don't want to have to splash out on the latest shiny map all the kids have run off to play. It'd be akin to paying a £7 door charge to get into a cinema, then paying £7 for your film, then paying £3 to see an extra 30 minutes of footage which everyone's talking about so you "have" to see.
Right now most DLC milks people, basically. But DLC has the potential to be great once companies start bringing out content that's clearly had time and effort put into it. I'm happy to pay if I know they've actually spent time, effort and money on the content. As opposed to a handful of maps being greedilly removed from the original game to get more £££'s - I think you're naive if you can't see that's what this is.
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
I will agree that there is a right and a wrong way to be doing the DLC - Gearbox software have got it spot on with Borderlands (btw I still need to purchase the last 2 DLCs for that...), and everyone else seems to just treat it as a way to make extra money without really putting thought into what they are charging for. Bioshock 2 is another way of doing the DLC entirely wrongly - the first DLC for that is on the initial install, and all you're paying for is an unlock code!
I don't think that Cinema analogy sticks though - I'd put it more akin to paying the intial cost for the movie then having to purchase your drink from the food vendor there at a wildly inflated price compared to what you get elsewhere.
Also, why do you feel that such content should be free? Again I ask, why do you feel entitled to further content other than what you initially paid for (which, if you do your research, you will know what you get) for free?
Why are developers suddenly public enemy number 1 for wanting to make money? Why should I spend all my time working on something that is not going to provide me any returns?
In this particular case (AvP) I don't play the game so cannot comment on it directly, but the general way things are going now, this is how it's going to work: you pay upfront your inital money, then to enhance the experience you will buy lots of little bits of DLC, which will allow you to pick and choose how you want your gaming experience to evolve. It could also be seen as an anti-piracy measure of sorts (though we then get into the argument of making something that people want to pay for in the first place).
Also there is a difference between a DLC and an Expansion pack, and though that line is perhaps starting to blur, at least for the moment, I still see it as there for now - I would not consider TFT or Brood war to be DLC in the slightest, for instance.
I don't think that Cinema analogy sticks though - I'd put it more akin to paying the intial cost for the movie then having to purchase your drink from the food vendor there at a wildly inflated price compared to what you get elsewhere.
Also, why do you feel that such content should be free? Again I ask, why do you feel entitled to further content other than what you initially paid for (which, if you do your research, you will know what you get) for free?
Why are developers suddenly public enemy number 1 for wanting to make money? Why should I spend all my time working on something that is not going to provide me any returns?
In this particular case (AvP) I don't play the game so cannot comment on it directly, but the general way things are going now, this is how it's going to work: you pay upfront your inital money, then to enhance the experience you will buy lots of little bits of DLC, which will allow you to pick and choose how you want your gaming experience to evolve. It could also be seen as an anti-piracy measure of sorts (though we then get into the argument of making something that people want to pay for in the first place).
Also there is a difference between a DLC and an Expansion pack, and though that line is perhaps starting to blur, at least for the moment, I still see it as there for now - I would not consider TFT or Brood war to be DLC in the slightest, for instance.
Ki!ler-Mk1
Active Member
You dont need to get the 2nd borderlands dlc to get the 3rd one.
A game can always be delayed. Plus we always knew they were working on more content, but i never dreamed they'd want money for it.
Myself i am interested in how blizzard is going to sell the SC2 zerg and protoss campaigns.
A game can always be delayed. Plus we always knew they were working on more content, but i never dreamed they'd want money for it.
Myself i am interested in how blizzard is going to sell the SC2 zerg and protoss campaigns.
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
I miss the days when extra maps came for free in patches
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
I believe they have already announced that SC2 will be a trilogy, so it will likely work like WoW
G