DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

Apoc · Mar 14, 2011 12:08 AM

Think about it, we're being charged FULL PRICE for an incomplete game. Like for instance, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, locked character that are available on the disc are locked for DLC(among other things). Battlefield: Bad Company 2 SPECTAT weapon pack(defeats the purpose of progression), Dragon Age: Origins Shale Character DLC and Blood Dragon Armour DLC. Call of Duty: Black Ops map packs. The Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days weapon, mask and map packs(which are locked if you don't spend £2.99 on them). They're charging us full price for games when half of the content is missing, then they have the audacity to charge us extra just to complete the game. It's stupid.

Now, there are also times where DLC is acceptable. Like expansions(Bad Company 2: Vietnam, Dragon Age: Origins Witch Hunt and the metric ton of Fallout 3 DLC), extra campaigns/new stories and the OCCASIONAL map pack. Those are fine because you're not being charged full price for them and they're little bonuses that extend the gameplay(unlike the other DLC which was left out on purpose for the sake of DLC). The reason I don't like the Black Ops map pack is because they're charging you $15 for 5 sub par maps when EA and DICE released 7 new maps for Bad Company 2 for free. Plus the 2 free packs that was released for Medal of Honor, which added 2 new maps, 2 new game modes and 2 remakes of existing maps. Those extend the longevity of the game, but when they start belting out map pack after map pack relentlessly I start to get suspicious.

RedDragonX · Mar 14, 2011 1:17 AM

Well, unfortunately doesn't matter since Black Ops is no the highest selling game of all time in the United States. They will sell things however they want if they know people will buy it.

Latias fan · Mar 14, 2011 1:40 AM

TC i completly agree with you.

Swaffy · Mar 14, 2011 5:45 AM

I especially don't like games where if you don't buy the map pack, you
cannot play multiplayer until you buy it.

Aceedwin · Mar 14, 2011 5:04 PM

Game designers can't just sleep on the streets. Learn the industrial facts before you start your rant, please.

Apoc · Mar 14, 2011 5:36 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Game designers can't just sleep on the streets. Learn the industrial facts before you start your rant, please.

I have taken that into consideration, but they surely make enough from the game sales, they never used to rely on DLC.

Aceedwin · Mar 14, 2011 5:47 PM

Games didn't cost as much to make in the old days. A few college student could spend three months of their spare time and produce a decent game twenty-five years ago. Nowadays you need dozens of professionals. Besides, out of the £40 you spend on a new game, how much of it goes to the company? Do you know? If not, then you really don't have the knowledge required to assume they're all rolling in money.

Apoc · Mar 14, 2011 5:51 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Games didn't cost as much to make in the old days. A few college student could spend three months of their spare time and produce a decent game twenty-five years ago. Nowadays you need dozens of professionals. Besides, out of the £40 you spend on a new game, how much of it goes to the company? Do you know? If not, then you really don't have the knowledge required to assume they're all rolling in money.

Fair enough. Never thought of it that way.

Clock-la · Mar 14, 2011 6:00 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Games didn't cost as much to make in the old days. A few college student could spend three months of their spare time and produce a decent game twenty-five years ago. Nowadays you need dozens of professionals. Besides, out of the £40 you spend on a new game, how much of it goes to the company? Do you know? If not, then you really don't have the knowledge required to assume they're all rolling in money.

as mutch as i agree Apoc shenzi here has won the argument here hmm

Apoc · Mar 14, 2011 6:01 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Aceedwin wrote:
Games didn't cost as much to make in the old days. A few college student could spend three months of their spare time and produce a decent game twenty-five years ago. Nowadays you need dozens of professionals. Besides, out of the £40 you spend on a new game, how much of it goes to the company? Do you know? If not, then you really don't have the knowledge required to assume they're all rolling in money.
as mutch as i agree Apoc shenzi here has won the argument here

Indeed

ontels · Mar 14, 2011 7:39 PM

I hate DLC but I love the game industry, were can I find compramise?

Neotyguy40 · Mar 14, 2011 8:52 PM

Large corporations like EA, Activision, Blizzard, etc. are the ones who get the money from DLC. The game designers get paid a fixed wage with no royalties from the games they produce.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't the land of the poor indie developers that we wish would rise up against these people.[/i]

Aceedwin wrote:

Games didn't cost as much to make in the old days. A few college student could spend three months of their spare time and produce a decent game twenty-five years ago. Nowadays you need dozens of professionals. Besides, out of the £40 you spend on a new game, how much of it goes to the company? Do you know? If not, then you really don't have the knowledge required to assume they're all rolling in money.

Amnesia... Limbo... Meatboy... Torchlight... Audiosurf... Penumbra (all 3 of them)...

And those are the ones off the top of my head.

ontels · Mar 14, 2011 9:02 PM

And all of those are low budget games that don't need DLC because they were cheap to make. Now I know indie games can be fun but I for one wouldent want a world of just low budget games.

Neotyguy40 · Mar 14, 2011 9:19 PM

ontels wrote:

And all of those are low budget games that don't need DLC because they were cheap to make. Now I know indie games can be fun but I for one wouldent want a world of just low budget games.

The net value of Black Ops so far has surpassed $1 billion...

I think a publisher with a value of over $56.6 billion can survive without the extra $200 million that DLC made in a single game. Not to mention the maps were already created and burned on the CD. The only reason they made people pay for the extra maps was greed, and greed only. Nothing else.

I'm going to use Frictional Games as an example, because Amnesia in my opinion is much better put together and worthwhile than CoD anyways. They are a group of about 5 people. They sell their game cheaper than most others at around $20. They made an entire game engine. 4 different games (one of them hitting the top 10 on multiple lists last year), and they are working on yet another game.

If I worked 40 hours a week, a single person could probably make a game 1-3 hours long with better quality than a large corporate game within a year and a half. I know 1-3 hours is very short for a game, but just consider that he would be able to do that by himself. Granted he would probably take a lot of shortcuts (not making my own engine, using stock photos, etc.), but just consider that if there were 5, or even 10 people working on it, they would be able to make a game 8-10 hours long.

It doesn't take much to make a game. It takes a long time and a lot of people to market and publish a game and develop an artificial mindshare, but not to make the actual game itself. I personally would love to live in a world where games had the price and quality of Amnesia.

Aceedwin · Mar 14, 2011 9:22 PM

What ontels said. Cheap and cheerful games are all well and good, but sometimes we need more than an hour's worth of gameplay.

Or at least, I assume that's the point you were making. Wasn't 100% on that.

Furthermore, how much of that extra $200 million might be reinvested into new and better games?

And how much money would you expect for that 3120 hours of your life? And if you made a game with twenty other people for the amount of gameplay currently requested by the market, you have to times that by 21. And then think about software and workplace costs. And about distribution costs.

Don't think life is easy for the distributors either.

Neotyguy40 · Mar 14, 2011 9:29 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

What ontels said. Cheap and cheerful games are all well and good, but sometimes we need more than an hour's worth of gameplay.
Or at least, I assume that's the point you were making. Wasn't 100% on that.

I sure hope that wasn't the point. Amnesia has over 12 hours of gameplay in it.

Apoc · Mar 14, 2011 9:35 PM

I don't think major game companies need the extra money, EA, Activision, Square Enix, etc. And they just re-release the games with "Limited/Special/Game Of The Year Edition" on the box, and they charge us the same price as the original.

Aceedwin · Mar 14, 2011 9:40 PM

Redid post. This is what happens when I take too long to edit stuff.

G-Man_93 · Mar 14, 2011 9:41 PM

Apoc wrote:

I don't think major game companies need the extra money, EA, Activision, Square Enix, etc. And they just re-release the games with "Limited/Special/Game Of The Year Edition" on the box, and they charge us the same price as the original.

Depends on what their aims are exactly.

Swaffy · Mar 17, 2011 3:35 AM

"The PS3 online network is a thorn in the side of online gaming."
~ Swaff

riverhippo · Mar 17, 2011 5:18 AM

I think DLC is taken for granted, or will be soon.

A smart idea is that sports games, mainly the ones EA releases would not come out with a new title every year, but instead have DLC that updates the game from the year's changes.

Of course, the game companies wouldn't sell as many games with this idea. So saying DLC is a thorn doesn't represent it very well, especially when the reason for it all is to simplify the product given to the consumer so that both consumer and company can win. Gaming companies can sometimes attempt to overprice things, but you guys act like they're as bad as oil companies.

Besides, I have never encountered a DLC that I wanted that wasn't free.

Latias fan · Mar 17, 2011 1:43 PM

Swaffy wrote:

"The PS3 online network is a thorn in the side of online gaming."
~ Swaff

Haters gunna Hate,Trollers gunna Troll

Aceedwin · Mar 17, 2011 5:37 PM

riverhippo wrote:

Gaming companies can sometimes attempt to overprice things, but you guys act like they're as bad as oil companies.

And what would be wrong with oil companies? You don't like your electricity? You know, the stuff you're using to power your computer as you read this.

Apoc · Mar 17, 2011 6:50 PM

Swaffy wrote:

"The PS3 online network is a thorn in the side of online gaming."
~ Swaff

Not anymore, because it's now interlinked with Steam.

riverhippo · Mar 17, 2011 9:30 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

riverhippo wrote:
Gaming companies can sometimes attempt to overprice things, but you guys act like they're as bad as oil companies.
And what would be wrong with oil companies? You don't like your electricity? You know, the stuff you're using to power your computer as you read this.

Well, I don't know how old you have to be to get a driving permit in London, but it's safe to say you're not actually paying for gas to fill up your car. And until you do, it's not fair for you to make such an argument. Oil companies are indeed going to hell.

#1 Mar 14, 2011 12:08 AM

DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#2 Mar 14, 2011 1:17 AM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#3 Mar 14, 2011 1:40 AM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#4 Mar 14, 2011 5:45 AM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#5 Mar 14, 2011 5:04 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#6 Mar 14, 2011 5:36 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#7 Mar 14, 2011 5:47 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#8 Mar 14, 2011 5:51 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#9 Mar 14, 2011 6:00 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#10 Mar 14, 2011 6:01 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#11 Mar 14, 2011 7:39 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#12 Mar 14, 2011 8:52 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#13 Mar 14, 2011 9:02 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#14 Mar 14, 2011 9:19 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#15 Mar 14, 2011 9:22 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#16 Mar 14, 2011 9:29 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#17 Mar 14, 2011 9:35 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#18 Mar 14, 2011 9:40 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#19 Mar 14, 2011 9:41 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#20 Mar 17, 2011 3:35 AM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#21 Mar 17, 2011 5:18 AM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#22 Mar 17, 2011 1:43 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#23 Mar 17, 2011 5:37 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#24 Mar 17, 2011 6:50 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

#25 Mar 17, 2011 9:30 PM

Re: DLC is a thorn in the side of modern games

Board footer