Personally I think day one dlc.
What are the worst problems with the video game industry?
-
-
I think overpriced dlc is more of the issue, DLC should be used to extend a game's lifespan, but instead it's used for things that should've been included in the first place. I know, I know, entitlement. but I guess the old games of yonder spoiled me too much.
-
DLC is a necessity for video games nowadays. In today's age, we have methods of buying our games super cheap, whether they be bought used or downloaded. DLC is kind of the way to promote the company that made the game. And sometimes, that's a wonderful thing. You can show your support, and even get something out of it.
But as of late, DLC has been really cruel. Day 1 DLC isn't that big of deal, on the condition that the DLC isn't that necessary. However, most of this DLC has been huge story advancing chapters that everyone wants to play. And that's just all forms of fucked up.
-
I think retail stores are a pretty big problem. They're an unnecessary middleman between the producer and consumer. Retail stores are a carryover from the past when digital transactions weren't possible, but in this day and age they do more harm than good.
The main issue is the used game market. People turn in used games and the stores resell them, while none of that profit goes to the producers. It's taking away from the developers' budget and subsequently hurts the final product. If we could simply download full retail games directly to our consoles, not only would that save the hassle of going out to a store, it would make the video game industry far more prosperous.
Of course, there are some advantages to the current model. With digital purchase the only option (meaning no used games, everything full price), buyers might be more wary about getting into old/ongoing franchises or making any purchases at all. It comes down to weighing the potential costs and benefits, but overall I think the market would benefit from such a move.
In all honesty, I would not be surprised if this is how we're buying our games a mere decade from now.
-
How do you guys feel about when games blantly rip off other successful?
Like for me personally the recent medal of honor just felt too much like it was trying to be call of duty to hard that it actually hurt my imperssions on the game.
-
Over priced DLC for me, for sure, even if that whole day one DLC is kind of annoying when you're buying a game that has it.
And for the record, I like actually buying a game from a store, it's really not a hassle at all(for me, usually) and it's nice to be able to actually have the stuff… and it's not like it's impossible to simply buy stuff online with how it is now, but yeah, stuff will probably move toward digital purchases more as time goes on. I don't know a whole lot, I just play shit. Don't mind a game that "rips off" something successful, really, as long as it's good and an improvement to what might have been otherwise... though I haven't played CoD(a new one) in awhile so I've got no idea how similar MoH(haven't played one at all) is to it. If anything, just as a dude who is casually into games, I'm more annoyed when people are constantly complaining about that sort of stuff "this new resident evil looks like call of duty what the hell!!" and et cetera. Not that I hear a lot of that, it's mostly when I browse something online.
Actually, overpriced games period. It's not really overpriced, I guess, but I hate needing to pay $60(/70+ with tax easily) for a new game... but that's just because I'm cheap.
-
The video game industry trying to adopt the movie industry's developmental and financial philosophies.
-
How do you guys feel about when games blantly rip off other successful?
Like for me personally the recent medal of honor just felt too much like it was trying to be call of duty to hard that it actually hurt my imperssions on the game.
It depends, there's nothing wrong with taking a good thing, improving it, and adding a bit of innovation.
Then there's literally copying the game engine, and giving it a different coat of paint. The app store is full of these.
Edit: And Hattori brings up a good point, I understand this is all business, but it's the consumer who is really paying for the price (literally and figuratively) in the tug-of-war battle that is used gaming.
I remember everyone being up and arms about the Kombat Pass for MK9, which is a valid point. They bought that game, so why should they have to pay more to play online, but at the same time, the developer gets no support when they bought that used game, so shouldn't they get a cut?
And that's the problem, it's the infuriating idea that someone is constantly making money off of something you made, and you don't even see a dime from it. The worst thing is, you can't even compete, since if you lower your price, Gamestop will lower theirs.
So here comes DLC and everyone loses.
-
I think overpriced dlc is a problem, for reasons already mentioned in this thread, like recent dlc of things people already paid for by virtue of being included on the retail disc.
It's just cheating people into paying extra for bonuses they technically albeit unknowingly already own.I kind of understand the yearly releases thing and the way developers are not as eager to develop riskier, original ideas in the current economical crisis, but I hate the way they are rushed just to be released in time for some holiday.
From an economic point of view it might make sense, but I'd rather spend my money on one really good game than a dozen rushed average games.
There's just not enough creativity going around with everyone jumping on some bandwagon to make a quick buck. -
Unrealistic, demanding, idiotic fans with an awful sense of entitlement.
-
The COD franchise, Activision in general, day-one DLC, overpriced DLC, Capcom in general, Japanese game industry not moving forward and being stuck in the past with bland generic JRPGS, Western game industry trying to copy COD's success with generic short-singleplayer multiplayer-focused firstpersonshooter titles, MS's shady businesses (but that's more of a personal gripe for me), and sometimes even the fans.
-
Unrealistic, demanding, idiotic fans with an awful sense of entitlement.
I really hope this is a troll post, or else there's a seat waiting for you at Bioware.
If your costumer feels cheated for his dollar, you cheated him out of his dollar. Plain and simple.
Customer: "Hey, I paid a dollar for this burger and it's nasty!"
Waiter: "Oh what? You expected a good burger? Well that's going to cost you extra…"
Customer: "But...This burger is on your menu..."
Waiter: "So you're entitled to a good burger now?"
These people aren't asking for developers to pour gold nuggets in their boxes. People just want their money's worth of a good quality game not riddled day one glitches, and DLC that in the 90s would've been included for free as an unlockable.
-
The real problem is rampant casualization. Games being created to hand-hold even the littlest of babies, treating the player as if they were incapable of thinking for themselves. Skyward Sword is a big example of this, though I love the game anyway.
-
Hahahah! Nice opening post.
I'm tired of playing shooters or remakes of old shooters that poorly copy CoD's gameplay.
I'm tired of playing an amass open world games with the same old "GPS-pinpoint" mechanics, recycled enemy types, and a ton of placeholder holder boring crap that supposed to extend the gameplay (Get 100% of generic side missions, Collect all the feathers, packages, ect)
I'm tired of reading a non-fan's comments on the internet. Well, they are entitled to say whatever but it really never helps to insult a genre or franchise if you don't really play it. Unless they are just insulting the fans to be petty… but that's lame.What I really want to see from this industry? A rise in the industry for independent developers that clearly love their games, and the fans that love franchises/styles that don't get any light in the more prominent AAA or commercialized industry. In short, indie devs rock.
-
Terrible PC ports, games being released unfinished and needing patches to get them to work, games the still use prerendered cutscenes (in most instances), games that seem to be played in a corridor, games that still only use death animations, day one DLC/how DLC is handled in most cases, and most forms of DRM.
-
I think retail stores are a pretty big problem. They're an unnecessary middleman between the producer and consumer. Retail stores are a carryover from the past when digital transactions weren't possible, but in this day and age they do more harm than good.
I'd rather physically own something than have purchased some digital information. Also, having an only digital distribution forces you to have save space for the entire games. Sure you have to do this with physical games too, but you can always put up more shelves, get more storage boxes. I'm running very low on space on PS3 right now, and i'm not looking forward to the mass deletions I'm going to have go thru to make space the DL only One Piece game later this year.
-
Man I should have included dlc on disk in the polls and I don't know how to change it?
What times have you guys been screw over on over priced DLC?
-
None because I don't buy DLC.
-
How do you guys feel about when games blantly rip off other successful?
Like for me personally the recent medal of honor just felt too much like it was trying to be call of duty to hard that it actually hurt my imperssions on the game.
If video games didn't borrow elements from other games we wouldn't have games like Sonic and every other FPS that came out after Castle Wolfenstein.
Unrealistic, demanding, idiotic fans with an awful sense of entitlement.
Oh yes.
If your costumer feels cheated for his dollar, you cheated him out of his dollar. Plain and simple.
Gamer's always have this sense of being cheated even when their not.
People just want their money's worth of a good quality game not riddled day one glitches,
With the money Bethesda makes off their glitchy/buggy games you wouldn't know that.
and DLC that in the 90s would've been included for free as an unlockable.
Costumes yeah, content that expanded the story no.
-
The real problem is rampant casualization. Games being created to hand-hold even the littlest of babies, treating the player as if they were incapable of thinking for themselves. Skyward Sword is a big example of this, though I love the game anyway.
This is understandable, though. People get older and, most of the time, busier, so they get less time to spend on harder games. Meanwhile, kids don't seem to care if games go too easy on them.
-
Games in the past used difficulty to pad the game time though because they lacked content. This isn't a solid rule but a lot of games did this. Now though, most games are a minimum of 8 hours, so using difficulty to pad game time doesn't make much sense. And it's not like there aren't any really difficult games these days either.
-
@Silent:
I think overpriced dlc is a problem, for reasons already mentioned in this thread, like recent dlc of things people already paid for by virtue of being included on the retail disc.
It's just cheating people into paying extra for bonuses they technically albeit unknowingly already own.Industry analyst Michael Pachter, as much as I dislike him, has something interesting to say about this:
@Michael:The stuff on the disc, some gamers feel entitled to because they bought the disc, so they should have a right to anything that’s on the disc. And that’s a dicey one, you actually do own the disc and I think, theoretically, if you could crack the code on the DLC you probably would be allowed to access it without paying. And I’m not even sure that’s stealing because you did, in fact, buy the disc. That’s about as close as you can get to legal piracy.
–-------------
I'd rather physically own something than have purchased some digital information. Also, having an only digital distribution forces you to have save space for the entire games. Sure you have to do this with physical games too, but you can always put up more shelves, get more storage boxes.
Wanting to own a physical copy is a fair point. It's the same with movies or manga, really. But limited storage space for digital games is something that could easily be solved with the introduction of external hard drives. How near we are to something like that, though, I cannot say.
-
Games in the past used difficulty to pad the game time though because they lacked content. This isn't a solid rule but a lot of games did this. Now though, most games are a minimum of 8 hours, so using difficulty to pad game time doesn't make much sense. And it's not like there aren't any really difficult games these days either.
With all the complaining about game's apparently being too easy nowadays you wouldn't know that. Everytime I hear someone say "Today's Game's Are Too Eas"y it makes me want to ask do you play games on the default diffculty or bump it up to hard which I don't think they do.
-
^Unless the difficulties are locked. lol
Oh yeah, that's one of my gripes actually. Locking difficulty settings. But that's more of a problem I have with games rather than the industry itself. But if I were to discuss it, my only problem with difficulty settings themselves are the artificial means to make a game harder. I'm not a fan of multiplied enemy stats and nothing much else. There's nothing very fun about beating on enemies that take a longer time kill, do more damage to you, and have the same exact AI. I like when a devs attempt to spice things a little, and add surprises that makes a playthrough in each difficulty a drastically different experience. -
I'm playing Max Payne 3 right now on hard and it is indeed hard. There have been quite a few points in the game I had to replay something like 10 times to get past, even with the game helping me by giving me painkillers. It helps the monotony that each time is different due to the animation engine.
-
hm, for me it's that a lot of games still have this kind of B-Movie style writing for the story and dialogue, the quality of stories in the game industry still didn't really catch up with the enormous improvement the visual and gameplay part gained over the last few years. Sure, there are exceptions, like Mass Effect (As I'm told, never played it), Shadow of Colossus, Portal, Braid, but these are few compared to the huge mass of games with really lame stories, FPS are especially guilty of this.
And yeah, of course there is stuff like being required to be online all the time, but nothing you can really do about it, so might as well just learn to adjust to it. Although I hope that Blizzards no mods policy for diablo 3 doesn't carry over to other games, that would be awful… -
hm, for me it's that a lot of games still have this kind of B-Movie style writing for the story and dialogue, the quality of stories in the game industry still didn't really catch up with the enormous improvement the visual and gameplay part gained over the last few years.
That reminds me. This article brings up an interesting point at #2. To paraphrase, gamers are still at the point where they're obsessed with specs and graphics - the equivalent of if moviegoers still gushed about the mere act of recording film. Gamers are focused on the presentation of the package rather than its actual contents. The article itself explains better than I can, and it's a good read anyway, so I'd advise a look.
-
That reminds me. This article brings up an interesting point at #2. To paraphrase, gamers are still at the point where they're obsessed with specs and graphics - the equivalent of if moviegoers still gushed about the mere act of recording film. Gamers are focused on the presentation of the package rather than its actual contents. The article itself explains better than I can, and it's a good read anyway, so I'd advise a look.
Yes! YES!!
I wanted to mention this shit too. -
For me, it's DLC in general. I think a lot of developers are just creating random things to through out to make extra money on. Like alternate outfit packs. Things of course, no one has to buy. But it's the idea that developers are going to charge 1-3 bucks for outfits that bothers me.
I think DLC needs to be handled like it was in Borderlands, and more recently, the upcoming Dawn Guard release for Skyrim.
Expansion packs. That's what these are. Not just maps or such, but actual additions to the game that give hours more playtime. I remember spending like 10 hours to clear the Zombie DLC for Borderlands because it was that full of content, and then they released 3 more sets!That is what I feel like all DLC should be like. Developers need to stop insulting the consumer by the crap they release. Especially Day 1 DLC.
As much as I loved Arkham City, how Rocksteady handled the Catwoman parts of the game was horrible and outrageous. And Harley's Revenge is terrible.
In my opinion, everyone needs to take a page out of Gearbox and Bethesda's book and start making actual expansions to their game.
I honestly feel as if that could fix every issue about DLC, even the price.
I mean, I'm not going to have a problem dropping about $20 bucks for Dawn Guard, because I know the amount of content is going to be fantastic. I know I'm going to spend more time playing through Dawn Guard than I spent on games like Arkham City, which I spent $60 on.So yeah, long story short, DLC is terrible and needs to be fixed.
-
@Silent:
I kind of understand the way developers are not as eager to develop riskier, original ideas in the current economical crisis
I must have missed 60 Minutes…Exactly how is a well-planned, well-detailed, and well-structured original idea considered "risky"?
I'd rather physically own something than have purchased some digital information.
I'm the same here. Information stored on the System Hard Drive could easily be deleted if the Game Console itself crashes, like Xbox's infamous "Red Ring of Death". Then not only would your saved progress on the downloaded game be deleted, but the actual downloaded game as well. And any corporate employee could ask you "Where's the Proof that you bought said game?" in general. Thus, I personally prefer to have a physical, tangible copy of the game that I can hold on to in case anything happens to the console.
What times have you guys been screw over on over priced DLC?
None so far, I bought a DLC only once so far, and that was to unlock different combat costumes and weapon upgrades for Alice:Madness Returns.
The Catwoman story-based DLC for Arkham City is included with the purchase of the actual game disc, and I also thought about getting the newly released Harley Quinn's Revenge DLC, but based on recent reviews I'm not so sure anymore.
I don't buy games much at all, I only have 4 games total for the Xbox 360 and am currently interested in purchasing only one game for the whole 2013 year (the new Lara Croft game).
-
@Rogues':
The Catwoman story-based DLC for Arkham City is included with the purchase of the actual game disc, and I also thought about getting the newly released Harley Quinn's Revenge DLC, but based on recent reviews I'm not so sure anymore.
Yes, but if you buy the game used you miss out on it, which really isn't fair, as it does play into the story.
It also means you have to wait for the DLC to download and install before you can play. I remember being super excited for the game, I picked it up at midnight, excited to play for a bit before I had to go to bed as I had a full slate of classes the next day. When I got home I was disappointed because it took an hour for everything to download and install, and I had to go to bed.
Minor complaint, yeah, and it plays into gamers feeling entitled, but I do feel as if DLC that's part of the story being an actual part of the game already installed on the disc, is something we're allowed to feel entitled about.
-
Here's another relevant article from Cracked.
Pretty recent too.
-
Cracked has lots of fun and informative articles but I can't agree with that one. Telling gamers to "get over" ridiculous DRM and other intrusive, self-serving publisher BS is not cool at all. Yes I know, "lol it's only vidja games" but that's no reason to be complacent and let yourself be exploited as a consumer. I think Jim Sterling summed it up nicely in last week's Jimquisition; the game industry wants to make its problems, our problems. And I guess I'd say that is generally the worst problem the game industry has.
I kind of think DLC is an overrated issue. There is bad and there is good; you can't say "DLC is horrible, except the good DLC."
"Disc-locked Content" though is obviously complete BS, and I don't mean to defend that in any way. -
That reminds me. This article brings up an interesting point at #2. To paraphrase, gamers are still at the point where they're obsessed with specs and graphics - the equivalent of if moviegoers still gushed about the mere act of recording film. Gamers are focused on the presentation of the package rather than its actual contents. The article itself explains better than I can, and it's a good read anyway, so I'd advise a look.
The only people I know who are obssessed with specs and graphics are PC owners, console gamer's on the other hand aren't if gamer's were that fonds of rich and detailed graphics there wouldn't be a market for indie games.
@Nex:
In my opinion, everyone needs to take a page out of Gearbox and Bethesda's book and start making actual expansions to their game.
But there's certain factors you have to take into a account when making expanded content such as the most obvious of which.
Is it necessary?
I can think of a few games that had expanded content that for all intents in purposes didn't really need it which lead to it feeling somewhat worthless. Or game's that had expanded content that didn't make me like a game anymore than I already didn't like Fallout 3 or Red Dead Redemption.
-
But there's certain factors you have to take into a account when making expanded content such as the most obvious of which.
Is it necessary?
I can think of a few games that had expanded content that for all intents in purposes didn't really need it which lead to it feeling somewhat worthless. Or game's that had expanded content that didn't make me like a game anymore than I already didn't like Fallout 3 or Red Dead Redemption.
Bewarned, what follows is a massive wall of text which is recapped by a tl;dr after the jump. I understand if no one wants to read it, but I implore that you do, as my points are much better developed (even if a bit scatter-brained.) I am one of those writers that starts out with a short response, but builds and builds with idea after idea, so much so that I've developed a (rather poor) rough draft of an essay by the time I'm done. What follows has no real thesis, per se, but it does have 3 main points (see below) and I cut down as much as I could.
[hide]
I can agree with the Red Dead Redemption, as Undead Nightmare, but then again, Rockstar just released it for fun. They were much more on point with good DLC with their additional episodes to GTA.
Fall Out 3, I can't personally agree with you on, as I got a lot of enjoyment out of it, but I do understand our reasoning, and your main point.
If it's not necessary, why release it? That's the biggest issue. And in my opinion, if it's not necessary don't release it. Don't waste our time with additional maps, unless it's a huge addition, by which I mean 10 or more. Don't insult gamers by releasing 2 or 3 every now and then and then charging way too high a price, especially when most were already made when the game was released and offered out as pre order incentive (that's a whole other issue, which I have just as many complaints about – see all the different Dishonored bonuses and then feel my annoyance at having to pick one and then pay for the rest even though they could be included on the game except for the 2 good ones that are an actual physical item)
Anyway I'm losing my train of thought.
Back to talking about map packs. It's even more frustrating when so little attention is paid to the main game that each new release in Call of Duty feels like a map pack already a $60 one at that.
It's utterly ridiculous, and that goes for all "pack" DLC. Going back to Arkham City, all the different skins that were availble on release via different methods of pre order (or NOS) and then sold later. Or the "Robin" and "Nightwing" challenge maps which were another big middle finger from Rocksteady.
Seriously, if you want the crowning example of everything DLC should not be, look at Arkham City. While I loved the game everything was handled horribly.
Going back to your example of RDR. Undead Nightmare was not necessary. It did not add anything to the story. So by standard outlined earlier, it should not have been released. Which brings me to my second point (I think -- I'm writing on the fly, no outlining or organization of thought whatsoever): substantialness.
Undead Nightmare, while not necessary, and while your mileage may vary, was very full DLC. It was $10, but you got a lot of content, both single and multiplayer. The expansion added hours of gameplay, double digits for me, and it utilized most of the world very well.
Yes, it was released right before Halloween to cash in on the season and the zombie fad, but Rocksteady didn't half ass it. They put a lot of work into it, and while it didn't add to the story, it was a lot of fun (once again your mileage may vary.)
So while not necessary, per se, it was substantial.
The same can be said for Borderlands DLC, except for ClapTrap's Revolution, as it was necessary, and did continue the story (and was also pretty substantial. We didn't need the Zombie Island of Dr Zed (who is totally not Dr Ned) but there was a ton of stuff to do, and it took place in a brand new, fully realized setting. Gearbox put a lot of work into it and it showed.
So, trying to stay focused a bit: Despite not being necessary, if DLC is substantial enough that it adds numerous hours of playtime and is rewarding to play, then it should be released.
That is really my main point here, and what that means to you is going to differ. IF the call of duty enthusiasts like getting 2 map packs that cost more than they should, and they find it substantial because it adds, well, a new map, good for them…I guess.
It doesn't matter if all I see is another map which will become unexciting an hour into having it, or if I disagree with the way the developers handle releasing it. It works for them, so they'll continue doing it, and the market will follow (for the most part) as the market is, unfortunately, centered around Call of Duty, and the other million FPS (though it seems to be trying to move away from that -- finger's crossed.) Thus as the market follows suit, DLC becomes the same across the board, and games like Batman, which have no reason to be releasing map packs, release map packs.No of course, I understand that expansions won't work for every game (though they will for all the best games) as something like Call of Duty, can't really use an expansion. In the normal sense. It could definitely use the episodic format and add more to the main story, but as that is so unfulfilling to begin with, there's really no point. Also I fear that if they started doing that, the campaign would be reduced to one or two levels on release (with the third being a preorder bonus) and the rest being released later. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Call of Duty fanbase ended up being okay with this. I don't personally know anyone who buys the games for the campaign mode.
So, as I am digressing more, I'll come to what is my third, and final point: If the DLC is not necessary or substantial, don't release anything at all.
Now I know this isn't a new suggestion, and I know this isn't a probable solution, but the market is so obsessed with DLC today, that games themselves get shortchanged (except for the best games.) Because everyone is so focused on DLC,so much so that even upon a games release, people are already wondering about DLC, that alot of developers put a lot of focus into developing DLC, even though that focus should be on the game itself.
Now I understand why this market shift has happened. DLC is obviously a good, and cheap, way to make more money on a previously released product, while working on the next big release, and I am perfectly okay with this, as long as it's done right. Most of the time, it seems like it's not. It seems like developers are too busy being worried about making that extra bit of money that they don't focus enough on their main titles.
I'm going to return to Arkham City once again. While the game was great, and the story was solid, it was short. Way too short for the scope of the game, and way too short for an open world game. I beat everything but the Riddler challenges (so all main and side missions) in roughly 8 hours. It took me maybe another 2 to clean out the Riddler trophies, and that was on the hard difficulty. I spent a lot more time on Arkham Asylum, even though the story had less scope to it. The thing is, when Arkham Asylum was in development, no one had any expectations. No one cared who Rocksteady was. There were no expectations for the game, and as such no expectations for DLC, so all focus was on the disc. \By the time Arkham City rolls around, hype is through the roof. Everyone's expecting a great game, and great DLC, and rocksteady was trying to deliver on both accounts. I personally think there is an issue, when developers are hyping DLC before a game even launches. That just shows a split focus, and I think that it showed in the game, as it was shaky and rushed at times, and I feel as if it not only underutilized its world, but it could have been 10X better than it was.Now that my obligatory long example is out of the way, allow me to refine my point. When developers are so overwhelmed by DLC, they lose focus on their main game, and it suffers as a result. I'm sure that's a statement that most can agree with.
Here's where I think I'm going to start differing with people.Arkham City didn't need any DLC of any kind. With a game of that type, everything necessary should be covered in the story, and there's really nothing substantial you can do, unless you hit up the episodic format and give us showdown with a villain. Which is what they tried to do with HQ's Revenge. And it's terrible. Why? Because it's a linear expansion to on open game. It didn't fit the game at all, and with the game they released, I don't see any type of DLC that would substantially be beneficial to release.
Uncharted 3 did not need DLC, especially map packs. I don't think I need to go into this one much.
Bioshock, no need for DLC.
Deadspace, no need, but I'll allow it, as they've done a lot of universe building, so DLC from someone random's perspective is tolerable, even if not highly creative.
Zelda. No DLC ever, and no need for it. It's why every game continues to be long, well developed, and substantial.
I could keep going, but this is already too long of a post.
Now here's the kicker that I've been starting to get at, expansions won't work for just any game. They'll only work for open world games. Because in a heavily story driven game, the story should be wrapped up in the game.And those games, don't need DLC.
A linear game with a solid story has no necessity for DLC, and nothing substantial to offer, therefore no need of DLC.
And this is the most difficult part of my argument for me to wholly support in a well developed way, as only open world games (the best) have any necessity for DLC, or can offer substantial DLC. Because there is that world and mythology that has to be developed, absolutely anything is possible. Look and Dawn Guard, it has nothing to do with the story of Skyrim itself, but because it takes place in the same, open world, they can release it without any problems.
Linear games do not have this luxury.
Now a long while back in this post, I said that the market was moving away from Call of Duty, and I feel as if it is moving towards open worlds. Games with open worlds are becoming more and more popular, so much so that Rocksteady took a huge risk by switching from the linear format of Asylum to open world for City. It was a huge risk, as it meant both games would play completely different. And, for the most part, it paid off, because right now open world games are slowly capturing the market, and this has me exited, because it means, hopefully, more game on the disc, and better developed DLC.
I recognize that there will always be linear games, and I recognize the need for them. And I love them (Zelda anyone, which is actually kind of more or less both, as it takes place in an open world with a linear story. I don't think it's a fluke that it's my favorite game series)
These games simply don't need DLC. And if they do want to release something for fun to tide fans over between releases, that's fine with me, so long as it's reasonably priced and comes out at least 5 months after the game was released.
[/hide]tl;dr:
-
Point 1: DLC that is not necessary should not be released
-
Point 2: (Developing on Point 1) Even if not necessary, per se, DLC that is substantial in its content and provides many additional hours of gameplay, and is generally rewarding, should be released.
-
Point 3: Games that have no necessity to, or cannot provide something substantial enough, should not release any DLC, and those developers should only focus on making great games.
Conclusion: This post was way too long for being nothing more than a response to a couple of sentences that you wrote.
Hopefully everything was clear, as I'm pretty tired writing this, I'm pretty scatterbrained, I have a tendency to ramble, and I just wrote whatever came to mind without really developing my points or an outline before hand.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Holy balls I just saw how long that actually is.
Apologies to the universe. Especially since it isn't that well written.
Allow me to edit it into a more well developed essay that I will post again later.
I will also do the same with my thoughts on why pre-order bonuses are horrible in general, and why they need to be improved or should not exist at all.
-
-
DRM is worse then any of these issues.
DLC is fine as long as it's not taking advantage. devs/pubs should probably wait six months after release before offering any. pre-order dlc can go to hell.
This is why I love cd projekt. No drm in their own games(and they run gog.com), and their games come with substantial free dlc.
-
their games come with substantial free dlc.
I once checked this for witcher 2 and all I could find was little things like adding a barber or a quest to get 200 harpy feathers for some guy.
-
DRM is worse then any of these issues.
DLC is fine as long as it's not taking advantage. devs/pubs should probably wait six months after release before offering any. pre-order dlc can go to hell.
This is why I love cd projekt. No drm in their own games(and they run gog.com), and their games come with substantial free dlc.
Unfortunately there's nothing really that can be done about DRM, at least in the foreseeable future.
And I feel as if a lot of the DLC on the market is the developers taking advantage, with map packs being the biggest offenders, but that really is a personal thing.
And I love CD Projekt. Even more now that they just announced that they're developing a Cyberpunk 2020 game.
-
This is understandable, though. People get older and, most of the time, busier, so they get less time to spend on harder games. Meanwhile, kids don't seem to care if games go too easy on them.
I'm not talking about difficulty here.
I'm talking about shit where Fi has to pop up every time you get an item in a new area, just to make SURE your retarded little mind can comprehend that YES this butterfly is a BUTTERFLY, or to suggest "see this giant locked door with a lock we've come across 3 times before? this might be the boss door. it is also marked on your map." Or maybe the plethora of hud icons in CoD, letting you know where each and every point is and 15 other things as well, because learning the map is for turbo-nerds, or something I see a lot, the helper character calling in to tell you how to deal with a new enemy you meet, because god forbid you use some of your own thinking to figure out how to beat it.
I think the Super Guide in a lot of nintendo games recently is a good idea. It allows them to bend to their desire to let absolutely everyone see the ending of the game and help them through difficult spots, but it is completely ignorable by actual gamers, and doesn't force itself on you at all.
games getting "easier" is another pot of fish entirely that I don't want to get into. I just don't like it when games go out of their way to tell me how to do things I ought to be able to figure out myself. That's the fun of the game, dammit!
-
@Nex:
And I feel as if a lot of the DLC on the market is the developers taking advantage, with map packs being the biggest offenders, but that really is a personal thing.
How are map packs the biggest offenders?
If you buy a game and enjoy its multiplayer but you start to get bored with the current maps isn't a map pack exactly what the fans would want. It seems more of an issue of price more then anything.
-
How are map packs the biggest offenders?
If you buy a game and enjoy its multiplayer but you start to get bored with the current maps isn't a map pack exactly what the fans would want. It seems more of an issue of price more then anything.
Your last sentence hit the nail on the head.
They charge 15 bucks a map pack when collected. So yo get about 6 maps. And have already dropped 2, with a 3rd on the way.
That'll be $45 in addition to the $60 already spent on what was essentially a map pack to begin with.
That's freaking ridiculous. $105 on maps!
Of course people don't hav to buy them, but in my experience, people prefer to play on the newest maps available.And the thing that really gets me is the speed with which they churn these out. It's obvious that they have most of these made by the time the game is released, or they are incredibly easy to make. Either way, it's the developer taking advantage of the consumer.
Now is the developer really to blame here, shouldn't the consumer be smart enough to not encourage this? Yes it's the developer's fault. They obviously could care less about the consumer; all they want is money.
If they did care, they would release a quality product.
each map should not cost just over $2
-
Shoot, I just think video games are too expensive.
-
@Nex:
They charge 15 bucks a map pack when collected. So yo get about 6 maps. And have already dropped 2, with a 3rd on the way.
Well that seems to be more of a problem with activision and its consumers then with map packs in general.
Off the top of my head
Mass effect has had two dlc with 4 maps for free
dead space 2 had 2 free
bioshock 2 had one $10 map pack with 6 maps
uncharted packs were usually a few bucks and came with extra game types
Other then call of duty I don't really see any map packs that expensive.
-
I once checked this for witcher 2 and all I could find was little things like adding a barber or a quest to get 200 harpy feathers for some guy.
That's because proper dlc actually takes time to make.
Look up "enhanced edition".@Nex:
Unfortunately there's nothing really that can be done about DRM, at least in the foreseeable future.
Well, their GOG site now offers drm free software from ubisoft of all people, like assasains creed. If GOG.com keeps getting more popular, the industry will take notice.
@Nex:
And I feel as if a lot of the DLC on the market is the developers taking advantage, with map packs being the biggest offenders, but that really is a personal thing.
Not arguing with you there. I miss the expansion packs of the nineties.
-
@Rogues':
I must have missed 60 Minutes…Exactly how is a well-planned, well-detailed, and well-structured original idea considered "risky"?
I was talking about companies whoring out proven franchises till they die instead of taking the risk of thinking up new stuff that could be excellent but easily turn out to be a commercial flop through lack of a solid advertising campaign, like Beyond Good and Evil.
That game's one of the best I've ever played and I think it's fairly popular nowadays and yet it bombed hard sales wise at release. That's what I mean with "risky". -
@Nex:
Now is the developer really to blame here, shouldn't the consumer be smart enough to not encourage this? Yes it's the developer's fault. They obviously could care less about the consumer; all they want is money.
If they did care, they would release a quality product.
Just because you have to pay a little bit of change to get more maps doesn't mean your getting a product of zero or lesser quality.
-
The only people I know who are obssessed with specs and graphics are PC owners, console gamer's on the other hand aren't if gamer's were that fonds of rich and detailed graphics there wouldn't be a market for indie games.
That's a silly generalization. Just as there are console gamers who support the indie market, there are PC gamers who do the same. What do you think sites like Newgrounds and ArmorGames are for? And just as there are PC gamers who obsess over graphics, there is a LARGE faction of console gamers who do the same. The people you know personally are irrelevant. I could just as well say that a lot of people I know care only about specs and graphics, and a lot of them do, but that doesn't mean anything. Fact of the matter is, a lot of younger gamers (and surely some older ones) do, in fact, care about the hardware's sheer power.
On a somewhat related note, I fully support indie developers. They definitely create more for the sake of "art", for lack of a better word.
-
I'd say I like games that push the graphics barrier but I also have 40 indie games sitting in my Steam library. Problem is I haven't gotten around to playing a lot of them :ninja: .
@andre:Shoot, I just think video games are too expensive.
SNES and N64 games could cost $80, so while I agree that $60 is a lot of money for new games (PC games are still $50 a lot of the time), it's not like the price hasn't gone down.
-
What is ruining the gaming industry?
Ignorance. Simple as that. The yearly games have being going for years now. And at the end of the day. The ones paying money year after year for Fifa and Call of Duty were never really going to play the Tales Of games or Dragon Quest or what-have-you. Hell I know people who buy those two games and that's it for them for the full year. Possibly delving into Uncharted, GTA, Mario or Assassin's Creed or whatever should it take their fancy. The problem arises from words like 'Hardcore gamers' and that being tagged to certain games.
Take this scenario. I dunno. Lets say that people think that Mass Effect is a Hardcore game. A man spends 5 hours a week playing Mass Effect. He enjoys the plot but is only using it as a way to spend some time while waiting for his wife to come in from work. Does this make him a Hardcore gamer because he is playing a 'Hardcore' game? Not at all. On the other hand. A woman spends 20 hours a week playing Cooking Mama. She knows the recipies, she knows how to perfect them all. She has 100 on all of the missions and still loves playing it. Does this make her a casual gamer because she is playing a 'Casual' game? Yet in a lot of places this very scenario is being played out and I know for a fact that it would be the one playing Mass Effect in general would be the one considered Hardcore (I'm not using Mass Effect as a example here. Was just the first game I could think of. Change the name to something else if you find it offensive) I'm sure most people do it. (Remember people. The kiddies buying Horrid Henry's Puzzle Party may someday be the ones buying proper games. Games like that are just a way to weeen them onto it. Kinda like drugs)
and stuff like this. Lo and behind I finish typing this and find this on another forum I frequent. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00s9jly (should work out of UK too)
But other forms of ignorance when it comes to games too. For example in the UK. The leading (or at least was at one point) high street game shop is Game. However they wouldn't pick up a good portion of titles that they themselves didn't think would sell. Niche titles of course. Yet these are the titles selling for higher amounts on trade sites due to the higher demand. Or helps boost online sales. Now fair enough. If they bought even 5 copies each they could have them for sale forever. But surely that is better than big empty boxes filling up a shelf with a simple advert for Homefront or Bulletstorm….right?
-
GTA is not yearly. Not sure if you were trying to say that or not.