GAMING NEWS Thread 1

I'm with Mas on this one. Not for the announcement, but for the day one DLC. If you're developing it at this stage, why aren't you putting it into the game? To make an extra quick buck, that's why. It's as if Nintendo had announced Mega Man in SSB4, and then said, "He'll be buyable on release day!" Rubbish.

I'm fine with DLC if (a) it's free or (b) it's developed after the full game is out, to extend enjoyment of the package. Otherwise,

Balladeer wrote:

I'm with Mas on this one.  Not for the announcement, but for the day one DLC.  If you're developing it at this stage, why aren't you putting it into the game?  To make an extra quick buck, that's why.  It's as if Nintendo had announced Mega Man in SSB4, and then said, "He'll be buyable on release day!"  Rubbish.

I'm fine with DLC if (a) it's free or (b) it's developed after the full game is out, to extend enjoyment of the package.  Otherwise,

Sometimes  DLC goes into development after the full retail version goes into production. If the DLC was included on a cart or disc then it would delay its release. If it makes it's release date and is on the disc then it is despicable and a cynical cash in. But if it has been developed after it goes into production but is ready when the game is released I am fine with that. In this case I smell opportunistic cash in.

Yeah what Saul said on this as games do announce DLC whist the game hasn't gone gold but is pretty far along, so can't be added in or take bioshock infinite the story DLC is a different setting, so wouldn't fit into the main game.

And I would think Far Cry 4 is pretty far along as it's coming November but still to see nothing on it yet and have this stuff shown / announced seems like a opportunistic cash in.

I see that used a lot to justify day one dlc, but it still isn't good enough a reason, to me at least.  Before game systems were even capable of connecting to the internet none of this day one dlc nonsense existed and yet games weren't any worse off or emptier for it, so I don't buy that they need to do it that way.

Athrun888 wrote:

I see that used a lot to justify day one dlc, but it still isn't good enough a reason, to me at least.  Before game systems were even capable of connecting to the internet none of this day one dlc nonsense existed and yet games weren't any worse off or emptier for it, so I don't buy that they need to do it that way.  

That is true, but expansion packs existed. They'd still have to be physically produced so it would take longer to make them and release them. Nowadays you get the equivalent to an expansion pack release, but it is released in stages. So you might get day one, month one and month two. You can buy it at a collective price, season pass style, or individually, though that often works out dearer if you are after it all. Majora's Mask used many of the resources from OoT, had a far shorter development time, and was released as a full retail game and no one balked at that. DLC, as it is currently sold, is only an issue as people don't get that just because it is made available immediately doesn't mean it was ready to go into the full game in all cases.

I've never understood how folk get annoyed/angry over any kind of dlc, it is all optional content so you don't need to buy it & if you must its quite easily ignored.

The way I see it is that in quite a few cases, stuff that would be included on the disc is held back as DLC because the devs. can make more money that way.  So those who choose to ignore the DLC in the way you suggest are deprived of something they should be getting anyway, for free.

It's impossible to tell who does this and who doesn't, but do you believe so highly in Nintendo's (just an example) integrity, even in the face of mounting losses, to think that they wouldn't do this if they could get away with it?  If so, I envy you your non-cynicism, but respectfully disagree, and will continue to be annoyed about it.

I've been burnt too often by DLC to be happy with it being decided before launch. There may not be hundreds of cases of significant content being cut out but there are enough to make me worry. Nobody can tell me the last chapters in Asura's Wrath and Prince of Persia are optional extras. You can look at things like From Ashes in ME3 and that doesn't seem right to have as DLC. It's a squad member which they released on launch, gave tons of (to me at least) important information about what was going on and clearly intended to release all along because they had a whole room on the ship just for him!

Yeah but then ME has some of the best DLC around. And didn't everyone get from ashes with the cerbus pack which was every new game.

No I think From Ashes was only with the collectors edition. I have no issues with the rest of it but From Ashes was undoubtedly dodgy.

Balladeer wrote:

The way I see it is that in quite a few cases, stuff that would be included on the disc is held back as DLC because the devs. can make more money that way.  So those who choose to ignore the DLC in the way you suggest are deprived of something they should be getting anyway, for free.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to make more money that way? I don't see it as being deprived of content either if you're happy with the base game itself, we all know devs work to tight deadlines where they can't fit everything in that they would like to so DLC gives them that chance.

Balladeer wrote:

It's impossible to tell who does this and who doesn't, but do you believe so highly in Nintendo's (just an example) integrity, even in the face of mounting losses, to think that they wouldn't do this if they could get away with it?  If so, I envy you your non-cynicism, but respectfully disagree, and will continue to be annoyed about it.

It wouldn't bother me one bit if they done it as if I didn't like the look of the content then I simply won't buy it.

The_Jaster wrote:

Balladeer wrote:

The way I see it is that in quite a few cases, stuff that would be included on the disc is held back as DLC because the devs. can make more money that way.  So those who choose to ignore the DLC in the way you suggest are deprived of something they should be getting anyway, for free.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to make more money that way? I don't see it as being deprived of content either if you're happy with the base game itself, we all know devs work to tight deadlines where they can't fit everything in that they would like to so DLC gives them that chance.

I can't speak for others, but that method comes off as dishonest to me.  I can accept that game development costs have risen and that in turn raises what they have to try to get back from the consumer, but that method to me just comes off as them saying "buy our game in the launch window or miss out on a part of it!"  Holding a part of the game to ransom, that's what I see it as a form of, as extreme as that sounds.  If they want or need more money then just raise the average rrp by ten dollars like the past and sell us the whole game as it was most likely planned from at the start instead of locking it away through a launch copy exclusive code or a ten dollar paywall.

Not only that, but while it's not something the companies plan on because of how focussed on the short term and instant gratification things are nowadays but it also harms retro gaming.  Most of this isn't truly a problem now, but in ten years from now?  It could very well be a problem then.

The_Jaster wrote:

Why shouldn't they be allowed to make more money that way?

Athrun put it nicely, but in brief: because they're depriving us of something we ought to have got for free.

Yeah on disc DLC is a right no no in my book, I think it was one of capcoms fighting games had the characters on the disc and you had to pay X amount to basically flip a switch.

Also on Far Cry 4 some people are saying the cover is racist or something.

But news of some sort, the Xbox One was shown 365 day's ago today. Any thoughts guys, it is currently the 3rd best selling system ever at this point behind the Wii and PS4 which is all ready profitable for Sony and Kaz reckons it could make them more money then the PS2.

Over 50% of PS4 owners has PSN+, but it's not all good for PS4 as in japan it's struggling but I think what Fronk has said before the PS4 needs Jap titles to help it sell over there.

Athrun888 wrote:

The_Jaster wrote:

Balladeer wrote:

The way I see it is that in quite a few cases, stuff that would be included on the disc is held back as DLC because the devs. can make more money that way.  So those who choose to ignore the DLC in the way you suggest are deprived of something they should be getting anyway, for free.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to make more money that way? I don't see it as being deprived of content either if you're happy with the base game itself, we all know devs work to tight deadlines where they can't fit everything in that they would like to so DLC gives them that chance.

I can't speak for others, but that method comes off as dishonest to me.  I can accept that game development costs have risen and that in turn raises what they have to try to get back from the consumer, but that method to me just comes off as them saying "buy our game in the launch window or miss out on a part of it!"  Holding a part of the game to ransom, that's what I see it as a form of, as extreme as that sounds.  If they want or need more money then just raise the average rrp by ten dollars like the past and sell us the whole game as it was most likely planned from at the start instead of locking it away through a launch copy exclusive code or a ten dollar paywall.

Not only that, but while it's not something the companies plan on because of how focussed on the short term and instant gratification things are nowadays but it also harms retro gaming.  Most of this isn't truly a problem now, but in ten years from now?  It could very well be a problem then.

Balladeer wrote:

The_Jaster wrote:

Why shouldn't they be allowed to make more money that way?

Athrun put it nicely, but in brief: because they're depriving us of something we ought to have got for free.

Then surely that what needs to be done is vote with your wallet and not buy it & they will realise it isn't a valid tactic, aren't we are seeing less & less on disc dlc these days anyway? Anyhow for me it just seem so trivial to truly get annoyed about it.

masofdas wrote:

But news of some sort, the Xbox One was shown 365 day's ago today. Any thoughts guys, it is currently the 3rd best selling system ever at this point behind the Wii and PS4 which is all ready profitable for Sony and Kaz reckons it could make them more money then the PS2.

What? The One isn't the 3rd best selling system ever - there's well over a dozen home consoles that have shifted more units than it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_million-selling_game_consoles

The_Jaster wrote:

Then surely that what needs to be done is vote with your wallet and not buy it & they will realise it isn't a valid tactic, aren't we are seeing less & less on disc dlc these days anyway? Anyhow for me it just seem so trivial to truly get annoyed about it.

Depends how trivial the DLC is. If it is trivial then certainly, no problem. If it's Smash Bros. characters, not only is that not trivial but I wouldn't have the willpower to keep my wallet closed.  

@jay might be how I put it but I said at this point which is 6 month's or so.

So after 6 months of being on sell the ps4 has sold the most ever, then the Wii next best selling then the xbox one. Meaning the one is doing better than the 360 and the ps2 did in there first 6 month's of existence.

Eh, I don't hold much to credence to figures like that. Sales might peter out over time - if its overall sales are better, then I'll pay attention.

I won't. So long as Nintendo doesn't go bankrupt, I don't care too much.

Of course, poor sales figures make the other formats fanboys go all very quiet, which is always nice; but then the Nintendo fanboys come out, and contrary to popular belief they're not always nicer.

Balladeer wrote:

Of course, poor sales figures make the other formats fanboys go all very quiet, which is always nice; but then the Nintendo fanboys come out, and contrary to popular belief they're not always nicer.

Especially this one I encountered on CVG- Balladeer, I think his name was. What a twat.

That's a amazing Axis.

Yeah it's not really news but thought I'd bring up being a year after its been shown. But it's weird how it's considered a bit of a flop even though it's actually doing rather well and that's before the kinectless sku.

beemoh wrote:

Especially this one I encountered on CVG- Balladeer, I think his name was. What a twat.

You obviously haven't encountered Goggy or Higgins78, Beemzy!

On-disc DLC is a horrible ruse, in my opinion. However, if it genuinely adds something to the game, that's fine. If not, pah. On the subject of DLC Smash Bros. characters - Nintendo would generate a storm of bad press if they did that. It must never happen.