PDA

View Full Version : Ffs



Donjo
05-11-2011, 05:46 PM
Gears of War paid DLC on disk? Seems pretty bad.. maybe it sort of happens in other ways already though

http://www.destructoid.com/epic-games-justifies-gears-of-war-3-s-on-disc-dlc-215231.phtml

Wooly Wugga Wugga
05-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Yeah, look, this is a ripoff of note and about as cynical as it gets. I'm not sure what else to say. Just one big hearty "Fuck you" to their customers.

Althea
05-11-2011, 06:01 PM
Sigh. Seriously?

Maybe - just maybe - Epic put it on the disc because the files would be necessary for multiplayer? Splitting the crowd between DLC-owners and non-owners is a bad idea, and if this means everyone needs the same files to play then how is this stupid or a rip-off? If you read what the guy from Epic said, he said it's so everyone doesn't have to download a patch with it in.

Xercies
05-11-2011, 09:15 PM
Yeah but people are kind of annoyed that you paid for something and someone has arbitlarly said No you can't have that you must pay extra even though its on the physical thing that you paid for. I know its a worse case scenario but what if a developer just said to you to get the ending of the game you have to pay 20 more.

Althea
05-11-2011, 09:24 PM
That's a completely different example with different consequences. The multiplayer stuff is optional, and you don't buy the game with it. You pay to activate it, yeah, but it's not sold as an always-available part of the game. It's in the game files because it's needed for multiplayer to function.

Heister
06-11-2011, 01:18 AM
That's a completely different example with different consequences. The multiplayer stuff is optional, and you don't buy the game with it. You pay to activate it, yeah, but it's not sold as an always-available part of the game. It's in the game files because it's needed for multiplayer to function.

And for the multiplayer to function you have to pay for xbox live. So buy the console, buy xbox live, buy the game and buy the dlc that's already on the disk that you've already paid for. Sounds fair...

DigitalSignalX
06-11-2011, 01:39 AM
This is amusing. Luckily this could never happen on PC. *cough*

Kelron
06-11-2011, 02:16 AM
You know what you're getting when you buy a game like Gears of War. Do they expect Microsoft to turn around and say "Hey, have all this stuff for free"? If they can charge you for it, they will charge you for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

squirrel
06-11-2011, 02:57 AM
None other than Bill Gates should be blamed for this stupid trend of corporate greed. And I start to wonder if we gamers should have a better economic sense to understand what those corps are doing.

MS is the first one to introduce HDD for a game console. Their excuse was to provide something like a "buffer" to shorten loading time from disc (I am not familiar of the tech). Now we have a clear picture. HDD is for facilitating DLC introductions, so that publishers and MS can keep charging more for the very same piece of game soft they sell. As I always put it, they "chop" a game into pieces, with the largest piece being the main program they sell at launch of the game, then release the rest of the pieces bit by bit and charge you accordingly.

The nature of greed is all the same for Epic games / MS or other publishers. But I must say that this time Epic is just way too stupid. If you want to charge extra for a piece of content, dont put it into the main program disc, idiot.

The first time I started to pay attention to such trend is the release of the very first Halo 2 extra map pack, 9 maps in an expansion disc. People started arguing if MS could justify charging more a game people had already bought and own. (http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/halo-x-pack-is-the-price-right) Interestingly MS was actually testing water temperature, as they would release those maps free of charge months later. Obviously gamers at the time shed green light to such business practice, and therefore that's the first and the very last free-of-charge Halo 2 expansion. Some of my friends, angered by this pricing schedule, simply have their Xboxs modded, download those maps, cut the Xbox-Live subscriptions, and started playing on System-link. I am not sure how they played System-link on the Internet but seems they somehow connected their Xboxs to PCs to play on web. Anyway, those details of which I am unfamiliar is not the point. My point being, that we have to right to know how deep the bottom is before we jump in. If we have bought a game in retail price, publishers are obligated to inform us the potential future costs of DLCs before we make our purchasing decision. And charge more the access to contents which is already on the main program disc is outright crazy.

Berzee
06-11-2011, 03:42 AM
"None other than Bill Gates should be blamed for this stupid trend of corporate greed."

That's right.
Before him, corporations were rarely if ever greedy.

~_o

pakoito
06-11-2011, 03:51 AM
Bill Gates: he makes every final decision in design, package, development, management and architecture for every Microsoft product. He also codes.

squirrel
06-11-2011, 04:05 AM
"None other than Bill Gates should be blamed for this stupid trend of corporate greed."

That's right.
Before him, corporations were rarely if ever greedy.

~_o

You do notice that I wrote, "The nature of greed is all the same for Epic games / MS or other publishers." Don't you?


Bill Gates: he makes every final decision in design, package, development, management and architecture for every Microsoft product. He also codes.

And you are suggesting that adding 8/10MB HDD for each Xbox was not a decision that required Mr. Gates approval?

pakoito
06-11-2011, 04:24 AM
And you are suggesting that adding 8/10MB HDD for each Xbox was not a decision that required Mr. Gates approval?Not at all. Listen, big companies are split in section or division, and each section has his own hierarchy and most of the final decisions go to that department's head. First, the CEO can't be the one taking all choices for the company. Having an HD is as important as the color of the buttons each in their field, and the need for technical and economical knowledge makes it impossible for one single person to know everything about all his products. Same can be applied to all the bad UI design shit you dinf in windows.

People tend to generalize Microsoft as Bill Gates because he was the face for a lot of years and it is funny to mock him. Fact is he's an economist with no technical knowledge. And he retired five years ago.

Seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this to someone in RPS.


EDIT: I see where this is going. Those Jobs stories about his fucking lust for micromanaging every shit from his company pissing off everyone else. Well, no, neither Gates nor other CEOs behave the same because most of the time it is counterproductive.

squirrel
06-11-2011, 04:44 AM
Not at all. Listen, big companies are split in section or division, and each section has his own hierarchy and most of the final decisions go to that department's head. First, the CEO can't be the one taking all choices for the company. Having an HD is as important as the color of the buttons each in their field, and the need for technical and economical knowledge makes it impossible for one single person to know everything about all his products. Same can be applied to all the bad UI design shit you dinf in windows.

People tend to generalize Microsoft as Bill Gates because he was the face for a lot of years and it is funny to mock him. Fact is he's an economist with no technical knowledge. And he retired five years ago.

Seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this to someone in RPS.


EDIT: I see where this is going. Those Jobs stories about his fucking lust for micromanaging every shit from his company pissing off everyone else. Well, no, neither Gates nor other CEOs behave the same because most of the time it is counterproductive.

If you concern more about your consumer right and the recent development of video game market, you would understand more about my opinion. Installing HDD to a game console has a greater implication than being just an operational decision. At least I seldom complains about disc load time of Playstation 2 (there is HDD for Playstation 2, but mainly for the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI). And the decision was made back when Bill Gates was still in office.

And I am not an I-fanboy. I still cannot afford to be, so I dont really pay attention to Jobs Steve's story. But he for sure was an honorable IT innovator, of course. Bill Gates, on the other hand...... People dont just hate capitalists like Bill Gates for no reason.

And if we do nothing now, it will be too late when even Nintendo buys the genius idea of DLCs. We can't let DLC become the industrial standard.

pakoito
06-11-2011, 05:23 AM
If you concern more about your consumer right and the recent development of video game market, you would understand more about my opinion. Installing HDD to a game console has a greater implication than being just an operational decision. At least I seldom complains about disc load time of Playstation 2 (there is HDD for Playstation 2, but mainly for the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI). And the decision was made back when Bill Gates was still in office.

And I am not an I-fanboy. I still cannot afford to be, so I dont really pay attention to Jobs Steve's story. But he for sure was an honorable IT innovator, of course. Bill Gates, on the other hand...... People dont just hate capitalists like Bill Gates for no reason.

And if we do nothing now, it will be too late when even Nintendo buys the genius idea of DLCs. We can't let DLC become the industrial standard.Don't misdirect. You said Gates put HDs, I told you he didn't, the rest I didn't say anything about. Also, Jobs didn't innovate shit, he rebranded other peoples ideas as his own as a capitalist too. Thus whole argument of yours sounds too immature, get some facts, rely less on your opinion, don't lecture on consumer rights and we can talk tomorrow. Good night.

Wooly Wugga Wugga
06-11-2011, 06:36 AM
I'm picturing a world in the not too distant future in which you walk into a cinema and fifteen minutes before the end of the show the projectionist pauses the film and demands ten bucks from the punters to see the ending. The excuse will be that the film reel is just the delivery mechanism and the director went over budget and schedule to perform the post production on the last ten minutes.

laneford
06-11-2011, 09:41 AM
MS is the first one to introduce HDD for a game console. Their excuse was to provide something like a "buffer" to shorten loading time from disc (I am not familiar of the tech). Now we have a clear picture. HDD is for facilitating DLC introductions

Just being a little bit Pedantic, but the HDD on the Xbox (which is optional, you can still get the one without one) allows XBLA games to exist. And whatever you think of Live or MS, XBLA has been a huge, justified and spectacularly good thing to exist.

Unaco
06-11-2011, 01:43 PM
This is amusing. Luckily this could never happen on PC. *cough*

*cough* Bioshock 2 *cough*

Althea
06-11-2011, 02:09 PM
*cough* Bioshock 2 *cough*
Which, again, would share the same explanation that I gave above.

DigitalSignalX
06-11-2011, 02:57 PM
Also Star Wars: Force Unleashed, Burnout Paradise, Resident Evil 5. Thankfully they could all be unlocked via the diabolical meddling of consumers.

Taidan
06-11-2011, 04:49 PM
I dont really pay attention to Jobs Steve's story. But he for sure was an honorable IT innovator, of course. Bill Gates, on the other hand...... People dont just hate capitalists like Bill Gates for no reason.

Okay, I'll bite.

Steve Jobs was an asshole who never innovated in his entire life. He got some good people behind him, (who he usually ruthlessly exploited) he stole, and he made fashionable, but he never, ever innovated.

I think it's Steve Wozniak you were thinking off. He's the legendary designer who got Apple off to their great start.

Bill Gates, on the other hand, was also an asshole who regularly stole and exploited people, but at least in the early days he was actually a coder, and had an active hand in producing his company's products.

As for this abysmal DLC-on-Disk business...

It sucks. Badly. In days of old, buying a game was a great unspoken deal between you and the developers. They did the best possible job they could given the time and budget they had available to them, and it return they got paid for their efforts.

Companies that do not respect this "deal" are basically working according to a sliding rule to which you cannot arbitrarily apply a cut-off point of what what is acceptable and what is not, in terms of what you get for your money when you buy a game. (And to what they can charge you again for later.)

R-F
06-11-2011, 05:16 PM
Why is Unrav always on the side of the corporations? Surely he has to be some sort of shill? Regardless of how bad the developers / publishers get, he's always there saying, "WELL IT'S OKAY BECAUSE BLUUUHHH BLUHUHHHH".

Althea
06-11-2011, 05:22 PM
Why is Unrav always on the side of the corporations? Surely he has to be some sort of shill? Regardless of how bad the developers / publishers get, he's always there saying, "WELL IT'S OKAY BECAUSE BLUUUHHH BLUHUHHHH".
SHE.

As I said in an earlier post, the guy from Epic explained why it was on the disc, and I also gave an explanation. It's so that the users don't have to download a (potentially) large patch to play multiplayer, but also so that everyone can play together. The other options are to make all of the users download a large patch just to play online regardless of whether they have the DLC or not, or to separate the DLC owners from those who don't own it.

Putting it on the disc is the most pain-free and sensible move.

Edit: Did you notice how I haven't agreed with it nor its pricing, instead just giving what I perceive to be the key facts?

R-F
06-11-2011, 07:25 PM
SHE.

As I said in an earlier post, the guy from Epic explained why it was on the disc, and I also gave an explanation. It's so that the users don't have to download a (potentially) large patch to play multiplayer, but also so that everyone can play together. The other options are to make all of the users download a large patch just to play online regardless of whether they have the DLC or not, or to separate the DLC owners from those who don't own it.

Putting it on the disc is the most pain-free and sensible move.

Edit: Did you notice how I haven't agreed with it nor its pricing, instead just giving what I perceive to be the key facts?


Sigh. Seriously?

Maybe - just maybe - Epic put it on the disc because the files would be necessary for multiplayer? Splitting the crowd between DLC-owners and non-owners is a bad idea, and if this means everyone needs the same files to play then how is this stupid or a rip-off? If you read what the guy from Epic said, he said it's so everyone doesn't have to download a patch with it in.

The "Sigh. Seriously?" just sets off my "Oh, look, Unrav taking the side of the poor, defenceless corporations again" alarm, broski. Unless that's not you trying to dismiss the OP (which I seriously suspect it is, and you're just going to claim it's not and it's for something else), then whatever.

Secondly, no, it's not going to "split the playerbase" any more or any less if it's on the disc. I don't see how that makes any sense at all because what the hell are you even talking about? If you're playing multiplayer, you can assume that you have a good enough connection to download it. Without the DLC, you can't play on the maps so the community is still split.

Lastly, you are a horribly dismissive person.

P.S. I couldn't care less if you are male or female and will continue to refer to you as male.

Althea
06-11-2011, 07:33 PM
Secondly, no, it's not going to "split the playerbase" any more or any less if it's on the disc. I don't see how that makes any sense at all because what the hell are you even talking about?
Because those with the DLC, if you downloaded it when you bought it, would have the files whereas those who didn't buy it wouldn't, therefore those without the files cannot be in the same match as those with them. That is why it would split the playerbase.

JayTee
06-11-2011, 07:46 PM
If you're playing multiplayer, you can assume that you have a good enough connection to download it. No you can't. You can have a decent connection that gives you low pings, but is limited to say 1GB a month which you'd be very hard pressed to get through just playing games.

DigitalSignalX
06-11-2011, 08:29 PM
The multiplayer argument stands up reasonably, but when it comes to single player claws shall be sharpened.

Drake Sigar
06-11-2011, 08:37 PM
I know its a worse case scenario but what if a developer just said to you to get the ending of the game you have to pay 20 more.
I vaguely recall one point where Epic Games were discussing just that. Fortunately that's as far as it got.

Althea
06-11-2011, 08:39 PM
I vaguely recall one point where Epic Games were discussing just that. Fortunately that's as far as it got.
Are we forgetting that's exactly how episodic games work? Are we also forgetting that a certain "holier-than-thou" developer are taking the yellow liquid with a certain episodic title, too?

R-F
06-11-2011, 08:44 PM
Because those with the DLC, if you downloaded it when you bought it, would have the files whereas those who didn't buy it wouldn't, therefore those without the files cannot be in the same match as those with them. That is why it would split the playerbase.

But they wouldn't be able to play on the maps, anyway. What is your point? Downloading the files isn't like an expansion pack, it's just a simple few maps.

Drake Sigar
06-11-2011, 08:51 PM
Are we forgetting that's exactly how episodic games work? Are we also forgetting that a certain "holier-than-thou" developer are taking the yellow liquid with a certain episodic title, too?
You could at least ask me to elaborate on my claim before you so brazenly defend them. Why are you so utterly intolerable today?

Althea
06-11-2011, 08:56 PM
But they wouldn't be able to play on the maps, anyway. What is your point? Downloading the files isn't like an expansion pack, it's just a simple few maps.
Did you read what was in the DLC? Three characters and two weapon skins, alongside three maps and the achievements. Those without the DLC would not be able to see those characters, nor the weapon skins, therefore they wouldn't be able to play with those that do in multiplayer.

So, there were a couple of choices:
1. Include it on disc so everyone has the files, but only those who buy it can access it.
2. Include it in a downloadable patch that everyone who connects has to download, regardless of whether they play multiplayer or not.
3. Separate the multiplayer "groups" so only those with the DLC can play against each other, and those without have to play each other.

#1 is the only sensible option in this case.


You could at least ask me to elaborate on my claim before you so brazenly defend them. Why are you so utterly intolerable today?
I'm intolerable because I'm pointing things out? I will confess that I didn't mean to aim that point directly at you, but also to Xercies, but I feel that point was relevant. We predict, in a rather cynical fashion, that publishers will start cutting up single-player and start selling us the endings to games, whilst at the same time we will complain that Valve haven't released Episode 3, all the while not realising Valve did what some have predicted.

DigitalSignalX
06-11-2011, 10:53 PM
The rose tinted glasses might be on, but I don't think it's fair to consider Valve's HL releases in the same vein as DLC or the practice of cutting up a narrative into much shorter packages, even though they actually use the word "episode" in them. They were pretty good size, contained a lot of game play, and are (annoyingly) infrequent. Compare to the Sam and Max releases, or almost anything made by Telltale actually would be closer to the mark.

Donjo
06-11-2011, 11:41 PM
Did you read what was in the DLC? Three characters and two weapon skins, alongside three maps and the achievements. Those without the DLC would not be able to see those characters, nor the weapon skins, therefore they wouldn't be able to play with those that do in multiplayer.

So, there were a couple of choices:
1. Include it on disc so everyone has the files, but only those who buy it can access it.
2. Include it in a downloadable patch that everyone who connects has to download, regardless of whether they play multiplayer or not.
3. Separate the multiplayer "groups" so only those with the DLC can play against each other, and those without have to play each other.

#1 is the only sensible option in this case.


I'm intolerable because I'm pointing things out? I will confess that I didn't mean to aim that point directly at you, but also to Xercies, but I feel that point was relevant. We predict, in a rather cynical fashion, that publishers will start cutting up single-player and start selling us the endings to games, whilst at the same time we will complain that Valve haven't released Episode 3, all the while not realising Valve did what some have predicted.

It's pretty ridiculous to compare the release schedule of the Half-Life series to new trends in paid DLC.
I just wanted to bring this Gears of War thing up because it seems like such a kick in the face to have the stuff on disk and still make people pay for it..... people give out about launch date DLC but this is something else..

R-F
07-11-2011, 06:28 AM
Did you read what was in the DLC? Three characters and two weapon skins, alongside three maps and the achievements. Those without the DLC would not be able to see those characters, nor the weapon skins, therefore they wouldn't be able to play with those that do in multiplayer.

So, there were a couple of choices:
1. Include it on disc so everyone has the files, but only those who buy it can access it.
2. Include it in a downloadable patch that everyone who connects has to download, regardless of whether they play multiplayer or not.
3. Separate the multiplayer "groups" so only those with the DLC can play against each other, and those without have to play each other.

#1 is the only sensible option in this case.

4. Download the patch upon connecting to multiplayer.

WOW. HOW SIMPLIFIED.


I'm intolerable because I'm pointing things out? I will confess that I didn't mean to aim that point directly at you, but also to Xercies, but I feel that point was relevant. We predict, in a rather cynical fashion, that publishers will start cutting up single-player and start selling us the endings to games, whilst at the same time we will complain that Valve haven't released Episode 3, all the while not realising Valve did what some have predicted.

lol. Except Valve released all that in the Orange Box, for one, which was three games for the price of one game and, two, their episodes are pretty damn massive.

Rii
07-11-2011, 07:25 AM
you are a horribly dismissive person.


I couldn't care less if you are male or female and will continue to refer to you as male.

Funny thing is these lines are right next to each other.

Althea
07-11-2011, 08:23 AM
4. Download the patch upon connecting to multiplayer.
That's not how Xbox Live's updating system works.


lol. Except Valve released all that in the Orange Box, for one, which was three games for the price of one game and, two, their episodes are pretty damn massive.
And? Episode 1 came out just shy of a year and a half after HL2, Episode 2 about a year and a half after Episode 1. Four years later, and still absolutely bugger all. The Orange Box being good value is utterly irrelevant (plus it was five games, by the way. Portal, TF2, HL2 + Episodes). Point is Valve took the continuation of the story, cut it up into parts and it is arguable that such a method allows them to sell the end to a story, but because they're Valve and they have to be Special Special Pancakes, they managed to cock that up.

Taidan
07-11-2011, 09:16 AM
Why is Unrav always on the side of the corporations? Surely he has to be some sort of shill? Regardless of how bad the developers / publishers get, he's always there saying, "WELL IT'S OKAY BECAUSE BLUUUHHH BLUHUHHHH".

I don't think Unrav is a shill. They usually work with multiple accounts, some of which will use various classical rhetorical tricks and "play to the audience" to turn the argument, while others start out with sly ad hominems, then go on to obvious trolling in an attempt to take the original complainant off track.

I think it more likely that she's simply displaying strong indicators of an "authoritarian personality" and trying to justify that viewpoint with argument after the fact. There's a fascinating book available to read on the subject here (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/).

soldant
07-11-2011, 11:02 AM
And? Episode 1 came out just shy of a year and a half after HL2, Episode 2 about a year and a half after Episode 1. Four years later, and still absolutely bugger all. The Orange Box being good value is utterly irrelevant (plus it was five games, by the way. Portal, TF2, HL2 + Episodes). Point is Valve took the continuation of the story, cut it up into parts and it is arguable that such a method allows them to sell the end to a story, but because they're Valve and they have to be Special Special Pancakes, they managed to cock that up.
Totally agree. Valve might make good games but they have absolutely piss-poor planning. Reading their HL2: Raising the Bar book, it's obvious that they make a boatload of content for a few years, then go "Oh bugger it, we don't actually have a way to make this into a game!" before then taking a normal development cycle to do something that ends up in a box.

And really the Orange Box wasn't fantastic value; Episode 2 was good but it was short, Portal was great but ultra short, and TF2 was ultimately a bit of a gamble that paid off in the end because it ended up being exactly what a lot of people wanted in a multiplayer game... which they then went and exploited the hell out of, but good on them for that. TF2 was the surprise performer of the lot and that's where the real value lies in the pack, but if people decided that TF2 wasn't particularly good and not worth playing, it could have easily died as well.

One thing I will say for Valve though; their Australian Steam pricing is fantastic, they don't play the idiotic region game with us.

Althea
07-11-2011, 11:10 AM
And really the Orange Box wasn't fantastic value; Episode 2 was good but it was short, Portal was great but ultra short, and TF2 was ultimately a bit of a gamble that paid off in the end because it ended up being exactly what a lot of people wanted in a multiplayer game... which they then went and exploited the hell out of, but good on them for that. TF2 was the surprise performer of the lot and that's where the real value lies in the pack, but if people decided that TF2 wasn't particularly good and not worth playing, it could have easily died as well.
It's also worth mentioning that HL2+Ep1 had already been knocking about in various forms beforehand, so a lot of people ended up with surplus of them. I know I got mine gifted to me, and then I got the Orange Box.

Donjo
07-11-2011, 01:16 PM
That's not how Xbox Live's updating system works.


And? Episode 1 came out just shy of a year and a half after HL2, Episode 2 about a year and a half after Episode 1. Four years later, and still absolutely bugger all. The Orange Box being good value is utterly irrelevant (plus it was five games, by the way. Portal, TF2, HL2 + Episodes). Point is Valve took the continuation of the story, cut it up into parts and it is arguable that such a method allows them to sell the end to a story, but because they're Valve and they have to be Special Special Pancakes, they managed to cock that up.

Yes. Valve should have waited until they completed the entire story arc, even if that turns out to be never, until the decision to release any episodes at all was made.



I don't think Unrav is a shill. They usually work with multiple accounts, some of which will use various classical rhetorical tricks and "play to the audience" to turn the argument, while others start out with sly ad hominems, then go on to obvious trolling in an attempt to take the original complainant off track.

I think it more likely that she's simply displaying strong indicators of an "authoritarian personality" and trying to justify that viewpoint with argument after the fact. There's a fascinating book available to read on the subject here (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/).

I have turned into a feeder, your alternative theory is looking more likely....

Althea
07-11-2011, 01:20 PM
Yes. Valve should have waited until they completed the entire story arc, even if that turns out to be never, until the decision to release any episodes at all was made.
No, Valve should have stuck to their plan rather than doing whatever it is they're doing.

Donjo
07-11-2011, 01:36 PM
No, Valve should have stuck to their plan rather than doing whatever it is they're doing.

One of the reasons for Valves success seems to be their willingness to discard rigid plans in favour of something more pragmatic.. if this helps them to make games of the caliber that they do then I'd say it works. Even if it takes a long time.

Althea
07-11-2011, 01:45 PM
One of the reasons for Valves success seems to be their willingness to discard rigid plans in favour of something more pragmatic.. if this helps them to make games of the caliber that they do then I'd say it works. Even if it takes a long time.
You can spend too long making a game, though. Look at Duke Nukem Forever. That spent too long in development, and look what happened to it. It's either that or people will just get bored and walk away.

Valve achieve success by making good games and by sort of doing right by their customers (aside from Steam Support), but they don't have any concept of doing things in a timely manner. They can't even release a DLC pack in the season they announced it for (Portal 2 DLC, by the way), and it's not cool - it's pathetic and ridiculous.

DigitalSignalX
07-11-2011, 02:06 PM
And really the Orange Box wasn't fantastic value ...

If you polled a thousand PC gamers what the single best "bang for buck" product in the history of gaming is, I'd bet anything Orange box would be in the top five, if not number one. Claiming it wasn't a value for the price of a normal title is kind of silly after you praise all three titles despite the length and whatever you're trying to say about the initial reception of TF2.

R-F
07-11-2011, 02:28 PM
That's not how Xbox Live's updating system works.

Fairly certain that's how it worked on RDR. Or, at least, you can cancel updates.


And? Episode 1 came out just shy of a year and a half after HL2, Episode 2 about a year and a half after Episode 1. Four years later, and still absolutely bugger all. The Orange Box being good value is utterly irrelevant (plus it was five games, by the way. Portal, TF2, HL2 + Episodes). Point is Valve took the continuation of the story, cut it up into parts and it is arguable that such a method allows them to sell the end to a story, but because they're Valve and they have to be Special Special Pancakes, they managed to cock that up.

What the hell are you even arguing here? Are you REALLY whining about Valve working on Episode 3 for a long time (presumably to ensure good gameplay and polish)?

Also, you're arguing that Episode 1+2 are the same game in one post and now arguing they're seperate games in another? Do you just live to argue regardless of whether it makes sense or keeps any sort of continuity between posts?


And really the Orange Box wasn't fantastic value;

Most people would've happily paid for Half Life 2 alone at that price, nevermind everything on top of it.

Xercies
07-11-2011, 03:06 PM
Actually no it wasn't a good price, basically the only new games on the Orange Box were Half Life Episode 2 which isn't that big, Portal 1 which isn't that big and Team Fortress 2 which if you don't like multiplayer games is a waste of space and you can chuck it away. Half Life 2 and Episode 1 were out for a few years before the orange box came out.

And i agree episodes are a bit to much like paying 20 more for the ending. Though I would say not always, if you get a decent sized game for it then I would say it can be quite good to split it up. remember Telltale sell all there episodes for basically the same amount for a normal game, so in that case actually there not hiking up the price to sell you the ending. Valve I'm afraid are to be honest.

pakoito
07-11-2011, 03:15 PM
Actually no it wasn't a good price, basically the only new games on the Orange Box were Half Life Episode 2 which isn't that big, Portal 1 which isn't that big and Team Fortress 2 which if you don't like multiplayer games is a waste of space and you can chuck it away. Half Life 2 and Episode 1 were out for a few years before the orange box came out.You're just nitpicking here. "No this game doesn't count" "this one is too short" "no but you have to like multiplayer games" "I already had that".

Look. Somebody buying it gets Half Life 2 with two expansions and Multiplayer and mods. One other multiplayer game. And one of the best games ever no matter how short it was. You don't measure fun in hours, but quality, and this pack had the best bang for bucks since that Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition bundle.

deano2099
07-11-2011, 03:25 PM
It sucks. Badly. In days of old, buying a game was a great unspoken deal between you and the developers. They did the best possible job they could given the time and budget they had available to them, and it return they got paid for their efforts.

That's still happening. Guess what? The fact that the publisher knew they could make X amount of money off the DLC on the disc meant that the developer was then given Y amount of extra time and budget to spend on the game. This stuff is planned for. It's not like "ooh, lets cut that bit out and sell it as DLC" when the whole game is done. If that wasn't the plan, that bit of the game might never have been made.


lol. Except Valve released all that in the Orange Box, for one, which was three games for the price of one game and, two, their episodes are pretty damn massive.
Okay so if the Gears DLC was bigger and more substantial we'd be okay with it. In which case the 'omg it's on the disc' argument isn't a factor. I mean, they could have not put the content on the disc. Thus inconveniencing people with a big download. Is that really better? At least they're being transparent, it seems people would rather they pretend the DLC was something that it wasn't.


Most people would've happily paid for Half Life 2 alone at that price, nevermind everything on top of it.
This, a million times over. Likewise if people happily pay for Gears of War 3 as advertised and feel they are geting value for money then that is fine, regardless of what other files might be on the disc.

I struggle with all this as I take the seemingly shockingly complex approach of looking at what content is in a game, how much it costs, and then deciding if it's worth it. I then do the same with the DLC. It's a system that works fairly well and I highly recommend it.

The only place it gets awkward is when story content is cut that might affect the tone or pace of the game (see Arkham City: Catwoman or Shale in DA:O) - I feel like I'm not playing the game 'as designed' without the DLC and hence being conned in to buying it. Valve are doing the opposite with the episodes, in just not finishing the story, which I also find a bit annoying.

Nalano
07-11-2011, 03:40 PM
You can spend too long making a game, though. Look at Duke Nukem Forever. That spent too long in development, and look what happened to it. It's either that or people will just get bored and walk away.

Valve's design philosophy of "it's done when it's done" has served them quite well thus far, and while Ep3 hasn't come out yet, they've had a steady stream of releases (not to mention own a plurality of the entire online publishing business) so they're not about to starve under their own albatross like 3DRealms.


The only place it gets awkward is when story content is cut that might affect the tone or pace of the game (see Arkham City: Catwoman or Shale in DA:O) - I feel like I'm not playing the game 'as designed' without the DLC and hence being conned in to buying it. Valve are doing the opposite with the episodes, in just not finishing the story, which I also find a bit annoying.

Wasn't Shale "Day One free DLC" as a 'fuck you' to resellers?

That's a whole 'nother can of worms. I think people are more angry about the whole "annoying asshole lives in your camp begging you to buy DLC" thing than Shale.

R-F
07-11-2011, 04:03 PM
Okay so if the Gears DLC was bigger and more substantial we'd be okay with it. In which case the 'omg it's on the disc' argument isn't a factor. I mean, they could have not put the content on the disc. Thus inconveniencing people with a big download. Is that really better? At least they're being transparent, it seems people would rather they pretend the DLC was something that it wasn't.

10/10 on taking a quote out of context.


This, a million times over. Likewise if people happily pay for Gears of War 3 as advertised and feel they are geting value for money then that is fine, regardless of what other files might be on the disc.

Another quote out of context and arguing for something that isn't the issue.


I struggle with all this as I take the seemingly shockingly complex approach of looking at what content is in a game, how much it costs, and then deciding if it's worth it. I then do the same with the DLC. It's a system that works fairly well and I highly recommend it.

lol wat. So you're saying the fact that developers have OUTRIGHT CUT CONTENT from the game is fine because "players think it's worth it"?

Althea
07-11-2011, 04:08 PM
lol wat. So you're saying the fact that developers have OUTRIGHT CUT CONTENT from the game is fine because "players think it's worth it"?
Why do you think it's cut content? What proof do you have that it is? For all we know this content was planned from the start and done by a "DLC team" using the DLC budget, or perhaps it was created before the game went gold, or perhaps this was part of Epic's plan from the beginning. We don't know, I don't know, you don't know - Only they do, and this "cut content" argument is old and ridiculous. Yes, some publishers/developers may cut content and resell it as DLC, but not all do.

Taidan
07-11-2011, 04:52 PM
That's still happening. Guess what? The fact that the publisher knew they could make X amount of money off the DLC on the disc meant that the developer was then given Y amount of extra time and budget to spend on the game. This stuff is planned for. It's not like "ooh, lets cut that bit out and sell it as DLC" when the whole game is done. If that wasn't the plan, that bit of the game might never have been made.

Yeah, excuse me for being blunt here, but that old argument is a load of crap.

I don't care how they work their book-keeping. If you want to use that argument, then they can cut any amount of the game you've bought and sell it back to you, just by editing their balance books in advance.

It's exactly the same thing as cutting content then selling it back to you, only it's even worse, as in that case it's been planned before they even started making the game.

Mohorovicic
07-11-2011, 06:32 PM
Why do you think it's cut content? What proof do you have that it is?

It shipped on the disc with the gold version of the game.

You might want to dabble in semantics until nobody cares, but the facts are thus: They had x amount of game made for y amount of money in z amount of time. Then they cut some of x and decided to charge additional money for it later as an extra.

Which might be a sound business strategy, but still strikes me as an extremely dick move.

Althea
07-11-2011, 06:38 PM
It shipped on the disc with the gold version of the game.

You might want to dabble in semantics until nobody cares, but the facts are thus: They had x amount of game made for y amount of money in z amount of time. Then they cut some of x and decided to charge additional money for it later as an extra.

Which might be a sound business strategy, but still strikes me as an extremely dick move.
Or perhaps they decided late in development to fast-track some DLC to ship it on disc. Therefore it would not be cut content. Shipping with it on the disc may imply or suggest it's "cut content", but it does not mean it is.

Mohorovicic
07-11-2011, 06:40 PM
Standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in hand...

R-F
07-11-2011, 07:36 PM
You might want to dabble in semantics until nobody cares

You know Unrav's lost when he tries to bog the discussion down into what "content cut from release" means. You've lost, Unrav, everyone disagrees with you.


Standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in hand...

"It wasn't me, I swear, the knife was there when I found it!"

Mohorovicic
07-11-2011, 08:08 PM
You've lost, Unrav, everyone disagrees with you.

No, no. That's when you win. At least that's what I was told when I joined the Internet.

Taidan
07-11-2011, 08:40 PM
This is the attitude we should be seeing towards DLC (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/11/skyrim-dlc-will-be-less-frequent-but-more-substantial.ars).

Step 1: Release a finished game
Step 2: Give gamers a while to enjoy game. Take a holiday.
Step 3: Take in any and all feedback, release expansions for the game.

It's far preferable to what Epic Games have done with Gears of War 3, which is basically stealthily adding an extra 10$ to the price of their game at launch.

deano2099
08-11-2011, 04:37 AM
Yeah, excuse me for being blunt here, but that old argument is a load of crap.

I don't care how they work their book-keeping. If you want to use that argument, then they can cut any amount of the game you've bought and sell it back to you, just by editing their balance books in advance.

It's exactly the same thing as cutting content then selling it back to you, only it's even worse, as in that case it's been planned before they even started making the game.

Are you equally annoyed that bioware split Mass Effect in to 3 parts and sold them separately? Or that restaurants charge extra for dessert? If you can cut stuff out and what is left still stands alone as a good value product then what is the problem? Yes the publisher wants more money, because games are expensive to make and lack a decent secondary revenue stream.

R-F
08-11-2011, 06:48 AM
Are you equally annoyed that bioware split Mass Effect in to 3 parts and sold them separately?

Three different games with their own engines, mechanics, plot arcs etc.


Or that restaurants charge extra for dessert?

Completely wrong industry, there, and a completely different standard. Also, it's a seperate product to the rest of it, and most restaurants do a three course meal deal.


If you can cut stuff out and what is left still stands alone as a good value product then what is the problem? Yes the publisher wants more money, because games are expensive to make and lack a decent secondary revenue stream.

Neither of your examples were "cutting stuff out". They were adding stuff on top. THAT'S what DLC should be, adding more onto the complete original game, not cutting it out to make a quick bit of money.

A better example would be getting a "Steak dinner" and discovering it's only steak and you have to pay more for the gravy and chips. It's sold as a complete product but has bits cut out for the food place to make money. Would that be acceptable? I didn't think so.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 07:57 AM
A better example would be getting a "Steak dinner" and discovering it's only steak and you have to pay more for the gravy and chips. It's sold as a complete product but has bits cut out for the food place to make money. Would that be acceptable? I didn't think so.

I had a brilliant steak dinner once in those places with a dress code, where the steak was succulent, came with all conceivable sides, and the waiter made small talk as he cut it up for me. Indeed, I paid thrice what the steak was worth, but it was money well spent.

That said, the establishment honestly cared more about their long-term reputation than their short-term profits. They owned the building they were in, and they paid their waitstaff a generous wage because they wanted them to care about their jobs and, consequently, their customers. They wanted to be "high class," such as it is.

Corporations, by and large, do not have that same mindset. If they can get me to eat Grade D ground beef under flickering florescent lights and have me pay the same amount, they will not hesitate to do so. They don't care if I should return, because their business plan dictates that they unscrupulously dupe as many rubes as is humanly possible, and pocket the returns.

As such, I see this Day One DLC phenomenon as part of a corporate plot to monetize every aspect of gaming, without regard for how it adversely affects the gaming experience. We cannot accept this, because the companies that do this do not have morals, and will not learn to back down unless we present them with enough hostility such that they cannot but acquiesce to our demands.

We are the consumers. We ought to hold the power in this relationship. That these corporations would seek to trick us into paying for the sake of paying should not be an excuse to accept that reality.

Taidan
08-11-2011, 09:01 AM
Are you equally annoyed that bioware split Mass Effect in to 3 parts and sold them separately? Or that restaurants charge extra for dessert? If you can cut stuff out and what is left still stands alone as a good value product then what is the problem? Yes the publisher wants more money, because games are expensive to make and lack a decent secondary revenue stream.

Aside from the fact that two complete sequels (That didn't exist at the time of the first game's release) is, uh... A slightly different case to a DLC map-pack. (That was ready and complete when the game was finished.) Yeah, I don't think that comparison stands. (And if you honestly believe otherwise, then please make that clear, so we can book you an ambulance or book you a priest or something.)

Are you trying to tell me that three whole multiplayer maps and a couple of skins would have bitten into the profits of a guaranteed multi-million selling game so much that profits would have seen a drastic drop, making the game suddenly impossible to produce? (Bearing in mind that these are the same developers who used to regularly release free map-packs into the community not so long back.)

Oh, on that same subject let's also bear in mind that the publisher of this game's profits actually grew by 45% this year, despite the rest of us enduring some slightly inclement financial times.


Yes the publisher wants more money, because games are expensive to make and lack a decent secondary revenue stream.

The publisher wants more money alright, but it's got nothing to do with covering the cost of making the games. It's about massive, massive greed. The flipside of that is that we, the paying customer, are getting the significantly worse end of the deal, especially if we happen the enjoy the multiplayer.

And, y'know, that's why we're not okay with that.

DLC should be used to expand games, not to chop them up piecemeal even before the customers ever get their hands on them. (And no, writing it off as a separate budget beforehand does not make it any better. Especially when we're just talking about a couple of maps.)

Donjo
08-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Le Double.....

R-F
08-11-2011, 11:27 AM
You know that someones going to come up with an even more outlandish analogy, possibly involving Nasa budgets or World War 2, and you'll end up having to point it that it actually backs up the other side of the argument? Bad analogies are the beginning of a downward spiral :)

"Let's say you get a Hitler and take away the moustache..."

QuantaCat
08-11-2011, 11:28 AM
"..you have to pay extra for cutting off slave hands!"

Donjo
08-11-2011, 11:31 AM
I had a brilliant steak dinner once in those places with a dress code, where the steak was succulent, came with all conceivable sides, and the waiter made small talk as he cut it up for me. Indeed, I paid thrice what the steak was worth, but it was money well spent.

That said, the establishment honestly cared more about their long-term reputation than their short-term profits. They owned the building they were in, and they paid their waitstaff a generous wage because they wanted them to care about their jobs and, consequently, their customers. They wanted to be "high class," such as it is.

Corporations, by and large, do not have that same mindset. If they can get me to eat Grade D ground beef under flickering florescent lights and have me pay the same amount, they will not hesitate to do so. They don't care if I should return, because their business plan dictates that they unscrupulously dupe as many rubes as is humanly possible, and pocket the returns.

As such, I see this Day One DLC phenomenon as part of a corporate plot to monetize every aspect of gaming, without regard for how it adversely affects the gaming experience. We cannot accept this, because the companies that do this do not have morals, and will not learn to back down unless we present them with enough hostility such that they cannot but acquiesce to our demands.

We are the consumers. We ought to hold the power in this relationship. That these corporations would seek to trick us into paying for the sake of paying should not be an excuse to accept that reality.


You know that someones going to come up with an even more outlandish analogy, possibly involving Nasa budgets or World War 2, and you'll end up having to point it that it actually backs up the other side of the argument? Bad analogies are the beginning of a downward spiral :)


You know Unrav's lost when he tries to bog the discussion down into what "content cut from release" means. You've lost, Unrav, everyone disagrees with you.

"It wasn't me, I swear, the knife was there when I found it!"

Seriously though, since gaming is hobby of mine that I don't intend to give up soon it seems important to highlight dodgy shit like this without aggravating people with opposing viewpoints

Donjo
08-11-2011, 11:32 AM
"Let's say you get a Hitler and take away the moustache..."

"With battery-powered salute! (batteries not included)"

deano2099
08-11-2011, 04:29 PM
As such, I see this Day One DLC phenomenon as part of a corporate plot to monetize every aspect of gaming, without regard for how it adversely affects the gaming experience.

I'll give you that. I don't think publishers, by and large, care about how it affects the gaming experience. But most developers do, and so don't make DLC that will impact on the core game if it's not there. If for no other reason than reviewers don't generally get sent day-one DLC, so if your game feels incomplete without it, it's not going to review as well. So yes, the corporates just want any DLC, but the vast majority of devs know better.


Aside from the fact that two complete sequels (That didn't exist at the time of the first game's release) is, uh... A slightly different case to a DLC map-pack. (That was ready and complete when the game was finished.) Yeah, I don't think that comparison stands.
Then fetch the exorcist. The thing is, I ain't in the games industry. I'm not a publisher or developer. As such, I don't give a flying fuck when the content was made. In terms of play-time, the three ME games add up to one DA:O. But no-one minds, do they? Because each individual product is worthwhile on its own.

Here's a thought experiment. If Bioware had spent the last decade just making Mass Effect, the huge 100+ hour sci-fi epic, all the current three games worth of content, and then said "hey, we're going to release this in three parts as three different products", would you see that as a problem? And if so, why? When essentially you'd be getting exactly what we got now.

That's my issue here. 'Gamers' get too caught up in the actual development and behind-the-scenes stuff to the point that they can't just decide if something is worthwhile based on the content and price. Whether content is made before and locked on the disc or made afterwards and sold as DLC makes no difference to the experience of playing the thing.

Last point: every game has stuff that is cut out. If you're annoyed that there are things on a developer's desk that didn't get released then you should hate every game ever. Trust me, no-one wants a game with all the content made for it bundled in. You just want the best stuff. Sometimes things are cut for a reason, but then work okay as DLC or side-story content. The Missing Link for DX:HR would kill the pacing of the final act if played in situ. Likewise the DLC for Assassin's Creed 2 really slowed down the endgame and ruined the pacing of that game. Cutting stuff is often a good idea.

deano2099
08-11-2011, 04:34 PM
Actually, just to add, I don't want to come across as a corporate shill...

If a developer releases shit DLC that's bad value for money then I'm happy to get angry about it

If a developer cuts things from the game to sell as DLC which makes the actual core game considerably worse without it, then I'll get apoplectic.

I'd just rather judge DLC on those criteria, on how good they are and how they impact the core game, than on some arbitrary 'when was it made' metric.

I mean we're gamers not businessmen right?

Nalano
08-11-2011, 05:46 PM
You know that someones going to come up with an even more outlandish analogy, possibly involving Nasa budgets or World War 2, and you'll end up having to point it that it actually backs up the other side of the argument? Bad analogies are the beginning of a downward spiral :)

I was just pointing out that you have to have motives other than money in order to keep quality up, and we can't rely on publicly traded corporations not to screw us.

Now, as to whether the DLC in question is deleterious to the whole equation - that, on the whole, we've lost something - basically hinges on how much stuff we got before this DLC craze started. Would Shale have been implemented as part of the base game, had DLC for whatever reason not been considered as a business plan? I know nobody cares about Horse Armor DLC, but a companion in a 100+ hour campaign is a pretty serious thing.

I also know that DLC map packs are a net loss for the consumer, because map packs used to come free.

Wooly Wugga Wugga
08-11-2011, 06:46 PM
I miss the days when a game was released and every six to nine months for two or three years a serious expansion pack was released. A perfect example of a game that has been ruined because the developers have abandoned this model is Civilization V. Instead of a much needed expansion pack to flesh out and add depth to the game they keep drip feeding the community tiny DLC packs containing a new civilization and one or two new wonders.

It's a bit depressing really.

Taidan
08-11-2011, 07:22 PM
Here's a thought experiment. If Bioware had spent the last decade just making Mass Effect, the huge 100+ hour sci-fi epic, all the current three games worth of content, and then said "hey, we're going to release this in three parts as three different products", would you see that as a problem? And if so, why? When essentially you'd be getting exactly what we got now.

Let's draw your experiment back the other way on the sliding scale you've suggested. How would we feel if Mass Effect was released as is, only the first time you took the Mako down on one of the many identikit side-quests, the game prompted you for a one-off ten dollar fee to unlock the content on your disc? Sure, many people ignored that stuff. A lot just didn't like it. It's definitely been argued that those side-quests were optional, and the main gaming experience didn't suffer if you ignored them. (Not by me. I liked the side-quests.)

Using exactly the same example, but with a different game, how would we feel if we'd bought the original Unreal Tournament a mere month after its release, (Still "new" by most decent standards) been playing online with our friends, then suddenly been stuck at a prompt for 10$ because a couple of them had paid to unlock certain content, and you hadn't?


Whether content is made before and locked on the disc or made afterwards and sold as DLC makes no difference to the experience of playing the thing.

Take example 2 above then apply it to somebody who loves to play Multiplayer Gears of War 3 with their friends.

Anyway, although both your and my examples were both ridiculous, it's a sliding scale. Problem is that it's a sliding scale that's moving away from my interests as a gamer and a consumer, in favour of ever-more profits for the gaming company. Of course, we consumers always have the option of rocking the scale back in our favour, by simply pirating these games to keep our own bank balances up, or heaven forbid, trading in or borrowing games, but when we take such measures, that's generally seen as a bad thing.

The key should be in balance.

deano2099
08-11-2011, 08:00 PM
Let's draw your experiment back the other way on the sliding scale you've suggested. How would we feel if Mass Effect was released as is, only the first time you took the Mako down on one of the many identikit side-quests, the game prompted you for a one-off ten dollar fee to unlock the content on your disc? Sure, many people ignored that stuff. A lot just didn't like it. It's definitely been argued that those side-quests were optional, and the main gaming experience didn't suffer if you ignored them. (Not by me. I liked the side-quests.)
Didn't Mass Effect 2 basically do that with the Firewalker pack though?
I'd be quite annoyed if it was as in your example, I actually wouldn't have minded so much if the Mako quests didn't appear unless you bought the DLC. It's an interesting example actually. If those quests had been released as DLC, it'd been slated as boring and repetitive.

Honestly I try and draw the line with authorial intent, as in 'how was the game designed to be played', which is tough, as you often get incomplete or untrue information from developers/publishers. If it's content that's been cut out of the game purely to sell as DLC, then I do have an issue. If it's content that was cut out of the game for another reason, but then sold as DLC, I don't mind. If it's content that was made specifically to be bonus DLC stuff, I don't mind.

The issue is, it's hard to know which of those cases apply, so to me the only sensible route is to use reviews to see if the core game, as is, seems to be a complete experience. To flip your point back around, if those Mako missions weren't in ME1, would it have been a considerably worse game? It'd been shorter for sure, which changes the value proposition.


The key should be in balance.
I think you're totally right, but I think we should measure that balance on how it impacts us. Gears of War 3 is a fairly meaty single-player game with solid MP content. Compared to say MW3, it actually looks like pretty good value to me. I'm not sure on the cost of the DLC so I don't know if that's really worth it or not. So I can't comment on this particular case.

What I don't like is that we're in a place where if Bioware were to release some DLC a week after launch that featured 20 hours of quality content on par with the game itself, plus the actual game was a great 40-hour RPG that reviewed well and people were really happy with, we'd still slag it off because 'oh my god that content was already on the disc and clearly finished at launch and we're having to pay extra for what should have been included to start with'. On the other hand, if they sat on it for six months then shoved it out as an expansion we'd be over the moon. Even though the content is the same.

Jacques
08-11-2011, 09:05 PM
I also know that DLC map packs are a net loss for the consumer, because map packs used to come free.


Haven't dev teams become larger and dev time increased? Don't you think those are two good reasons for charging for something that used to be free?

Nalano
08-11-2011, 10:02 PM
Haven't dev teams become larger and dev time increased? Don't you think those are two good reasons for charging for something that used to be free?

Not when modders would do that shit for free but can't because devs realized that by blocking said user-generated content, they can charge for it.

Althea
08-11-2011, 10:26 PM
Not when modders would do that shit for free but can't because devs realized that by blocking said user-generated content, they can charge for it.
From what I've heard, Unreal Engine 3 isn't a user-friendly engine, at least for non-professionals. It's also one of the more popular engines for shooters. Maybe Epic are just being dicks?

pakoito
08-11-2011, 10:34 PM
From what I've heard, Unreal Engine 3 isn't a user-friendly engine, at least for non-professionals. It's also one of the more popular engines for shooters. Maybe Epic are just being dicks?
I'm sorry but are you saying that Unreal Engine 3 a.k.a. UDK is not user friendly?

Taidan
08-11-2011, 10:35 PM
Didn't Mass Effect 2 basically do that with the Firewalker pack though?

Yeah, but it was "free". (Added to the main game two months after launch for people who had registered a new copy of the game) That's "Good DLC" defined.


What I don't like is that we're in a place where if Bioware were to release some DLC a week after launch that featured 20 hours of quality content on par with the game itself, plus the actual game was a great 40-hour RPG that reviewed well and people were really happy with, we'd still slag it off because 'oh my god that content was already on the disc and clearly finished at launch and we're having to pay extra for what should have been included to start with'. On the other hand, if they sat on it for six months then shoved it out as an expansion we'd be over the moon. Even though the content is the same.

That brings us back to the "unspoken contract" I mentioned before. If they'd developed 60 hours worth of content with the staff they had during the development time available, but chose to sit on a third of it to sell back to us later, I'd say that the initial product they sold us wasn't "The very best they could manage" in that time. I would define that game as "compromised", owing to the greed of the publishers. And I would be sad.

(And Bioware are a terrible example to bring up, as Dragon Age was plagued by some amazingly cynical day-one DLC. No extra item storage unless you buy? Sucks. ...and let's not get into the pre-order bonuses...)

The crux of the argument basically comes down to "What do you get for your money when you buy a game?". The two sides appear to be either "You get whatever the hell we feel like, and we'll charge you at a vastly inflated rate for the rest." or "You get a fair deal. Thanks for buying our game and supporting us.".

The reality of what is happening in these cases is always answer "A", and it's not happening for any reason at all, except for the fact that DLC is vastly more profitable than traditional game-making, thus an easy way for publishers to vastly increase their own profits at our expense.


Haven't dev teams become larger and dev time increased? Don't you think those are two good reasons for charging for something that used to be free?

Aye, but I think these map-packs have become smaller to compensate, and a lot of these games re-use resources that already exist in the single-player game (or even from previous games, hello Call of Duty and your entirely recycled maps) to make up a large portion of the content.

Also, given that these games cost 50$ at retail for the complete game, (Of which, after packaging, distribution, license fees to the platform makers and the retailers' very large cut will be a much smaller number, but will still turn a massive profit for the publishers.) then charging a whole 10$-15$ for a direct download (Or in this case, just to unlock!) a measly three extra maps and a couple of textures cannot be justified by saying "The content cost this much to make, thus we're charging you for it.".

Althea
08-11-2011, 10:36 PM
I'm sorry but are you saying that Unreal Engine 3 a.k.a. UDK is not user friendly?
I am saying nothing.

pakoito
08-11-2011, 10:52 PM
I am saying nothing.You're stating that it is based on...what? There are a lot of games coming from UDK this days, not as many as Unity but the scope is different. It is still an easier more flexible tool than Source, Cryengine 2 or others.

Althea
08-11-2011, 11:04 PM
You're stating that it is based on...what? There are a lot of games coming from UDK this days, not as many as Unity but the scope is different. It is still an easier more flexible tool than Source, Cryengine 2 or others.
I'm saying it based on what I've seen from professional developers and non-professional ones. I am not speaking from personal experience, and I never implied nor said that I was.

pakoito
08-11-2011, 11:11 PM
I'm saying it based on what I've seen from professional developers and non-professional ones. I am not speaking from personal experience, and I never implied nor said that I was.Links or source or facts, please, because your vision is different from my vision. There has been losts of UE3 and UDK games because profesional and amateur devs felt the engine was better and easier to develop in than others. This includes unexpected bed partners such as Squenix.

deano2099
09-11-2011, 02:06 AM
If they'd developed 60 hours worth of content with the staff they had during the development time available, but chose to sit on a third of it to sell back to us later, I'd say that the initial product they sold us wasn't "The very best they could manage" in that time. I would define that game as "compromised", owing to the greed of the publishers. And I would be sad.

But it would be the exact same content. Don't you see how weird that is? Your enjoyment of the exact same games (in this case the ME trilogy) is somehow impacted by the knowledge you have of the development process.



The crux of the argument basically comes down to "What do you get for your money when you buy a game?". The two sides appear to be either "You get whatever the hell we feel like, and we'll charge you at a vastly inflated rate for the rest." or "You get a fair deal. Thanks for buying our game and supporting us.".
You're focusing in on a tiny element at the expense of every other factor. You basically want your game to ship with all the content the developers could make in the time they were given by the publisher? Because different games that sell for the same price get different amounts of time spent on them. Ass:Bro and Ass:Rev were made in a year. Dragon Age: Origin was the culmination of seven years work. Same box price. If everyone was like you, instead of DLC publishers would just compress the dev cycle and make shorter games. Games have vastly varied budgets and development times, and some of those will be based partly on expected DLC revenue. Because games aren't priced based on man-hours spent working on them / money invested.

To reduce the argument further, you want everything created by the developers before release. Let's say all that content takes 24 months to make. 23 months for the core game, 1 month for the day-one DLC. You're not happy with the day-one DLC, you want everything made in that 24 months, the 'time available'. I'm a developer and I tell my publisher that all my customers feel this way so we shouldn't have day-one DLC. Publisher then says 'okay, then you only need 23 months to make the game then'.

I like your question of: "What do you get for your money when you buy a game?"

I'd like to give a third answer. It's
[list of what you get in the game]. And then I can decide if it's worth it or not based on what's in there. Not what theoretically has or might have been created. I don't need an unspoken contract. I have reviews and YouTube videos in which I can find out exactly what I'm getting.



a measly three extra maps and a couple of textures cannot be justified by saying "The content cost this much to make, thus we're charging you for it.".
No it can't. But it's not done in isolation. There's not a DLC wing which is separate to the main game and has to turn a profit on its own merits. The DLC is a way of getting extra money from the bigger fans (who will get the most out of it) that helps fun the costs of the overall project. There was a time when this backward-thinking were true. Publishers saw DLC, thought it was a neat idea and tried to figure out a way of tacking it on to existing projects. No game green-lit in the past five years fits that. Every big game now will decide early on if there's going to be DLC and the expected revenue from it and it'll all be in the budget.

And yes, publishers and their shareholders want more money from games. Games are getting more expensive to make. These two facts are related. If it only costs $1 million to make a game, a return of $50,000 is alright. If we're spending $100 million to make a game then no, a return of $50,000 on that is no-where near worth the risk. As games cost increase, profits are expected to increase also, so the percentage return is the same. I don't particularly like that economic model, but it's the one we're living in. If you want more money for games, you have to show how you'll make even more money back.

Taidan
09-11-2011, 12:53 PM
You're working with the assumption that this is being done to cover costs, whereas the figures clearly state that it's nothing but more profit for the publishers. (As an example, the actual profits, after costs, were up by 45% last financial year for the guys who are publishing Gears of War 3. Bearing in mind is is completely contrary to where the rest of the economy is headed.)

So we've come to the conclusion that the publishers are doing this to make more money, most of which is just to increase their own profits. (At our expense, of course.) They're certainly selling more copies than ever before, which easily offsets the increased production costs.

I'm yet to see any clear evidence of how we, the consumers who drive the market are actually benefiting from this, apart from the ultra weak "It'll save you a quick download".

On the other hand, if I were to go and buy Gears of War 3 right now, (which is a pretty new game) just to play multiplayer with my friends over Live, then the very first thing I'm going to have to do after ripping the shrink-wrap off of my shiny new game is to immediately shell out another 10$, just to unlock content that's already on said shiny disc.

I'm failing to see how this can be construed as anything but a negative thing for the consumer.

Althea
09-11-2011, 01:01 PM
On the other hand, if I were to go and buy Gears of War 3 right now, (which is a pretty new game) just to play multiplayer with my friends over Live, then the very first thing I'm going to have to do after ripping the shrink-wrap off of my shiny new game is to immediately shell out another 10$, just to unlock content that's already on said shiny disc.

I'm failing to see how this can be construed as anything but a negative thing for the consumer.
See, I both agree with you but also disagree. You're putting it forward as if it's like an Online Pass, i.e. no pay-o, no play-o. That's not how it is. You're restricted to playing the maps and characters the game gives you, so if you and your friends want to play together you can, and they can still use the DLC characters, but you can't. But it would be no different if you were forced to download a patch to play multiplayer. You would have that content on your HDD, and you would have to pay to unlock it. The delivery methods are different, but the end result is the same. You have that content on some form of media, but you have to pay to use it.

As I should have made clearer earlier, I don't agree with it as a practice, but I was simply trying to rationalise it and try to explain why it happened.

Heister
09-11-2011, 04:12 PM
Unbelievable!

"Dead Rising 2: Off the Record is selling cheats as DLC

In a move that almost parodies the current state of downloadable content, Capcom is selling glorified cheat codes for Dead Rising 2: Off the Record (http://www.destructoid.com/review-dead-rising-2-off-the-record-213853.phtml). Things that were once included in games as hidden unlockables -- like God Mode and Big Head Mode -- have been packaged and sold by Capcom for real money.

Off the Record's "Game Breaker Pack" costs $4.99 (or 400 MS Points) and includes a range of old school cheats that once were included as standard in many games. The old school fun of finding cheat codes has officially been terminated and the era of buying our way into success has begun.

Also released today was the "Fireman Pack" for $1.99. It includes a fireman costume, invulnerability to flame and a few other extras.

No matter how cynical this industry makes me, something always comes along to still shock me. Now all we need is for id Software to charge two bucks for a "No Clip" code." http://www.destructoid.com/dead-rising-2-off-the-record-is-selling-cheats-as-dlc-215497.phtml

deano2099
09-11-2011, 04:20 PM
You're working with the assumption that this is being done to cover costs, whereas the figures clearly state that it's nothing but more profit for the publishers. (As an example, the actual profits, after costs, were up by 45% last financial year for the guys who are publishing Gears of War 3. Bearing in mind is is completely contrary to where the rest of the economy is headed.)
The problem is you're taking yearly profits for an industry without a real yearly cycle. I mean, you could be right. But it could also be a matter of them launching more games this year with costs acruring in the previous years... without properly going through the accounts it'd be hard to say. I did find a 2009 article saying Microsoft Games Studios (who I believe are the publisher) let hundreds of people go though : http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-10149010-235.html - which doesn't seem too rosy to me.


On the other hand, if I were to go and buy Gears of War 3 right now, (which is a pretty new game) just to play multiplayer with my friends over Live, then the very first thing I'm going to have to do after ripping the shrink-wrap off of my shiny new game is to immediately shell out another 10$, just to unlock content that's already on said shiny disc.
Is that actually true though? I honestly don't know, if it is then you're right that's not good. But if you can still play multiplayer but just restricted to the maps with the base game then it's a hardly a crime. Blocking you from playing at all just because some people own DLC and others don't is very mean. But I thought that was why the DLC was on the disc in the first place? To avoid having to do that?

pakoito
09-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Unbelievable!

"Dead Rising 2: Off the Record is selling cheats as DLC

In a move that almost parodies the current state of downloadable content, Capcom is selling glorified cheat codes for Dead Rising 2: Off the Record (http://www.destructoid.com/review-dead-rising-2-off-the-record-213853.phtml). Things that were once included in games as hidden unlockables -- like God Mode and Big Head Mode -- have been packaged and sold by Capcom for real money.

Off the Record's "Game Breaker Pack" costs $4.99 (or 400 MS Points) and includes a range of old school cheats that once were included as standard in many games. The old school fun of finding cheat codes has officially been terminated and the era of buying our way into success has begun.

Also released today was the "Fireman Pack" for $1.99. It includes a fireman costume, invulnerability to flame and a few other extras.

No matter how cynical this industry makes me, something always comes along to still shock me. Now all we need is for id Software to charge two bucks for a "No Clip" code." http://www.destructoid.com/dead-rising-2-off-the-record-is-selling-cheats-as-dlc-215497.phtml


Capcom has created a new "gem system" for Street Fighter x Tekken where you can socket your character with 5 gems to give him passive stats or active powers ingame. You have to buy the gems, loot them or get 45 random ones from preordering. In-disc costumes DLC for SF IV was bad, DLC characters for MvC 3 was worse, this is straightly outrageous.

Taidan
10-11-2011, 12:32 AM
The problem is you're taking yearly profits for an industry without a real yearly cycle. I mean, you could be right. But it could also be a matter of them launching more games this year with costs acruring in the previous years... without properly going through the accounts it'd be hard to say. I did find a 2009 article saying Microsoft Games Studios (who I believe are the publisher) let hundreds of people go though : http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-10149010-235.html - which doesn't seem too rosy to me.

Iruno. I just did a quick google, and found a report dated June 2011 that reported profits were up by a huge number, despite actual sales of their hardware being down by a significant amount. Those job losses mainly appear to be from studios other than their AAA console developers. (Poor ACES.)


Is that actually true though? I honestly don't know, if it is then you're right that's not good. But if you can still play multiplayer but just restricted to the maps with the base game then it's a hardly a crime. Blocking you from playing at all just because some people own DLC and others don't is very mean. But I thought that was why the DLC was on the disc in the first place? To avoid having to do that?

Also being honest, I don't know if that applies to Gears of War 3, because I won't buy it. I do recall some problems happening with matchmaking with a few other Xbox games though, at a drunken multi-Xbox LAN/Internet session with a few friends, one of which was Gears of War 2. (The others being one of the Halos, and the new AvP.) In the end we gave in and just bought some of the content that was missing from the one console, just so we could get on with it. (Although we didn't seem to mind so much at the time, partly because the games had been out for a good while already, but mainly because BEER.)


Unbelievable!

"Dead Rising 2: Off the Record is selling cheats as DLC

I personally boycotted buying anything to do with Capcom a long time ago. They're easily one of the worst in the business when it comes to the misuse of DLC.

cosmicolor
10-11-2011, 12:57 AM
Capcom has created a new "gem system" for Street Fighter x Tekken where you can socket your character with 5 gems to give him passive stats or active powers ingame. You have to buy the gems, loot them or get 45 random ones from preordering. In-disc costumes DLC for SF IV was bad, DLC characters for MvC 3 was worse, this is straightly outrageous.

It's worth noting that in competitive fighting game circles this has caused some very heated debate, partly due to Capcom's reluctance to actually show and tell people exactly how it'll all work. The question is: Should gems be banned, or the entire game be vetoed? If gems are allowed, how many? What about DLC gems?

I just find it interesting seeing how stuff like this affects these communities.

pakoito
10-11-2011, 01:07 AM
It's worth noting that in competitive fighting game circles this has caused some very heated debate, partly due to Capcom's reluctance to actually show and tell people exactly how it'll all work. The question is: Should gems be banned, or the entire game be vetoed? If gems are allowed, how many? What about DLC gems?

I just find it interesting seeing how stuff like this affects these communities.Last time I checked shoryuken, 5 gems per character, you got 45 different gems from preorder from whatever big the pool is, and the effects ranged from autoguard-autotech (a must) to extra special bar or combo damage.

It's a no-no for me.