LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Also we might see more 'Time Saver' DLC following its success in Assassin's Creed.
Read more.Also we might see more 'Time Saver' DLC following its success in Assassin's Creed.
I think Steam is the only DRM i happily accept. Uplay, Origin, Yuplay, GFWL and the multitude of others I cant stand. So the DRM needs to be done properly, and I personally prefer only having to deal with just the one type of DRM.
'DLC' was pretty much always 'accepted' anyway, gamers have been buying expansion packs since the 90's. What irritated people was that companies were no longer finishing games in their own right and simply expanding them after release, they were foisting 'pay to get the rest' game designed 0-day DLC on gamers. To the frequency and degree that the development model and DLC became synonymous very quickly.
Originally Posted by Agent
CAT-THE-FIFTH (09-07-2014),crossy (12-07-2014),DavidM (09-07-2014)
DRM or DLC? Different issue. And, as it happens, Steam is one form of DRM I will never accept, happily or otherwise. I'd rather games be DRM-free, but understand why many companies regard it as necessary. But Steam is way too intrusive for me. I'd give up gaming entirely before using it.
I wonder who the other 11 are? Hi, guys.
Erm, not all. It's enough to stop me even considering buying a game.
DLC is such a broad term, covering full expansions of games to crappy little pointless extras and add-ons. DLC being accepted is entirely dependent on what the DLC is and what a gamer wants from their game. For me I can get by without a new hat for my main protagonist but will happily indulge in a full expansion that adds a new dimension to a game.
[DW]Cougho (09-07-2014)
To me, Expansions and DLCs are very different. Expansion packs (generally) seem to offer a whole new way to play the game and give a lot of new content - like buying a new game!
DLCs...just give some new maps? New equipment? Is that it?
DLCs are too small, and the price we pay for them are too high.
My attitude, broadly, is that if some mugs are prepared to pay £1 for a new gun and subsidise my gaming, then DLC is fine by me.
Provided it's ancillary, and doesn't affect the game, then fine (i.e. Europa Universalis music and sprites). There are, of course, much bigger packs that extend the game by several hours, but as aidanjt said, they're expansion packs with a new name (i.e. GTA IV DLC), and I'm also fine with that.
Where it becomes very tricky is when it's content that's central to the game (ME3 character), or something that was part of its predecessor (i.e. new Sims title removing toddlers (in game since Sims 2) and pools (in game since Sims 1)).
Oh DLC... my bad, too many abbreviations these days! On subject then, It doesn't seem long ago when PC users would get DLC for nowt and it was a point you could taunt your best console using friends with. I do like some of the modern DLC, Just Cause 2 and Sleeping dogs had some great DLC vehicles, the prices are normally too high for me though and I need to wait for the steam sales.
My only issue with DLC is 'day 1' DLC or adding things that should of been in the game to start with...
Latest one I saw was Rome II's paid DLC for Gore. Surely that should of been a damn tick box in the options not a couple quid for the option!??! Or even a mod.
www.leonslost.com
Steam: Korath .::. Battle.net: Korath#2209 .::. PSN: Korathis .::. Origin: Koraths
Motivate me on FitBit .::. Endomondo .::. Strava
Well, I guess I draw a distinction, perhaps incorrectly, between expansion packs and DLC.
The difference for me is that when I buy a game, with a plot, maps, characters, etc, I expect to be able to play that game, properly, fully, without hindrance, without having to fork out again for items, performance enhancers, etc.
If, on the other hand, an expansion pack adds new maps, characters, gameplay, etc, then fine. But it should be an expansion that adds entirely new material to the existing world, and does not impact on that initial game and how it plays, at all.
I don't buy a meal in a restaurant and expect to be told "£15 for your steak, sir" .... and have the waiter standing there expecting 25p to allow me to eat each mouthful, £3 more if I want it cooked, plus £1 if I actually want a knife and fork". If I want a bottle of wine with it, or a desert afterwards, fine, I expect to pay for it. But I've paid for my steak and expect to be left in peace to eat it without the manager lurking behind me with his hand out for more money all the time. He's likely to get my steak knife 'accidentally' stuck in it.
DavidM (09-07-2014),DemonHighwayman (09-07-2014)
Thats' actually one of the best ways I've heard it putI don't buy a meal in a restaurant and expect to be told "£15 for your steak, sir" .... and have the waiter standing there expecting 25p to allow me to eat each mouthful, £3 more if I want it cooked, plus £1 if I actually want a knife and fork". If I want a bottle of wine with it, or a desert afterwards, fine, I expect to pay for it. But I've paid for my steak and expect to be left in peace to eat it without the manager lurking behind me with his hand out for more money all the time. He's likely to get my steak knife 'accidentally' stuck in it.
www.leonslost.com
Steam: Korath .::. Battle.net: Korath#2209 .::. PSN: Korathis .::. Origin: Koraths
Motivate me on FitBit .::. Endomondo .::. Strava
I think it's one step forward and one step back with Ubisoft's approach to DLC.
The creators are doing a good job. There have been some nice DLCs: "Freedom Cry" for Assassin's Creed IV, for example, was a very high quality expansion, and Far Cry 3's "Blood Dragon" was a superb reimagining of the original game's concepts (and in fact, you didn't even need the original game to play it!). They have a pretty good policy of splitting frivolous DLC (cosmetics) from special interest (multiplayer) from the broad-appeal SP content. The vendor/platform-exclusive content is never anything you'll be sad to miss.
However, you need to be an expert at reading between lines and parsing sales patter to navigate their market, and I disagree strongly with their approach to customer care. Their selling techniques are undoubtedly very powerful, but what good are millions of sales if many of those customers are dissatisfied?
Every time there's a big release and people start chatting online about paying big money for the "gold" editions, I try to warn people not to do this: buy the standard edition, wait to see the DLC later, only buy a season pass once you've got a clear picture of what it'll buy you. It's particularly sad in the case of kids, who are either being shook for what little money they have or are upsetting their parents by demanding unnecessarily expensive game packages. And of course, down the line the excitement turns sour: "I paid a fortune for my pre-order, but the basic game and the season pass now cost siginicantly less!"; "I bought a season pass, but most of this is crap I don't want!"; "I bought the 'silver' box with some DLC, and now I'm buying a season pass for the rest and I'm effectively buying some of it twice!".
If Ubisoft just tweaked their approach to all of this, they could transform their public image. For example, taking that case of a customer buying a "special" edition and not the "ultimate" edition, who later wants to buy the rest of the DLC. The individual packs don't make financial sense, but buying the season pass means some duplicate purchasing. Imagine if that customer could break off their duplicate DLCs and give them as a gift to another friend on their UPlay list. Or what if you could exchange it for store credit in the UPlay shop? These are small changes that wouldn't cost Ubisoft much, and might even bring in yet more sales.
The best DLCs I ever bought belonged to Dragon Age and Mass Effect.
I only ever* buy those that add extra levels/plots/sub-plots/stories to my game. None of the little add-on extras include game-changing weapons, so there's no point.
The Watch_Dogs one was just a complete kick in the nuts - "Yeah, completely new outfits... even though every outfit is actually the same as the original one, just with slightly different colours... yeah, buy this crap, you morons and fund my second speedboat..."!!
*I do buy certain Deluxe/Ultimate editions if they contain such DLC, which automatically means I get some of the useless add-on crap. The ONLY time I've felt such a thing worth it was buying the Mass Effect hoody for Shepard, mainly because I wear the real life one anyway!
I've stopped buying games at release to wait for a "game of the year" or similar which actually contains the DLC. Is it accepted? Not in my household. If the game is unfinished, or a lack of DLC affects how the game is played, then it is not fit for purpose.
Did you get the Watch Dogs season pass? That's a classic case of poor communication on Ubisoft's part. The extra missions don't open until you start a new game, and only at specific moments in the storyline. The main part of this pass, the T-Bone missions, won't be out until September by the earliest, but the game doesn't tell you that. I wonder how many console WD customers will have sold their editions before then, without realising they had more gameplay coming to them?
LA Noire did a similar thing, with the added cases. Thankfully I bought it all together as a GOTY pack, but the idea of replaying the game to have one additional mission in each segment? Or, just as bad, playing random cases that would have been in sequential order, had it not been released as DLC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
