I almost want to quit video games.

[QUOTE="Nocturnal15"]

What is up with every game coming out now? Seems like the trend is to release a fresh game with huge hype and then while the hype is still strong, "Hay lets put out some DLC a week after! We can charge whatever the hell we want because gamers these days are suckers!"Of course it's because they, the developers, are so pressed for time that they simply could not put that 30mins-2hours worth of lousy content in the final release. Death to developers for purposely releasing unfinished games with the intent of milking your loyal fans with content you already have set, created, and completed.

4srs...this is messed up.

laliberte11

Its funny because DICE is a subsidiary of EA which is the company with the most games that have DLC at launch (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, All of the sports franchises, etc...) which is exactly what this thread is complaining about :P

I do like DICE though... In BC1 they just out of the blue released Conquest mode and like 6 maps to go with it for free... Then like 2 weeks later they had the player choice pack which had like 3 more maps for free... I like that. Free is good :D

I know what your saying, Bioshock 2 has DLC that you have to pay for to unlock from the disc, you already paid for it but now you have to pay again to unlock it raylewisnfl52

Now that's crazy!

[QUOTE="Sepewrath"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

You work for free?

That's fine if you don't want to be paid but I think it's wrong that you think no one in the world should get money for working

Jaysonguy

Completely wrong

Know what it's like?

Going to a restaurant and having a great meal and then the waiter offers you a special dessert.

Do you expect them to make you the dessert for free?

Well apparently you and the thread creator thinks that just because you bought the meal you should get the dessert for free

I find it hilarious how many people think that others should never get paid for their work

A knife and fork describes DLC that is out on the disc already that you have to pay for again to unlock, how did you miss that?

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Sepewrath"] You always use that same excuse, but it doesn't hold water. Its like going to a restaurant, getting your meal and having the waiter not leave you a knife and fork. For them to go get you one, they want a days pay for something that could have been there from the start. The worst thing is six months before you come to the restaurant the waiter is planning to leave your knife and fork off the table so that they can get that extra days pay. All analogies aside, the content could just be in the game and if its not good enough to be in the final product, then its not worthy of being sold separately. I could understand something like the GTA IV expansions, that is real extension of the game. But the few maps or withheld chapters, or sprinkled in extra 40 minutes should not be the representation of DLC. Oniresurrect

Completely wrong

Know what it's like?

Going to a restaurant and having a great meal and then the waiter offers you a special dessert.

Do you expect them to make you the dessert for free?

Well apparently you and the thread creator thinks that just because you bought the meal you should get the dessert for free

I find it hilarious how many people think that others should never get paid for their work

A knife and fork describes DLC that is out on the disc already that you have to pay for again to unlock, how did you miss that?

The knife-and-fork analogy was dead-on; represents the Bioshock 2 situation exactly.

EDIT:

A more appropriate food analogy on [general] DLC is the following: You order a meal and receive meat and pototoes. You're satisfied, but something feels missing. Your waiter then notifies you that a side of broccoli is available at another, yet minimal charge. Ultimately the decision is yours, but frankly, that broccoli should have been on the plate to begin with.

Well said Palantas, well said.

What is up with every game coming out now? Seems like the trend is to release a fresh game with huge hype and then while the hype is still strong, "Hay lets put out some DLC a week after! We can charge whatever the hell we want because gamers these days are suckers!"Of course it's because they, the developers, are so pressed for time that they simply could not put that 30mins-2hours worth of lousy content in the final release. Death to developers for purposely releasing unfinished games with the intent of milking your loyal fans with content you already have set, created, and completed.

4srs...this is messed up.

Nocturnal15

DLC is optional (usually) I personally have never boughten any DLC except for a for maps for Halo. If you don't want to pay for DLC then don't pay for it. I still play all my games even if they have DLC available.

My favorite DLC would have to be Halo 3:ODST, 60 dollars for a short story and firefight... oh yeah and that uhhhh........multiplayer right yeah. At least the multiplayer was eco-friendly, it says right on the box 100% recyclyed from old games, contents... Halo 3 multiplayer. Bungie said "hey lets make a game, say its new, and sell it for $60". Worst DLC ever, oh sorry "game".

if people stopped buying the DLC, they would stop making it. I honestly havent even beat the original story of Fallout3, so i dont plan on getting any of the add-ons. same with Saints row2. but I know what you mean. its really stupid that a game comes out, and THAT day there's an update AND DLC available. That means the developers could have 1.fixed the bugs before releasing and 2. included the dlc on the disc you paid $60 for. if they at least waited til AFTER they FINISH the game to start working on DLC it would not look so bad. If DLC is released right when a game comes out, they are saying they could have included it in the disc, but didnt want to. Thats just mean.

DLC is optional. It's like saying you won't eat at McDonalds because you like Big Macs but you hate the fact that they sell McChickens.Senor_Kami

$6 for horse armor.Palantas

:roll:

Completely wrong

Know what it's like?

Going to a restaurant and having a great meal and then the waiter offers you a special dessert.

Do you expect them to make you the dessert for free?

Well apparently you and the thread creator thinks that just because you bought the meal you should get the dessert for free

I find it hilarious how many people think that others should never get paid for their work

Jaysonguy

No par usual your wrong, turning on ACII to see missing chapters, having new map packs announced 5 months before the game comes out, having data locked on the disc is not a special desert. That is simply withholding pieces of the dinner that if it was there in the first place, you wouldn't have to do any extra work post release. And once again, unlike you and the guy whose ranting believe, I'm not saying DLC should free. I'm saying their shouldn't be DLC. Develop your game, sell your game and thats it. That worked very well for a very long time, as a matter of fact, with many games it still works. If you want to do a legit expansion of your game via means of DLC, fine, no problem with that. If I buy Dead Rising and they wanted to give me a whole new building in the mall to explore through DLC, fine, that'll be fun. But they want to sell me this new lawnmower weapon, bull, if something that simple wasn't in the game, it doesn't need to be in the game. The way DLC works is an insult to the consumers that put these companies in the positions they are in, I would prefer they really put it the effort to make real DLC which I would gladly pay for in certain games. But instead they choose to withhold little bits and pieces and call that the DLC market. Lets be realistic, nobody is doing any extra work, they have this content made during the standard development period and just hold on to it for a later release. If you really believe that after the game is done, they get hard at work at new costumes for SFIV, then I'm afraid your very naive.

This post is also aimed @Palantas whose rant while amusing missed the point of whats wrong with the DLC market. It's not about paying for it because games are going to cost. Its about either doing it right or not doing it all. But like you said, as long as there are millions who must have those MW2 maps that should have been in the game from the get go, its going to continue this way.

buy the game but dont buy the dlc if its not worth it, that way the developers will see in the number of people who bought the game compared to the number who bought the dlc and they will know that its not worth it. i think lolBangerman15

Problem is that most people value DLC as worth it. Lol.

if people stopped buying the DLC, they would stop making it. I honestly havent even beat the original story of Fallout3, so i dont plan on getting any of the add-ons. same with Saints row2. but I know what you mean. its really stupid that a game comes out, and THAT day there's an update AND DLC available. That means the developers could have 1.fixed the bugs before releasing and 2. included the dlc on the disc you paid $60 for. if they at least waited til AFTER they FINISH the game to start working on DLC it would not look so bad. If DLC is released right when a game comes out, they are saying they could have included it in the disc, but didnt want to. Thats just mean.

Talldude80

I know what your saying, Bioshock 2 has DLC that you have to pay for to unlock from the disc, you already paid for it but now you have to pay again to unlock it raylewisnfl52

No par usual your wrong, turning on ACII to see missing chapters, having new map packs announced 5 months before the game comes out, having data locked on the disc is not a special desert. That is simply withholding pieces of the dinner that if it was there in the first place, you wouldn't have to do any extra work post release. And once again, unlike you and the guy whose ranting believe, I'm not saying DLC should free. I'm saying their shouldn't be DLC. Develop your game, sell your game and thats it. That worked very well for a very long time, as a matter of fact, with many games it still works. If you want to do a legit expansion of your game via means of DLC, fine, no problem with that. If I buy Dead Rising and they wanted to give me a whole new building in the mall to explore through DLC, fine, that'll be fun. But they want to sell me this new lawnmower weapon, bull, if something that simple wasn't in the game, it doesn't need to be in the game. The way DLC works is an insult to the consumers that put these companies in the positions they are in, I would prefer they really put it the effort to make real DLC which I would gladly pay for in certain games. But instead they choose to withhold little bits and pieces and call that the DLC market. Lets be realistic, nobody is doing any extra work, they have this content made during the standard development period and just hold on to it for a later release. If you really believe that after the game is done, they get hard at work at new costumes for SFIV, then I'm afraid your very naive.

Sepewrath

A lot of people here seem to be missing the reason for DLC. It's not simply "greed" or "laziness" by making you pay for extra content: it's the only way to make the current games releases commercially viable.

It currently costs well into the millions of pounds to develop a single game - the majority of which is spent on creating the game mechanics, physics roles and gameplay structures (including the developer tools themselves). The actually art and content is relatively inexpensive to make on top of them - hence how many communities are able to produce mods for existing games; but could never create the game themselves.

This means that instead of buying a game which was start to finish these days; they sell you the game engine and mechanics with some basic content on top. After they have made some money out of that, they can then continue to release DLC packs and episode content which runs on the same game engine - costing them less to produce, but expanding the game playtime and making them more profit. Without this DLC, a lot of the current games could not, and would not be developed - they rely on getting good DLC sales after the basic purchase to make the game profitable and worth the years of development (in the same way as a film needs to make a lot of money from DVD and merchandise sales; not just the cinema release).

Basically what I'm saying is - if you want developers to be able to afford to keep producing such good games and improving the realism of the engines the whole time - you need to help them make the game profitable. Obviously if you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it - but don't go saying that the dev's "shouldn't" make DLC; because it's the only way they can now afford to release games of this calibre.

So for years and years they made plenty of money off games without dlc and continued to make games. Now they need us to buy dlc to 'help' them continue making games? That's bull. I pay 60 bucks for a game, then have to drop 1600 ms points on some maps that they generate with the same stupid engine? So the game ends up costing 80+? Come on that's almost half the price of buying a whole console(arcade). Dlc should be free, yes I said it make fun of me. Dlc should be a thank you from the developers for buying the game to begin with, it would make me want to buy more games honestly.

I 100% agree TC. I hate how in Halo 3, back in the day, you have to get all the DLC to order to play the Multiplayer (Matchmaking), that there, almost made me Quit playing Video games. I bought all the Map packs already so Im good, but I hate how some DLC's were suppose to be in the game, but they Cut it outso that they get more money from us, and a game like Resident Evil 5 (only, I think), you need to buy the Multiplayer for 400 Microsoft points. Thats just ridiculous IMO.

I understand where you're coming from, but DLC is optional. But I do agree that most DLC is overpriced for what it is (example: MW2 maps...just ridiculous)

theintrospect79

They're gonna lose a lot of money on this anyways, because:

a.)The game is semi-permanently broken.

b.)People have already moved either back to Modern Warfare or Bad Company 2.

I love the good old days with sega and NES when you dint have to buy all that ####### add ons but it not that bad

Well, sure, you can look at this as a downside. But there is also the upside of game content that was never going to get released in the first place making an appearance as well.

You can't completely blame the devs though, they wouldn't have to do this as much is people only bought new. It's kind of why I support DLC systems like the cerberus network, where they give new buyers more incentives and rewards.