Well, I don't buy DLC, ever. But for those who do an consider it a way for developers to support a game instead of a cheap way to charge more than the standard $59 (whether it's on the disc or not is clearly not revelant) you gotta ask yourselves: do you want the DLC you pay for to include an important part of the plot and meaningful events or just side missions unrelated the the main story line? The way I see it, all DLC should be ignored and not even reviewed, as they're cheap attempts to cash in, but a lot of gamers buy those, why do they expect regarding the plot?
Nice post. I think the only effective way to say no to those practices is with your wallet. DLC, extra characters, costumes, online passes and all that are nothing but cheap attempts to cash in and make you pay more than the standard $60 I don't get the "you get a great game for $60, the DLC doesn't hurt". Well, I'm sure it does, specially when it's developed with the game and ready at launch. It could've been a better game if the DLC was included, if the costumes were readily available, if all extra characters were free of charge. As long as gamers buy every single DLC, pay for costumes, skins, characters and everything not shipped with the game, they're sanctioning paying more than $60 for a game and companies will continue with their aggressive DLC efforts. If I can sell you half a game for $60 and then 5 chuncks of 10% each at $15 a pop, I must definitely will. I myself never bought a single DLC for any game, nor any costume, skin or character. I think that $60 is enough and should come with all extra and that's the only way I have of showing it.
Why did GS let this Microsoft owned drama queen write outside his notepad ? Lifetime of trouble ? Seriously ? Identitiy theft because someone might have my credit card number ? What about the credit card companies stating that there had been no fraud reports ? I mean, if you want to blow it out of proportion a bit more, at least try to sound reasonable. You should offer free XBOX games on Live to people that cancel their PSN accounts, it would've been more honest, it would've spared us of your non-sense and you would've co-opted more people.
@JusticeCovert : I'm glad that GS also thinks it doesn't have to apologize for reviewing the retail version of Brink and not a better, possible, not yet available version. I also saw the same reference of a day one patch on Game Informer's review and as the developer had sent you an e-mail acknowledging the game's rough edges, I thought that this feature was meant as an apology (to the developers) for sticking up to your system. I'm glad to be wrong. The review is well written and doesn't forgive the game's flaws, which I think it's the best and correct way to review a game. There's no way to envision a better version of the game. If the developer had such big plans to correct it, it should not have released the game on the first place.
akhorahill's comments