Are payed Dlc's are out of control?
Portraits, Unit packs, Dynasty shields,... stuff that should be free imo.
On the other hand DLC like old gods, charlemagne, sword of Islam etc. are good ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should the cosmetic DLCs be free? They do need to pay those artist to make that stuff.
Cosmetic DLCs are a fine example of completely optional purchases. By not buying you won't miss out on anything game mechanic related and people who enjoy that the game looks certain way will be able to buy those if they think the price is right.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because they used to be free and included in patches. If the gaming industry somehow survived without bankruptcy to include a few hundred-dollar textures for the paying audience, they can probably take the same huge financial loss now.
Not to mention that their costs aren't really in the artists or even the level designers. they pay a ton more for the console companies for patching fees.
Comment has been collapsed.
They release conclave & conclave content pack on the same day, how do you justify that? They ripped content out of the €15 dlc & sold it seperatly for an extra €5, same with horse lords. What I mean is that you can buy the DLC but don't even get the whole dlc unless you purchase the other dlc they shouldn't even be selling "content packs" because it's "content" that's missing from the original dlc. Same goes for these portraits, they aren't even all that great but it's content that's missing from the base game.
Comment has been collapsed.
15€ DLC without cosmetics is better than 20€ with them for those who don't care about that stuff. If your issue is with the price, then simply wait for a sale. They'll see how much people are willing to pay and will make them consider how to handle future DLCs if it's not selling without sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
Frankly, I have nothing against DLCs or MTs since they are there for their own reasons and you as consumer are free to buy or not to buy.
I have no problem with spending money on this 2 if there is nothing new that catches my eyes + it shows support to the company/developers .
For big companies only the first few months really matter in general to see is it worth it to work on a sequel or to bin the franchise and try something "new" .
The only DLCs I ever bought at full price as for Mass Effect 2 and 3 and while some of ME2 dlcs felt like cut out from the base game they were still well worth the money. On the other hand you have plenty of games with DLCs that add skins(BL2, Rocket League and others that I cant care to name).
Also development cost for big games increases while companies trying to keep the same price every year($50-60) and then get more money from people who can afford it(Season Passes) .
Like it or not DLCs/MTs are here to stay because they seem to make profit for the companies. As many said, vote with your pollet and support the companies that provide a product that you like.
Comment has been collapsed.
DLCs are not bad in General, not even day one dlcs
the question is allways are the base game and the dlcs worth the price?
some do it good, some do it bad.
In the end you have to ask this question again for every new game.
There is no generic answer that you can apply to all games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, day one DLCs are terrible. they are literally content cut out in the latest design phase with the sole intent of making the players pay more for something that was originally meant to be in the game. This is why they also tend to call them disk-locked content, because on consoles they are already on the disk you paid for, yet you cannot access the files, even if you have paid for them once.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you deserve all of the content for the same price? Would you prefer the game just cost $65 with no option of buying it separately instead of costing $60 + $5 if you want the extra bit?
When you buy a car, do you demand that they put in the sun roof for no additional charge, because it was available as an option so therefore you deserve it?
If a restaurant recommends you pair a certain glass of wine with your meal, do you demand it for free, since they clearly intend for you to have it to fully enjoy the meal?
Comment has been collapsed.
We are not talking about adding a sun roof to the car: We are talking about adding doors to the car. Or a trunk. Or rear windshield. Things the car was originally designed with, yet removed shortly before they shipped it to you and what previous models had in their normal packaging.
Like how suddenly six or so cases were removed from L. A. Noire upon release and later added one-by-one as separately sold DLC. When you buy the complete pack, you will be unable to tell which ones were the bonus ones since they are cut out of the story, and the characters reference them as if they always were there.
Or like how Dragon Age literally had a character at the player camp breaking the fourth wall and advertising the day one DLC within the damn game. A DLC, which later you realise, that was so integral part of the game originally that you needed it to see the real events of a base game quest.
Or my personal favourite one, the Mass Effect 2 DLCs. At least two of them were the major foundations of the Mass Effect 3 plot and another few were the foundations of a yet another DLC in ME3. Didn't buy them originally? Well, sucks to be you, we will never explain the tons of references!
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that depends on whether the game has been nerfed to not give you the full experience without the DLC, or if the vanilla game is a perfectly fine experience and the DLC is extra stuff (e.g. Mass Effect 1)
I'm fine with the game industry adopting menu pricing, so long as the base game isn't crippled in some way to force the DLC on you (e.g. Mass Effect 2)
Comment has been collapsed.
A closer analogy would be the car comes with a sunroof installed but they disable the button to open it unless you pay them more and a restaurant serves you your meal and the side dish locked in a small cage next to your plate and accepts $5 bills to unlock it while the description of the meal includes the side dish. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if it's actual content, like a character with a story in single-player (Like the Prothean DLC in Mass Effect 3) then you're 100% right. But if there are cosmetic DLCs on Day 1, then it's understandable. Designers will usually have finished their projects before the game itself is done. Instead of firing them after that, they can employ them further and develop extra skins and stuff. A way to profit the company, player and the artists.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really think the Content of base game and dlc is much more important than the date of relase.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games haven't gone up in price in literally a decade. $60 in 2006 is equivalent to roughly $70 in 2016 simply due to inflation. When you stop and factor in things like the massively increased cost of making a AAA game due to ever-increasing visual effects budgets, they have to recoup those costs somehow. DLC is literally the only thing that makes a AAA game worth the investment risk. We're talking tens of millions up to hundreds of millions of dollars of investment capital for most AAA games. You think investors will pony up that kind of cash without some extra guarantees there will be an ROI? Like it or not, DLC increases the potential revenue streams for a title, which in turn increases the potential budget for the title. There's almost never in history been a game that they finished development on, then decided to go back in and clip out random bits of content to charge for. That's literally just not how it works. DLC is developed with the intention of being DLC and providing additional revenue for the game.
Don't want games to have DLC? Well, I hope you enjoy paying $60 for 4 hour long games that are extremely limited in scope. The alternative to DLC is they raise the price of games to $70-80 and abolish DLC, but personally, I'd prefer a lower admission fee and the opportunity to purchase additional content if I deem it worthwhile.
It's your responsibility to determine if a game's base content is worth the price of admission. It's no one's fault but your own if a game "rips you off."
Comment has been collapsed.
There are good reasons for the prices of games to not have gone up as it has gotten cheaper/faster for game development, software as well as hardware have gotten much better at speeding up everything from modeling to rendering and most games run on engines that have already been created,some people think better looking graphics take more time when in reality better graphics usually take much less time to produce because there is less optimizing to be done on them and with one click of a button in 3dsmax/maya you can have it automatically optimized.even wages have not gone up in most places since 2006 so really there is no reason for games to have gone up in price other then corporate greed.
but yes i agree it is our responsibility to judge if a games content is worth buying,problem with that is one of the reasons for this discussion is companys are now showing demos,trailers etc that show footage and game play that is later cut from the game before release top be sold as dlc that you just dont know about until you buy the game so it makes it hard to judge if a games content is "worth it" before you buy it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll copy my answer here, since there was a person, who thought that what PD2 has, is bad:
"I was thinking the same thing, but at the same time, they could've stopped updating the game literally after it came out. The DLC has lead to free heists, mechanics, weapons, masks, the perk system, the infamy system and so on.
The DLCs themselves can be acquired pretty cheaply too. 0,79€ for 6 heists, a bunch of weapons and masks is quite good (I know Armored Transport is one of a kind, but still). They're not even splitting the community with the DLCs, since only the host needs to own it.
In the end, you either have the DLCs, or you have the Vanilla experience. It's really childish to expect extra content after release, since that's not how a for-profit company works.
The microtransactions though.... that's a different deal. (But since we're talking of DLC.)"
Comment has been collapsed.
DLC is the reason I no longer buy games at release. I've been burned with season before pass. I bought a game at release and pre-ordered its season pass. Then right after the last DLC was released, they release a GOTY edition that included the game, the season pass content and some extras for cheaper than what I paid at release. If I want that extra content, I have to buy the GOTY edition to get it because some of the included content is not sold separate. I supported them by buying their game at release and prre-ordering their shitty season pass and they give people that waited a better deal, fuck them. That was the first and last time I bought a season pass, and the last time I bought a game at release for full price.
Because of DLC and the state at which games are released now (buggy as hell), I now wait for the game + DLC to be sold as a complete package before I buy it, and usually for a sale too. Now I get the complete game, fully patched and (mostly) bug free and spend a lot less money.
Comment has been collapsed.
yea this is exactly what i do also unless i find a particularly good deal like i did recently with fallout 4 with the season pass for under $60 or if its a game all my friends are going to be playing online often and i want to join in on the fun:)
Comment has been collapsed.
The only good solution.
I bought DA:I GOTY for ~$15, beat it after it was done with it's 12 or so patches, didn't have single bug that you can see in these "DA:I bug compilation" "DA:I bug fail" videos.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally Bethesda has my favorite model of DLC, even if their other business practices are downright evil.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I had it from the GOTY as well. I'm glad that they went into different direction after the initial Oblivion DLCs. Shivering Isles was pretty amazing after those, but that might be called an expansion rather than DLC. But it does seem like they kept the Shivering Isles style in their future DLCs and I've liked the work they had put into them. Perhaps all those jokes about the horse armor was not something they liked to hear again.
Comment has been collapsed.
haha yea well if they did change there way because of user feedback then they would be one of the few game company's that have,most game company's are silly about user complaints and take it as criticism of there creation and respond by doubling down on whatever they were criticized over and figure they already have your money for the game in question and figure you will forget by the time there next game drops.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, those dlc are horrible, having the game and all dlc, it would feel like a game with correct content. Without dlc an incomplete game.
yet it is 131 € for all dlc + 19.99 € for base game... 20 € should be the game + all dlc in my opinion for what they add
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, and add to that the greenlight stuff with developper who buy people with "free key" and early acess with people who put their games there to steal money and give an incomplete game without any intention to complete it... Damn publisher greed..
Comment has been collapsed.
Early Access, as well as Crowdfunding, and DLC, are both a good thing and a bad thing.
Done right it allows for games that otherwise wouldn't be made, for a developer to fine-tune the experience, to add extras, and even to be able to finish a game that otherwise might not be done right (see e.g. KOTOR2).
Done wrong, it's a way to rip off potential customers.
It's not just publisher greed. It could be developer greed. It could also be that things just don't work out well (e.g. can't raise enough funds to continue working on an incomplete game), or general malfeasance (godus)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it varies from company to company, from game to game, and DLC to DLC.
Crusader Kings II is a great example of DLC done right: The vanilla game is good on its own. Major DLC significantly enhances gameplay, in ways that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Minor DLC is cosmetic and irrelevant.
On top of that, because the developers are continuing to work on the game (predominately for DLC), the base game is continually getting updates with minor game play improvements.
Nerfing a game to make players buy DLC (hacktivision), on the other hand, just just plain wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no issue with DLC that add some substantial content to an already complete game. (What we used to call expansions back in the days)
The worst for me are day-one DLC adding maps or items to the base game. It means the content is already there and was done from the start, but put behind a paywall. That's just pure, unadulterated greed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Payed Dlc's [Ga]
PAID DLC
Fixed!
You also don't need an s since that would technically be "Downloadable ContentS". You're welcome!
Edit:Although I do agree that the situation with DLC is out of hand. Unlike expansions packs, a lot of it is just cosmetic stuff that used to be included in a patch but someone, somewhere,decided to be greedier than Croesus.
Comment has been collapsed.
60 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by anditsung
46,877 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by drschnell
1,096 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by Gamy7
2,157 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by rashidnemar
11 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Adamdoodles
122 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by philipdick
32 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by bluefoxxx
85 Comments - Last post 21 seconds ago by Wintermute75
9,015 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by CurryKingWurst
679 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by AnarcoPunkRJ
51 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by Mitsukuni
54 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by s4k1s
0 Comments - Created 25 minutes ago by yannbz
382 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by Empory
Im personally sick of paying full price for games and them feeling like half a game, then they try to milk us for another $80 in dlc for it to feel like a full game.
Im old enough to remember buying games and all the Dlc's were free and i know people say they deserve to be payed for there work and they did,most the companys who released dlc for these games did it so people would want to keep there games and would not trade them in hoping there would be more dlc's that would spark the games back to life for them so people would have to pay full price to buy a copy of the game because hardly anyone would trade the game in.it also had the added benefit that it would draw new interest in there game and people would go buy a copy if they hadn't already, it was a pretty good model for everyone involved.
These days some companys cut content from there games to sell to you day one or down the road, or sell you a half finished game and try to sell you the rest later after they finish it, then they get upset that people trade there games in because it cuts into there new copy sales and they try to find ways to stop it (think the $10 passes sold for online game play on a used game that luckily failed a year or so ago,or Microsofts original plan to make xbones games linked to the console so no one could trade the game in)
I feel this current model causes a lot of friction between game company's and consumers and is already ruining the gaming industry from shady practices some of these company's are using to try to milk a few extra bucks from people, while the older model of free dlc's were just as profitable and made better relationships between publishers and consumers, mind you with this older model there were often not as many Dlc's but surly there could be some middle ground?
I realize the game trade issues are only console related and this is a Pc forum but you can still post an opinion:)
Obligatory Ga Level 3+
Comment has been collapsed.