Robstein:$60 for a game is $10 more than they used to cost. $10. Proportionally speaking that cost should be much, much higher. By the same token, the amount of work that goes into games (on average) is much, much greater than before. So it comes back to a bunch of whiny little pansies wanting a whole lot more for less than anyone in their right mind would charge.
Well...depends on what gen you are talking about. The work that goes into current gen games is not a full 20% more than last gen. And they are at least $20-$30 more than the previous gen.
Robstein:Yes it is. All these spoiled snots want is something for less, or preferably nothing. It's as simple as that. If a developer were to create this extra content that adds 15 hours to the game, new features, etc... you'd all bitch about it costing a whopping $10. Then start running your mouths (or fingers) about how it should either be free, or have been in the game in the first place. And don't even try to say that's not how it would go, because everyone here knows that's exactly what would happen.
Well I havent mentioned a single other person than myself so I wont start now. I (emphasis on that) would pay a full $20 if it added that much extra content. Heck I paid 60 for bioshock 2 and didnt even get 20 hours out of it. So 15 would be worth at least $30 by those standards. I wouldn't pay $30 for DLC but $15-$20 is about my limit for substantial gameplay additions.
But regardless, yes you point is well received OTHERS would complain about $10 DLC. Now if the game released with only 10 hours of gameplay then they released an additional 15 hours a month after release then you are correct, I would feel like they could have fleshed out the original content rather than holding out for DLC.
Robstein:1) If a game "fills up the disk," that doesn't automatically mean it's going to be good, much less great. Also, the amount of storage space used does not equate to the overall value of your purchase. Unless you're the kind of tool who spends $300 on a half-ton of bananas at Costco simply because it technically means you've saved money. Even though you would have saved more money if you just bought the single bunch for $1.
How do you save more by buying a single bunch for $1? If I get 1000 bunches for $300 then I save more money. The real question is did I need 1000 bunches are am I going to let 999 go to waste. To bring that analogy back home...I try to finish all of my games so the extra content is worth it to me (so I will be eating all 1000 bunches of bananas) .
Robstein:Pushing the limits of the system also doesn't mean a damn thing with regards to the overall quality of the experience and the total value of the game. More than likely you'll just find yourself with a very expensive and pointless tech demo.
You assume I would buy a crappy game just because it had a lot of cool effects. Seriously, ANY time I make a comment about what I want in a game you should assume a pre-requisite is that it is QUALITY material. I need a disk full of QUALITY content. Even if you cant fill the disk dont try to sell me what you COULD fit on there as extra premium content.
vmcintos: (so I will be eating all 1000 bunches of bananas) .
that would be a massive bowel movement.
Goozex Forum Moderator
mafafu: vmcintos: (so I will be eating all 1000 bunches of bananas) . that would be a massive bowel movement.
This topic is a massive bowel movement.
ProTip: Check out www.crushfragdestroy.com for game-related news, reviews and more.
did you buy the game? yes then stfu if you don't want them to do this DON'T BUY THE GAMES.
crying about getting ripped off after you gave them your money is pointless.
they got your cash and will do this next game case IT WORKED.
cry cry they won this one. end of story.
xBuTcHeRx: To me this insults consumers, its something kept on a disc and hold it locked on it. And so basically u can't have it unless u pay for something that could've been nice enough to have been rewarded for doing a certain thing on the game, but no, make me pay for it?! A big F U to 2K for this. Glad I didn't pay for it, thank you Goozex :)
To me this insults consumers, its something kept on a disc and hold it locked on it. And so basically u can't have it unless u pay for something that could've been nice enough to have been rewarded for doing a certain thing on the game, but no, make me pay for it?! A big F U to 2K for this. Glad I didn't pay for it, thank you Goozex :)
So you would have paid for it if they didn't do this? Oh wait, I see the top rated game from 2010 on your Items Received list. It's pretty convenient of people that don't pay for the games and support these devs to be complaining about what they charge.
swordtut: did you buy the game? yes then stfu if you don't want them to do this DON'T BUY THE GAMES. crying about getting ripped off after you gave them your money is pointless. they got your cash and will do this next game case IT WORKED. cry cry they won this one. end of story.
What's even better is the guys that didn't buy the game, and clearly had no intention of doing so whether or not they did this, complaining about it.
DrJ079: swordtut: did you buy the game? yes then stfu if you don't want them to do this DON'T BUY THE GAMES. crying about getting ripped off after you gave them your money is pointless. they got your cash and will do this next game case IT WORKED. cry cry they won this one. end of story. What's even better is the guys that didn't buy the game, and clearly had no intention of doing so whether or not they did this, complaining about it.
I would have to disagree with swordtut...who else has a right to complain? By your logic no one should ever buy games because of the possibility of this happening. The consumer has a responsibility to complain. Now if I had gone out and purchased it AFTER learning about this then you would be 100% correct.
People who didn't buy the game new really have no room to complain to anyone. They arent 2k customers and Goozex/Gamestop didn't design the game or release the DLC. Why would they care what you think if you arent giving them money in the first place? Its like complaining about the quality of a pirated movie. Who cares that you gave some guy in an alley $5 for a bootleg copy...the studios dont consider you a real customer.
DLC for the first bioshock, which actually added new content, was free. IMO the DLC for bioshock 2 was no more deserving of extra revenue than that. IMO its less deserving because the MP in Bioshock 2 is broken to begin with. It NEEDS a patch to fix all the bugs, why would they release premium content for it before they even fix the standard content? Also if you compare it to other FPS MP games it is the weakest of the bunch. Even with all the DLC upgrades it still needs some work to be competitive with other MP FPS. I felt like this before I heard about the DLC, thats why I only played MP mode twice and then traded the game out. Bottom line, this content should have been included from the start. The MP was incomplete with out it and even with it its just OK.
x
If it's on the disc, it should be released with the package. Simple as that. People who don't want to pay are being no less greedy than the developers who want to be paid more for something they've already been paid for.
And I'm not anti-DLC. I've bought DLC in the past from COD to Borderlands. I have no interest in Bioshock 2 at all, so it's not because of the DLC that I'm not going to buy it.
The problem is, if people can accept that stuff already on the disc is ok to be paid for as DLC, then what else can developers charge as DLC that is already on the disc as well.
Well I WAS reading most of the arguments in this thread, but then I got confused and bored so I decided to write my own opinion. I love DLC. I buy a lot of it, especially from Bioware and Bethesda.
I didn't like the idea that Bioware released DLC for Dragon Age: Origins the day it came out. I though that was unfair, and was pretty mad about it. Then guess what? I bought it. Yeah I feel like I'm enabling them but in the end I want that extra content more than I want them to know how mad I am. They don't care anyway, because they have my money.
I also hate downloadable map packs. They take less time to design than single-player chapters, yet they cost twice as much. And if you don't have them, they limit your playability. How many games have I been kicked out of in World at War because I didn't have the maps? And I remember in Halo 3, half the game types weren't available unless you had the Heroic Map Pack. I spent $10 bucks for it. The same happened with the Legendary Map Pack. And then came the Mythic Map Pack. $30 bucks down the line, they release ODST which has all of them. Awesome...
The Dragon Age DLC was released on the same day the game was released because the game was pushed back due to console release time frame. The team finished the game, started on DLC, and the game was pushed back for a few months, causing the DLC to be finished and released at the same time. It's stupid to rage at the company for that.
wasnt it also free?
vmcintos: wasnt it also free?
I believe Shale and the armor was free, but the Keep (or whatever it's called) cost around $8 or so. Of course, Shale and the armor were only free if you bought the game new as each new copy comes with a code for the DLC. Anyone buying the game second-hand had to pay for everything seperately.
This is a DLC business model I fully endorse.
I think that it is pretty low, I mean, I thought DLC was the kind of thing where developers could expand upon the game they already released, to keep the game fresh. If the "DLC" was already done when the game was released, than didn't we already pay for it? In my opinion, it seems like they don't know that consumers know anything. They don't think we can find out these things? They just locked it on the disk just so they could get extra money without doing more work. Maybe if they had just left it unlocked the game would have gotten slightly better reviews and therefore, more sales, and then more money? It seems pretty silly to have to pay to use something you already bought.
We already payed $60 for the game, why should we have to pay $10 more just to get to use some of the content on the game? It's not like they need the money, right?
However, if the game is really good, and has a lot of work put into it, this would be acceptable
Sadly, IMO BioShock 2 isn't one of those games.
DogByte64: It seems pretty silly to have to pay to use something you already bought.
It seems pretty silly to have to pay to use something you already bought.
Indeed. Someone should put a stop to these heinous acts before they become the norm.
Robstein: vmcintos: wasnt it also free? I believe Shale and the armor was free, but the Keep (or whatever it's called) cost around $8 or so. Of course, Shale and the armor were only free if you bought the game new as each new copy comes with a code for the DLC. Anyone buying the game second-hand had to pay for everything seperately. This is a DLC business model I fully endorse.
Yeah, I have no problem with that. I think giving bonuses to people who buy new copies is a pretty smart idea, and it doesn't punish people who don't. If they really want it, they can still buy it.