Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gimli]

blame the internet...not steam

dlc is the natural progression after expansion packs. I just hate the price/content ratio these days

It's not that simple. Platforms like Steam are promoting the DLC model. Selling DLCs is a decent source of income for Valve afterall, but it's more than that. Many developers are releasing half-assed products with shallow gameplay as v1.0 because of the the long-term DLC strategy. It' a business standard now. It's all about money, and on platforms like Steam, it's easy to release DLCs. [More on this a bit later.] Sure, you are not forced to buy DLCs, or hell, you are not even forced to buy games either.
However, we all know that if someone is a fan of game X, he/she will buy DLCs for game X in most of the cases, even if it's only a portrait pack. If a given DLC adds a bit more content -like a race for a strategy game- it's an instabuy for a real fan, especially if the vanilla game lacks content...but again!...
It's all about money, but let's think a bit. I read an interesting article a couple of years ago: BioWare to beat piracy with DLC.
""We're doing a lot of post-release downloadable content on all of our PC titles going forward. We think it's a good thing to encourage players to make them want to buy a PC title," Muzyka told MTV Multiplayer.
"That's ultimately the best, most successful path to prevent piracy."

I am not sure that mr Muzyka was honest in this interview. We all know that DLCs are pirated. We all know that DLCs were pirated from the beginning, regardless of the DRM platform [Steam, Origin etc]. The amount of income earned from selling DLCs [@ Steam for example] is a good compensation for the loss of money because of pirating. So, what is the truth? The truth is, that those people who buy DLCs are compensating the developers & publishers for their losses. It's a well thought model from the developer's perspective, but an annoying one from the customer's perspective. "No f*cks given" says the pirate.

[Retropunch]

It's just the price to content ratio which is the problem, and the way that games are having a lot less content as it's all shipped off into DLC. I remember in the early day of DLC, they were sorta small expansion packs, which added a new story or a significant gameplay addition (lets ignore horse armour...) that were too small for a full on expansion, but significant enough to pay for. Now it's just become a way to add a lot less content into the game and partition it off.

However, I think a lot more developers are seeing that it's got on people's nerves. Indie/smaller developers are always saying 'buy it because there won't be any DLC!!!' and bigger developers are apologizing and making excuses for it (and seem to have learnt their lesson on Day1 DLC). so I'm hoping that eventually we'll get back to a bit of an equilibrium.

[scriver]

Posting to watch.

edit: wrong thread

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Yes, I think it should be noted: I'm still super duper uber hyped for this!

[sambojin]

I'm actually looking forward for a Chaos DLC for this. Yep, the hordes from the north will always be there. But the Chaos Warbands, that seemingly emerge from nowhere, blessed by the Gods, in the heart of any kingdom or Empire? I hope they happen too.

Oh, and Beastmen. Hundreds and gazillions of Beastmen. Where Orcs and Goblins aren't, there's reasons.

[ScriptWolf]

I'm actually looking forward for a Chaos DLC for this. Yep, the hordes from the north will always be there. But the Chaos Warbands, that seemingly emerge from nowhere, blessed by the Gods, in the heart of any kingdom or Empire? I hope they happen too.

Oh, and Beastmen. Hundreds and gazillions of Beastmen. Where Orcs and Goblins aren't, there's reasons.

How can you be looking forward to paying more for something which should have been included anyway ? Chaos forces are such a massive part of warhammer both fantasy and 40k to not let players play that faction base game is very bad, why even make it at all.

To be honest with the mess and money grab that was rome 2 i have no expectations for this, if it's only being released with four factions and they expect you to pay more for what should have been in the game im going to stick with the medieval 2 mod.

[~Neri]

Be nice if they brought Nagash back. Technically they could, although lorewise, nobody would have a flipping clue how, or a reason to. Cause he/it was batshit insane.

[Mech#4]

Be nice if they brought Nagash back. Technically they could, although lorewise, nobody would have a flipping clue how, or a reason to. Cause he/it was batshit insane.

They did bring Nagash back in the End Times. He's got a really big, pretty cool looking model as well. Though this game seems to be set before the End Times, during the Storm of Chaos, or in a separate timeline.

[~Neri]

Nagash went more or less for pure functionality, why the crap does he have all that terrible armor and easily gripped jutting spikes in that model?

[Rose]

I was excited till I saw that this was not 40k

[Zrk2]

I was excited till I saw that this was not 40k

Tanks and things would be significantly different to implement, so this may be a good first step in that direction.

[Mech#4]

Nagash went more or less for pure functionality, why the crap does he have all that terrible armor and easily gripped jutting spikes in that model?

While I can agree with the view that it is rather over the top, I have to say that it is better than the old model. At least the face is better.

Old Nagash model was about half the size of a skeleton in size again. The new model is quite a bit bigger.

[Neonivek]

The problem is that making a game with the INTENT that there is going to be DLC to patch it... the vast majority of the time there are rather large holes in the game, absences that can be felt... a development process that obviously held back because it knew that a DLC was going to "fix it".

Think of it like Updating. Companies KNOW they don't have to release games in working condition or even functional because they can always patch it later, and if no one buys it then that means they don't have to spend money patching.

With DLC they KNOW they don't have to try as hard to squeeze in that extra dollar value because the DLC is going to do it. And when they do, do DLC? They know there is going to be more DLC so they don't really have to try on that DLC either. As well since the base game is lacking that means they can do EVEN LESS because they just have to add onto a game with half the effort.

Giving the games and their DLC a real bland factor. The game feels like it lacks that extra oomph because it knew it had DLC, and the DLC knowing they didn't have to try because the game wasn't going to try. Plus the DLC is just "patching" the game not "expanding".

Which is kind of the thing... When DLC is planned from the getgo it feels more like a "patch" then it does extra content.

Sure sometimes you get the makers of Mortal Kombat who just cram as much as possible into the base game and then cram even more through DLC... but they are WAAAY the exception.

Often you just get Paradox Entertainment with their constant milking DLC.

[Retropunch]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Neonivek. Really, what's annoying is that DLC these days may as well be Day1 DLC, it's just spread out over a few months.

[Neonivek]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Neonivek. Really, what's annoying is that DLC these days may as well be Day1 DLC, it's just spread out over a few months.

A lot of the time they actually are. They just spread it across a few months to give the illusion that they worked on it.

Borderlands Presequel for example already finished all but its final DLC day 1. I mean you COULD justify it in that they wanted to give you something to look forward to before the actual DLC was released.