It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Blacklist of "DLC" Developers/Publishers(76 posts)(76 posts)
(76 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
rawmilk905: Incomplete games are relatively new here at GOG, with the exception of some publisher-imposed limitations like missing EA expansions that have since been added. Bottom line, build a good engine and let the community create the additional content is my preferred model and those are the games I want to support by purchasing. Yeah, I try to do that for the most part. Sometimes sales get me though, as was the case with both of the titles I mentioned.
But that isn't really the right way to be looking at things. Shadowrun Returns is not an incomplete game. It is fully playable, enjoyable and worthwhile on its own. It doesn't need the DLC to have the complete experience (lack of save anywhere was annoying, and I suppose it would've been nice for them to patch it into the original game after all the feedback they got, but I don't know, maybe it wasn't feasible). There wasn't something intentionally left out of the game so that the developers could cash in at a later point with DLC. As far as I'm aware, you won't reach a point in the game where there'll be a big burly character who'll stop you and say "Only DLC purchasers beyond this point. If you want to buy the DLC for this game, click here!"

Of course, there ARE games that do that, and it is a abhorrent practice, but it isn't universal like that.
"DLC" isn't the same as on-disc DLC (assets and features that already exist in the game files and are unlocked by purchasing DLC) or day 1 DLC or...negative DLC (dunno what else to call it, but features intentionally stripped out of a game where they make an obvious gap in the gameplay and require buying DLC for the full experience).

DLC in and of itself isn't automatically bad, not to say that many publishers don't use it in an abhorrent way.

In fact, it is a very useful tool especially for indie developers who don't have near limitless funding. If they see that lots of people like their game, instead of having to spend more money on new assets or a new engine to create a sequel (or have poor ratings or complaints about it being the same because they used almost the same assets and engine), they can focus on new campaigns or other minor flourishes.
Post edited June 11, 2014 by babark
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
rawmilk905: It's not that I had no interest in it. It looked worthwhile when I got it (and it may well be.) My anger at the release of "DLC" made me lose interest.

What I'd really like is a warning: "Developer plans to release DLC for this title." That way I could make an informed choice whether to buy or not.
Well... They could have called it "Shadowrun Returns 2 - Dragonfall" and make it a standalone. The outcome would have been the same -> two seperate games. Saying that Dragonfall is a rip-off, because it's cut content that should've been included in the base game, is like... like... like complaining that the core rulebook of pen & paper Shadowrun doesn't come with all additional sourcebooks and adventures! Or like complaining because you have to buy another ticket to see Lord of the Rings 2, although you already paid to see Lord of the Rings (the first one, but this doesn't matter, since 2 and 3 are cut content).

Dragonfall isn't an additional armor or weapon. It doesn't add new skills to the base game. No new areas. Nothing. It's just a new story. That's very "Pen & Paper"-ish. Yes, I agree, it shouldn't be "DLC". Standalone campaigns would be preferable. But that's just a minor detail. Nothing that would justify to blacklist a developer...
Posted June 11, 2014
I don't see anything wrong with DLC as long as it fulfills two of my personal demands:

1)

it acts like an expansion pack of old and isn't something akin to unlocking something already present on the disc/in the game

2)

it fulfills an actual demand.

I like the way SOTS: The Pit DLCs were handled as they always added a slew of new content and most of them, save for The Pilgrim DLC, have been rolled into a Gold Edition.

Even The Pilgrim DLC adds a new class, new items, etc. that have to be playtested for balance and such so I don't see it as being an excessive form of DLC. On top of that, the users of Kerberos' own forums kind of demanded a Zu'ul class and that's exactly what was made :)
Posted June 11, 2014
I guess I just need to skip anything less than a year or two old to avoid this. My apologies to those who feel it shouldn't put me off like it does.
Post edited June 11, 2014 by rawmilk905
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
babark: lack of save anywhere was annoying, and I suppose it would've been nice for them to patch it into the original game after all the feedback they got, but I don't know, maybe it wasn't feasible
They have patched the original game alright and thus you don't need to have Dragonfall to be able to save anywhere. From Dragonfall's page:
"Save Anywhere: You can save your progress at any time during the game. The new save-game functionality is available in new downloads of Shadowrun Returns and through a patch for all existing copies."
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
Darvond: I suppose it goes without saying, EA and Atari for RTC Mobile and Dungeon Keeper?
I don't see RTC Mobile on here, and Dungeon Keeper is now the gold edition.
avatar
JudasIscariot: I don't see anything wrong with DLC as long as it fulfills two of my personal demands:

1)

it acts like an expansion pack of old and isn't something akin to unlocking something already present on the disc/in the game

2)

it fulfills an actual demand.

I like the way SOTS: The Pit DLCs were handled as they always added a slew of new content and most of them, save for The Pilgrim DLC, have been rolled into a Gold Edition.

Even The Pilgrim DLC adds a new class, new items, etc. that have to be playtested for balance and such so I don't see it as being an excessive form of DLC. On top of that, the users of Kerberos' own forums kind of demanded a Zu'ul class and that's exactly what was made :)
Thanks, and I agree somewhat. I just find it irritating to be surprised by new content coming out.
Post edited June 11, 2014 by rawmilk905
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
Grargar: They have patched the original game alright and thus you don't need to have Dragonfall to be able to save anywhere. From Dragonfall's page:
"Save Anywhere: You can save your progress at any time during the game. The new save-game functionality is available in new downloads of Shadowrun Returns and through a patch for all existing copies."
Good guy Harebrained Schemes :D
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
rawmilk905: What I'd really like is a warning: "Developer plans to release DLC for this title." That way I could make an informed choice whether to buy or not.
avatar
Fenixp: It has been widely known that there will be an additional campaign coming out for Shadowrun. If what you say is what you want, do your bloody research. Besides, vast majority of publishers have no way of knowing whether or not they're going to release expansions and DLC in advance, they tend to be reliant on success of the base title.

Nonetheless, if that's your issue, why on earth don't you wait a year or two before buying a title in some form of Gold edition? Expansions were getting released since pretty much forever, why would you expect developers to stop now?
avatar
rawmilk905: stripping content from a game to be released in instalments in order to gouge the customer repeatedly without any additional coding or game design
avatar
Fenixp: God damnit people, don't write stuff like that when you're completely clueless when it comes to coding and game design. Seriously, that... Just makes you look like an idiot, I'm sorry for being blunt here.
I can tell the difference between new content that incorporates new code and adds to gameplay and that which just adds additional graphics. Sims Stuff packs were a perfect example of the latter.
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
rawmilk905: I can tell the difference between new content that incorporates new code and adds to gameplay and that which just adds additional graphics.
No. No, you can't. Yes, there are some examples where this is clear, but that's certainly not the majority of DLC here on GOG. Even the infamous Omerta DLC might have gotten some additional coding. Or not. I wouldn't know, because I didn't work with their internal toolkit. Did you?
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
rawmilk905: I can tell the difference between new content that incorporates new code and adds to gameplay and that which just adds additional graphics.
avatar
Fenixp: No. No, you can't. Yes, there are some examples where this is clear, but that's certainly not the majority of DLC here on GOG. Even the infamous Omerta DLC might have gotten some additional coding. Or not. I wouldn't know, because I didn't work with their internal toolkit. Did you?
Oh, I see what you are saying. In such an instance though, there is at least new writing.
Posted June 11, 2014
I object mainly two aspects of DLCs:

1. If there are lots of tiny DLCs, it just makes buying games much more effort. It is easy to say "don't buy DLCs you don't like, like cosmetic ones. Buy only the important DLCs.", but there's the catch: how the heck do I know from two dozen tiny DLCs, which of them are really 100% cosmetic or completely irrelevant to me, and which make the game more enjoyable to me? If a DLC offers a new weapon and/or a new vehicle to the base game, is that an irrelevant DLC or not? How do I know without playing it first? Maybe someone else felt that e.g. that big truck in Far Cry 2 was quite irrelevant, but to me it wasn't. I much prefer playing FC2 with it, than without. Someone else might consider it only "cosmetic" as there are lots of other (smaller) vehicles as well in the game.

I still recall trying to figure out which DLCs for Darkstalkers 2 were "important" and which "cosmetic". The DLC descriptions on e.g. the Steam page were pretty useless, they didn't really open it up for me in "This DLC you definitely want" or "This DLC you could skip just as well". After all, it would be pretty poor marketing to make some DLC seem irrelevant.

2. Like many have suggested, waiting for the Complete GOTY edition is one solution I could also follow, as then I don't have to go through the pain in the previous point. But as others have said, it seems the publishers are playing with those too, ie. sometimes the "complete" versions don't have even all the currently released DLCs, or there are still some future additions. I was first interested in e.g. the Mass Effect Trilogy, but judging by the reviews it missed some pretty important DLCs for unknown reasons. Why would EA do that? The only explanation I can find is to milk a bit more from people who thought they'd be getting "the whole package" with the compilation

http://www.gamefront.com/surprise-the-mass-effect-trilogy-wont-include-all-dlc/
http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/98921/what-do-i-need-to-complete-my-mass-effect-trilogy-collection

If DLC mainly meant a few (max 3, hopefully less) bigger additional "expansion packs", then I wouldn't really mind them. I am not necessarily against the idea of making additional content for the game afterwards.

Kudos to CDPR though to make such content in a form of free DLC. :)
Post edited June 11, 2014 by timppu
Posted June 11, 2014
Ronimo Games

Those guys made a Kickstarter campaign to gather funds for a DLC, despite the fact that their game is bad (I can't remember a multiplayer as bad) and incredible they got the money.
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
timppu: I object mainly two aspects of DLCs:

1. If there are lots of tiny DLCs, it just makes buying games much more effort. It is easy to say "don't buy DLCs you don't like, like cosmetic ones. Buy only the important DLCs.", but there's the catch: how the heck do I know from two dozen tiny DLCs, which of them are really 100% cosmetic or completely irrelevant to me, and which make the game more enjoyable to me? If a DLC offers a new weapon and/or a new vehicle to the base game, is that an irrelevant DLC or not? How do I know without playing it first? Maybe someone else felt that e.g. that big truck in Far Cry 2 was quite irrelevant, but to me it wasn't. I much prefer playing FC2 with it, than without. Someone else might consider it only "cosmetic" as there are lots of other (smaller) vehicles as well in the game.

I still recall trying to figure out which DLCs for Darkstalkers 2 were "important" and which "cosmetic". The DLC descriptions on e.g. the Steam page were pretty useless, they didn't really open it up for me in "This DLC you definitely want" or "This DLC you could skip just as well". After all, it would be pretty poor marketing to make some DLC seem irrelevant.

2. Like many have suggested, waiting for the Complete GOTY edition is one solution I could also follow, as then I don't have to go through the pain in the previous point. But as others have said, it seems the publishers are playing with those too, ie. sometimes the "complete" versions don't have even all the currently released DLCs, or there are still some future additions. I was first interested in e.g. the Mass Effect Trilogy, but judging by the reviews it missed some pretty important DLCs for unknown reasons. Why would EA do that? The only explanation I can find is to milk a bit more from people who thought they'd be getting "the whole package" with the compilation

If DLC mainly meant a few (max 3, hopefully less) bigger additional "expansion packs", then I wouldn't really mind them. I am not necessarily against the idea of making additional content for the game afterwards.

Kudos to CDPR though to make such content in a form of free DLC. :)
Thanks, this expresses it better than I did.
Posted June 11, 2014
avatar
timppu: Kudos to CDPR though to make such content in a form of free DLC. :)
How Dare They?! They are destroying Social Welfare by releasing it Free!
Posted June 11, 2014
I guess you wouldn't buy games like Doom, DN3D, or Quake since they had a bunch of expansions and mission packs. Oh, don't forget about Neverwinter Nights, which had quite a few expansions. Rollercoaster Tycoon as well.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Blacklist of "DLC" Developers/Publishers(76 posts)(76 posts)
(76 posts)