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)DLC - what's ok and what isn't?(34 posts)(34 posts)
(34 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 23, 2012
Also, I think this Extra Credits video does at least as much justice to the subject of DLC as the Jimquisition one: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Notice the part where the closer DLC is to release the more we buy it in droves. It's hard to blame devs from putting the teams directly on DLC the moment the game hits certification given that. Let's just presume they produce DLC that is good value for the money (they don't always) and all of the sudden it's much easier to see their POV about release day DLC.

Of course on disk DLC is another beast with all sorts of other questionable stuff thrown on top. Generally it's "not okay" with me, but in limited situations I have no problem with it.
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Notice the part where the closer DLC is to release the more we buy it in droves. It's hard to blame devs from putting the teams directly on DLC the moment the game hits certification given that. Let's just presume they produce DLC that is good value for the money (they don't always) and all of the sudden it's much easier to see their POV about release day DLC.
Not sure about ME3 because I haven't played it yet, but I know in ME2 the launch-day DLC certainly felt like DLC, not cut content. Zaeed was a cool character but was obviously shoved in after the fact.

I have no issue with launch-day DLC, but I understand game development better than the average joe.
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
QC: To be honest I don't mind DLC when it's actually substantial. The problem is that the definition of substantial is fairly loose. Example, you can spend $10 to download the alien UFO maps in Fallout 3, that means weapons and play time and story. But then you have something like EA which has at times asked you to spend $3 for a gun or a map or a skill bonus. Why? The point of having new content is to actually have new content, not shit that won't be noticed or remembered for more than a couple days after you purchased it. The thing about locking content on the game disc is also annoying, but at least it actually opens up usable content that adds more to what you can do in the game.
avatar
StingingVelvet: How does the existence of EA cheat DLC make what is substantial a loose definition? No one would call that stuff substantial.
Because whoever came up with it considered it substantial enough for sale.
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: How does the existence of EA cheat DLC make what is substantial a loose definition? No one would call that stuff substantial.
avatar
QC: Because whoever came up with it considered it substantial enough for sale.
He was responding to the idea of substantial DLC being good and the small stuff being bad by saying the idea of substantial is relative. Which I could agree with, but his example is not a good one.
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: in the case it's on disc (and I mean completely on disk, not just some extra character models to enable to you to play multiplayer with someone who owns the DLC) then it was done at the time the game went out for certification (so far as I know) and that is a douchebag move.
Actually, most of the time that content isn't in the build that gets sent for verification.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)DLC - what's ok and what isn't?(34 posts)(34 posts)
(34 posts)