When something happens that we don’t like or don’t agree with, we can’t help but feel wronged at some level.
PC Aficionado: "Obsidian published a survey in early October, asking for responses from players concerning DLC. Now, 55,000 responses have been noted, and the final results are out."
Nobody wants to pay for DLC... Tell that to the idiots who are killing gaming by buying into the current microtransactiin trend without a fight.
I'm willing to pay for expansions. Those things we used to get that were of proportionate price to the base game's content and was worth the money.
Exactly, I'll happily pay for DLC that actually adds to the base game, new areas, enemies, etc.. Actual chunks of gameplay. I'll support developers that actually put in work to enhance the base game.
This bullshit MT crap that takes no effort from the devs and paying real money for things that are left up to RNGesus just needs to stop.
They'll use this to plan future DLC. Yep, lots of small games with loads of DLC is incoming. Just MT's to get them used to now. Nearly, there guys. Way to kill the industry.
Fvck DLC. Either put the content in the base game or piss off.
Yeah I'm talking to you EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.
i think you are mistaken, DLc in the forms of expansions are welcome, its the stupid MT that needs to crawl into the corner
Been wondering where that Champions Ballad DLC is for Breath of the Wild? Well, Nintendo confirmed it's coming December...on the European eShop only.
Good timing - other than Xenoblade 2, nothing's really coming out during that time.
awesome.. I would expect it to release around the same time in NA too. Can't wait!
December, eh?
Guess I'll likely be taking a brief break from Xeno mid-to-late December, then.
No way am I missing out on the very first ever post-game content that the Zelda series has ever had.
Looking at the industry trend of charging for DLC after a game is released and if it is justified for companies to do so
This is tricky. In my opinion, I feel like DLC should be free because we purchased a game, a finished product, for 60+ dollars, so things like Day One DLC shouldn't exist. On the other hand, I understand this is a business and that development is expensive, and expanding a product instead of making another one is good capital.
What I think would help is if the community was met halfway with a reinvention of the downloadable content system. Give the content we purchase certain standards, kind of like Day One DLC isn't permitted. If Season Passes are purchased, then the customer must have an outline of what they are purchasing, and if the individual didn't want everything in the outline then he/she could drop what they didn't like for a cheaper fee. Also, while I'm in the land of never ending possibilities, a rewards incentive is made for a certain amount purchased from all the developer's games released (which can also be carried over from system to system or gen to gen), like buying 10 DLC packs gives you one free. This way we both get what we want: they get some money and we don't feel taken advantage of.
Wish we got some dlc free, at least get some of it free by getting platinum. Wish some dlc was priced good cause costume prices high as hell. If we can get dlc on sale alot like the games then I would buy dlc at that cheap price. At the end of the day it's best just to wait for goty/complete edition or price drop of the ultimate edition to combat them.
Completely agree, blackblades. Waiting truly is the best option these days, and speaking with our wallet tends to work. Just wish it worked faster.
Given that companies used to release DLC back in the late 90s and early 2000s for free as "supporting their product" for extended appeal? No, it's not justified, and never was.
Full on expansions are entirely different, but this bite-sized DLC bulls**t became popular with the biggest caner of them all, Call of Duty and their bulls**t map packs.
Once these companies discovered just how stupid the average "gamer" (and I use that term loosely) was, it was straight to the bank. Now look at where that first step has gotten us to today.
Microsoft started the bite sized DLC trend. They had a marketing strategy that they pushed back when live was founded and they stated that they believed more money could be made selling things in pieces rather then a full on expansion. The first Xbox live title released had paid DLC and cut up in this exact fashion back in Nov 2002.
Of course, as consoles have inched closer and closer to PC, in recent years, it makes since when considering the existence of expansion packs. Why should they not, as it is always an option not a requirement.
exclusive content/dlc/demos are the biggest load of shit the industry has ever crapped out. its an absolute abomination that should bother everyone. it was bad when ms did it, it's even worse now that ps3 titles like moh or dead space come with free games. just make the goddamn title a total exclusive then. any 360 gamer who supports EA now is a moron. no disrespect. if i were a member of n4g back then i'd have said the exact same thing about fallout 3 or the oblivion content that ps3 owners STILL haven't gotten. F these companies, your business obviously means nothing to them.
we're really not that far away from games having entirely different levels and whatnot built into them. if you want this level, get the 360 version, the ps3 version comes with that level. don't think thats science fiction, we started with horse armor and look where we are now.
I can't say I agree with any of these things that are "wrong" with the industry.
1. Preorders. So don't preorder. Are you really disadvantaged because somebody got a different gun than you with a preorder? If that's your excuse, I suspect you might just suck. Besides, I preorder so I don't have to run all over town to find a copy of a new title.
2. Exclusive content. Big deal. Was the 360 version of batman gimped because the PS3 version had the Joker? Of course not. What do you care what other people have? Enjoy the game. It didn't bother me that last gen that some soul caliber players got Spawn, or Link to play with. Just enjoy the game on your console of choice and don't worry so much about what someone else is playing.
3. DLC. Don't like it, don't pay for it. It bugs you because it's something people are offering? Grow up. If people don't want DLC, they won't pay for it. If people do, they will. There's nothing dangerous or sinister about that.
4. Extra money for used games. I don't like this, but I'm not worried about it. Company's want extra money. They always will, and they're losing a bundle through used games sales. If you don't like the practice, don't buy those titles. There's plenty of other games to play.
5. Shoehorned Alternatives - I don't really know what he's talking about here, or why it's of concern. Alternate friend's lists? Signing up on someone's servers? Oh noes! Seriously, this sounds like a simple annoyance if you aren't into it. Just don't sign up if you don't want to.
6. Broken games - Back in the day when a game shipped broken, it was broken. There was nothing that could be done about it. Those games got terrible reviews and if you were one of those who were unlucky enough to purchase a glitchy game, too bad. Now, as games become more complicated there is also more that can go wrong, but thankfully a glitchy game can be fixed instead of bankrupting the developer. That's not a bad thing.
If the developer doesn't patch their games it's just like old times. People simply won't buy them.
I can think of a tonne of things that concern me about the direction the gaming industry is going. This list just comes across and nit-picking to me.
I hate when devs are paid more so one console can have exclusive contents.