DLC is ruining content of games

[bluexterra]

I've just popped into this thread, so please forgive me if I seem to be misinformed.

Lastly, developers that add content to their games after they have been released should, in my opinion, get some sort of profit from it.

I think the original argument is that they should just put it in the next version of the game (GT6), otherwise they should give content away to continually generate interest in the game long after it's initial release and possibly to attract new buyers by word of mouth. Then you have the issues of what is a reasonable price to ask and secondly does it have any adverse effects on the quality of the game such as slowing the game down.

One thing I was thinking of last night is why should I want to buy things from them online after the fiasco last year where hackers got into the account information and brought the whole PSN network down for weeks? I blame the hackers primarily for that, but that's a serious offense to your user community for it to happen to that degree especially when you look at the size of the user community. In addition to the half price/zero mileage cars on the OCD and game upgrades, they should've made the DLC items extremely low in price to regain trust.

 

[xNeroZero]

I think the original argument is that they should just put it in the next version of the game (GT6), otherwise they should give content away to continually generate interest in the game long after it's initial release and possibly to attract new buyers by word of mouth. Then you have the issues of what is a reasonable price to ask and secondly does it have any adverse effects on the quality of the game such as slowing the game down.

One thing I was thinking of last night is why should I want to buy things from them online after the fiasco last year where hackers got into the account information and brought the whole PSN network down for weeks? I blame the hackers primarily for that, but that's a serious offense to your user community for it to happen to that degree especially when you look at the size of the user community. In addition to the half price/zero mileage cars on the OCD and game upgrades, they should've made the DLC items extremely low in price to regain trust.

Actually, I was trying to show people that are blind to the fact, that game companies are taking advantage of the urges to have more. Obviously the people that posted in this thread explain it made their gaming experience so much better and it made them come back to a game that was boring before DLC. Those are the people that are sheep. People like me, and some others in this thread that voiced their opinion on the issue that I brought up have a general understanding where I come from.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

[/B]
Oh, and Corvette ME3 does have day one DLC, I popped in the game yesterday and under the general trophies list was a DLC pack. Hell I noticed on the package it's self of the back it has all the stuff that's in the game and on the top right of the case, it said "add-on content." You can find these on almost all the games now.

That wasn't the point, my point is yes there is first day DLC but do you need it to finish the game? Well we don't know yet, if the makers did exclude portions of the game and make them first day DLC instead of say a simple weapons pack or something else then I have to agree with much of what you say.

 

[Scaff]

Actually, I was trying to show people that are blind to the fact, that game companies are taking advantage of the urges to have more.

Some may be, but not all are.

It's not the nice black and white situation you keep insisting it is, some DLC is taking advantage and its omission makes a title feel incomplete and could well have been added at launch. That I don't agree with at all, and don't buy into. Much as I love the AC series I have not bought a single piece of DLC for it, because I see it as overpriced and exploitative, particularly the 'missed' mission from AC2.

Other DLC is added well after the fact and/or adds to the game in a manner that doesn't impact on the core product. The upcoming BF3 map and weapon packs fall into the first category and the GT5 and FM4 DLC falls into the second for me. In these circumstances I will weigh them up and buy them if I wish. Yes I have regretted a few (Route X and the paints & Race suits for GT% spring to mind - particularity as I got a kicking from Sony/PD for buying it as a bundle), but I've also regretted plenty of disc based purchases. However I have get plenty of value from Spa, all the FM4 packs (free & chargeable) and all the BF2 and BF3 DLC I've bought to date.

Ultimately its my choice as a consumer.

Obviously the people that posted in this thread explain it made their gaming experience so much better and it made them come back to a game that was boring before DLC. Those are the people that are sheep.

Now here we have an issue, simply because people hold a view counter to yours doesn't make you right, nor does it give you the mandate to insult them. On that the AUP is quite clear and you would do well to not repeat this kind of behaviour.

The issue is not as black and white as you would want it to be, just as some titles in disc form are worth the money and others aren't (and its not for you to decide that for others); the self same thing applies to DLC.

Feel free to have a view and an opinion on it, feel free to voice that opinion and disagree with those that hold a differing view. However do not ever attack the people/person making it again or you may find your ability to post here curtailed.

People like me, and some others in this thread that voiced their opinion on the issue that I brought up have a general understanding where I come from.

Yes, but that doesn't automatically mean that you are right.


Scaff

 

[waynz]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but you can actually complete the game without the DLC right? You can obtain the Platinum trophy without Spa, Space Kart and the VW Scirroco?

So DLC hasn't ruined GT5 since it doesn't obstruct any of the A-Spec, B-Spec or Specials.

 

[thelvynau]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but you can actually complete the game without the DLC right? You can obtain the Platinum trophy without Spa, Space Kart and the VW Scirroco?

So DLC hasn't ruined GT5 since it doesn't obstruct any of the A-Spec, B-Spec or Specials.

You are quite correct but I think he is talking about other games that have the problem where you need dlc to see the ending.

 

[waynz]

You are quite correct but I think he is talking about other games that have the problem where you need dlc to see the ending.

Sorry.. Just it's in GT5 Q&A ... Here is where Nero can troll on topic... ... Just subtly saying.

 

[ajns73]

I come to this site to see about updates to GT5, and every time I see an announcement for DLC. People go crazy for and buy it blindly with out even thinking. The thing that gets me the most is this recent update they're coming out with, and people are talking about what should be in the game via a DLC? What is that? Wait for GT6, because all these cars that you're buying in these "DLCs" are going to be on there. I know some people are going to post in here, "If you don't like it, don't buy it," or "The developers need the money, this is a great service that they're doing for us!" That's not the point, developers are looking at games like Forza and the Call of Duty series and seeing what success they're having with ripping people off with content that should already be in the game, hell you can't blame them they're making a profit off people that just blindly put there money towards. I'm sure there's people out there that share the same frustrations as me. This is only going to get worse if YOU the consumer stop buying DLC.

Sign here if you think DLC is ruining the quality of games.

I'll see your DLC observation and raise you this: It's not just downloadable content for purchase that is ruining games, it's the entire patch/update system.

Before it was possible to patch games post-release, more care was taken in testing and quality control than is the case today. Now, it is possible for a developer to rush a half-baked product to market to beat the competition or to make a fiscal deadline, and then use paying customers as the final beta testers to fix their malfunctioning garbage.

Now, if the PS3 world was more like the PC world, I could understand it. That is, dozens of hardware manufacturers using dozens of chip companies to create boxes that can have dozens of peripherals connected made by another couple dozen companies all run with hundreds of different drivers in unique and wonderful combinations. In that environment, having some bugs escape the factory is understandable. You can't test against EVERY possible combination of hardware/software. But, what is the excuse for a closed system that is essentially exactly the same running the exact same OS with a limited number of peripherals, which by the way are limited by the OS in the first place?

Whether it is here or other boards that offer an outlet for frustration and a forum for self-support, the posts don't lie. I'd say boycott until they get their act together, but the disease is so widespread, I think you would have to shut down the entire gaming community to have that work. Are there games that release more complete than others or only require minor fixes? Yes. But it is a braver new world for gamers now than it used to be. The days of buying a game that worked out of the box are over.

Now, there is bright side. Games that are irrevocably broken need not take their place in history alongside the Hindenberg anymore. However, as long as developers have the ultimate eraser, I believe they will continue to rush incomplete efforts to market leaving us to help finish their work. Not that I mind working or helping out, but I don't like paying someone else for the privilege to work for them.

 

[ch3ng]

You're totally disregarding my point. I'm using GT5 as an example and GT6 could turn into Forza 4 when it comes out as well. If you played the mainstream generic games that are out now, they have loads of DLC.

Again. This isn't Forza vs GT Thread and i proof that your are wrong.

I play for 100%, and when I see those cars in the dealership, I feel I don't have 100%. Why is it PD releases new NASCARs and a Toyota 86 free of charge, and the standard Jaguar gets upgraded to premium at a cost?

Because everything cost Money. The made some gifts like Turn10 and sell other DLC.

The fact that Standard Cars are upgraded per Charge is not good.

GT and Forza are Bad example, because the DLC increase the Quality.

ME3 had a day1 DLC, but the DLC was created afer the Game was finished. The Developer polished the Game and send it to production. Meanwhile they worked on DLC.
They delayed the release Day to have Time to work on DLC and polish the game.

You can't Blame them for working on DLC After the Game was done.

And the Game is 100% complete without DLC. Beside the DLC costs Nothing if you buy a New copie or the Limited Edition.

You ignore other oppinions and ignore facts.

 

[Emman1984]

I see DLC as an extra but GT5 was just as fun and good without it all of the Gran Turismo are fun so I didn't see a need for DLC just to keep the fans entertained or hooked on GT5 for years.

I'm satisfied with the cars, tracks, and online as it is

 

[xNeroZero]

Again. This isn't Forza vs GT Thread and i proof that your are wrong.



Because everything cost Money. The made some gifts like Turn10 and sell other DLC.

The fact that Standard Cars are upgraded per Charge is not good.

GT and Forza are Bad example, because the DLC increase the Quality.

ME3 had a day1 DLC, but the DLC was created afer the Game was finished. The Developer polished the Game and send it to production. Meanwhile they worked on DLC.
They delayed the release Day to have Time to work on DLC and polish the game.

You can't Blame them for working on DLC After the Game was done.

And the Game is 100% complete without DLC. Beside the DLC costs Nothing if you buy a New copie or the Limited Edition.

You ignore other oppinions and ignore facts.

I've ignored you till now because you're a total idiot and don't even understand what I'm saying. So I'll explain to you. This is no GT versus Forza 4. I'm using GT5 and Forza as an example. I own an Xbox, I've seen all the DLC they release each month. I'm saying GT6 might follow this path in the future. I don't care which game is better I'm comparing. Everything costs money, eh? You think I was born yesterday? Of course everything costs money. Why do you think companies like EA and Activision are selling out loads of DLC to sheep and making a huge profit. Hell I bet these guys are wiping their ass with money right now. With all this money that developers are making now with DLC they'll try to make games faster and more cheap with less quality. Lets use Call of Duty for example. They release a game every year and it's the same thing that the previous game was, except the game has different skins different guns and they throw a 4 hour single player in there. They probably do something with IT part of the game. In terms of quality? That game has gone down the toilet since Call of Duty 4. They add new features and the game doesn't work so they add patches that patch the previous patch. Companies are now following Activision's success and quality of all games is going down. It's pretty sad that single player games have to have trophies, online or loads of DLC just to keep people buying. What ever happened to a good single player experience and completing a game to 100%? You also said something about not needing a 100% for platinum. I don't care about the platinum I care about having all the cars and having every challenge completed.

 

[xNeroZero]

That wasn't the point, my point is yes there is first day DLC but do you need it to finish the game? Well we don't know yet, if the makers did exclude portions of the game and make them first day DLC instead of say a simple weapons pack or something else then I have to agree with much of what you say.

Mass Effect 2 had DLC that introduced characters that were only accessable from buying the DLC. There was also a mission that explained the beginning of Mass Effect 3.

 

[Spagetti69]

I've ignored you till now because you're a total idiot and don't even understand what I'm saying. So I'll explain to you.

woah easy fella. A bit strong eh. Do you ignore paragraphs too ?

 

[zegrated]

Alright here's my opinion on this issue:

The standards for game makers are much higher these days. With online support now readily available and the ability to patch post-release, developers cannot simply release and "forget" about a game like in years past.

I think there is somewhat of a trade-off here: developers must keep up with the game, but in return many are now also choosing to charge a few extra bucks for DLC. When I pay for DLC, I think of it as a thank you to the developer for continually updating the game.

 

[thelvynau]

I've ignored you till now because you're a total idiot and don't even understand what I'm saying. So I'll explain to you. This is no GT versus Forza 4. I'm using GT5 and Forza as an example. I own an Xbox, I've seen all the DLC they release each month. I'm saying GT6 might follow this path in the future. I don't care which game is better I'm comparing. Everything costs money, eh? You think I was born yesterday? Of course everything costs money. Why do you think companies like EA and Activision are selling out loads of DLC to sheep and making a huge profit. Hell I bet these guys are wiping their ass with money right now. With all this money that developers are making now with DLC they'll try to make games faster and more cheap with less quality. Lets use Call of Duty for example. They release a game every year and it's the same thing that the previous game was, except the game has different skins different guns and they throw a 4 hour single player in there. They probably do something with IT part of the game. In terms of quality? That game has gone down the toilet since Call of Duty 4. They add new features and the game doesn't work so they add patches that patch the previous patch. Companies are now following Activision's success and quality of all games is going down. It's pretty sad that single player games have to have trophies, online or loads of DLC just to keep people buying. What ever happened to a good single player experience and completing a game to 100%? You also said something about not needing a 100% for platinum. I don't care about the platinum I care about having all the cars and having every challenge completed.

Can you please stop with the insults?

All I have seen from you in this thread is forcing your opinion down peoples throats and when they disagree you insult them.

It seems you dont have the maturity to discuss this like a adult.

this forum has shown you patience, a fair debate and people have up until now shown you respect.

Is it too much to ask the same in return?

 

[MSTER232]

I've ignored you till now because you're a total idiot and don't even understand what I'm saying. So I'll explain to you. This is no GT versus Forza 4. I'm using GT5 and Forza as an example. I own an Xbox, I've seen all the DLC they release each month. I'm saying GT6 might follow this path in the future. I don't care which game is better I'm comparing. Everything costs money, eh? You think I was born yesterday? Of course everything costs money. Why do you think companies like EA and Activision are selling out loads of DLC to sheep and making a huge profit. Hell I bet these guys are wiping their ass with money right now. With all this money that developers are making now with DLC they'll try to make games faster and more cheap with less quality. Lets use Call of Duty for example. They release a game every year and it's the same thing that the previous game was, except the game has different skins different guns and they throw a 4 hour single player in there. They probably do something with IT part of the game. In terms of quality? That game has gone down the toilet since Call of Duty 4. They add new features and the game doesn't work so they add patches that patch the previous patch. Companies are now following Activision's success and quality of all games is going down. It's pretty sad that single player games have to have trophies, online or loads of DLC just to keep people buying. What ever happened to a good single player experience and completing a game to 100%? You also said something about not needing a 100% for platinum. I don't care about the platinum I care about having all the cars and having every challenge completed.

A quick reminder of what you signed up and agreed to before you even created your account : https://www.gtplanet.net/aup/

You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

 

[Scaff]

I've ignored you till now because you're a total idiot and don't even understand what I'm saying.

I seriously don't like repeating myself and the AUP is quite clear about abusive and insulting behaviour.

Take a two day holiday to re-read the AUP and if on your return you are still incapable of discussing a topic without resorting to insults you will find the ban becomes a permanent one.


Scaff

 

[xNeroZero]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/new-consoles-mega64/728877

 

[thelvynau]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/new-consoles-mega64/728877

Welcome back nero could you explain what the videos are for?

Edit:

How does that show dlc is ruining games this is more about consoles.

 

[Veritech]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/new-consoles-mega64/728877

Rather than argue that DLC is ruining the content of games, why not make an argument about how blurring the line between consoles of PCs ends up stripping the console its trait of what makes it "console-ey"? Or maybe, how all the western developers are treating the console as if it were a PC. Because in contrast very few Japanese developers seem to think so (though Capcom is a notable exception, but even then focuses mainly on PS3 and X360.)

Or maybe, (I've said this before) there are too many game developers in the market and it has become too saturated. When I first bought my Super Nintendo, the back of the box advertised a "large" library of over 150 games. Something for everyone.

Now, PS3, X360, iOS, Android each have like over 20,000 "fully-fledged" games. Too much for anyone. There's no common ground, and people just want to finish a game as quickly as possible so that they can move to the next game. It's like having too much food that you absolutely have to finish - At a certain point you don't care how it tastes anymore and you can't even enjoy it. You just want to get it done and over with. So then developers have to make DLC to keep you back so that you don't resell the game to someone else.

How about arguing that used game shops should give a cut of their sales back to the developers? Not a blanket donation, but renumeration based on individual game resales, so that games that are frequently resold means more money back to that game's developer. Some stores have considered it, but maybe you should argue for actual legislation instead.

Because if there are only complaints with blaming and no solutions, there is already a class of people labelled as such: a politician! Something to think about, yeah?

 

[thelvynau]

Rather than argue that DLC is ruining the content of games, why not make an argument about how blurring the line between consoles of PCs ends up stripping the console its trait of what makes it "console-ey"? Or maybe, how all the western developers are treating the console as if it were a PC. Because in contrast very few Japanese developers seem to think so (though Capcom is a notable exception, but even then focuses mainly on PS3 and X360.)

Or maybe, (I've said this before) there are too many game developers in the market and it has become too saturated. When I first bought my Super Nintendo, the back of the box advertised a "large" library of over 150 games. Something for everyone.

Now, PS3, X360, iOS, Android each have like over 20,000 "fully-fledged" games. Too much for anyone. There's no common ground, and people just want to finish a game as quickly as possible so that they can move to the next game. It's like having too much food that you absolutely have to finish - At a certain point you don't care how it tastes anymore and you can't even enjoy it. You just want to get it done and over with. So then developers have to make DLC to keep you back so that you don't resell the game to someone else.

How about arguing that used game shops should give a cut of their sales back to the developers? Not a blanket donation, but renumeration based on individual game resales, so that games that are frequently resold means more money back to that game's developer. Some stores have considered it, but maybe you should argue for actual legislation instead.

Because if there are only complaints with blaming and no solutions, there is already a class of people labelled as such: a politician! Something to think about, yeah?

Im actually not sure what to say about that.

Probably if anything some great points there especially the saturation of games stopping people from slowing down and enjoying it rather than moving on to the next game as quickly as possible.

 

[Azure Flare]

Do I think DLC ruins a game? NO! Why? Because:

1) The developers may not have had time to put it in before the scheduled release date. So they finish it, then add it.

2) All-new content. the Aventador, GT-86, and 2011 Sprint Cup cars are the perfect example of this.

 

[sumbrownkid]

In my opinion, the online multiplayer ruined games for the most part. Now it seems for a game to sell it must have some sort of online play, which unfortunately makes single player offerings meager and half hearted.

 

[TokoTurismo]

In my opinion, the online multiplayer ruined games for the most part. Now it seems for a game to sell it must have some sort of online play, which unfortunately makes single player offerings meager and half hearted.

This!

 

[Added Value]

Sorry but where was the question again?

PS: If you are going to call people ignorant, try to learn to spell first. Does wonders for your credibility!

Love it! Despite agreeing somewhat with xNeroZero, you are starting to come across as a bit of a, lets say unpleasant man.

There are 2 types of DLC in my opinion.

First up, content that should of been in the game in the first place, but the developer with full intent and awareness, withheld it from the final release, just to make extra profit as DLC. This here is what's lowering the quality of games. Call of Duty is the worse offender here, a game sold to mostly be played online, with over half of the online feature costing extra...

Companies Trying to get more life out of there games. This is where I believe GT5 is. Premium cars take so long to make in game, that I recall PD that they were going to release DLC car packs, to make up for the lack of Premiums in the game compared to standard cars. So no content was withheld, in fact they waited 5 years and 80 million pound later to release the game at all, making sure they had as much quality content as anyone.

So please think it through before you get so annoyed at this like this. The kind of development your trying to encourage was used by PD, nothing was withheld, only extra content that would never of got into the game in the first place. In other words, if your going to be so unpleasant to everyone on these boards, take you argument to a Call of Duty forum. (oh and make sure you post the rant in the right section when your there, this boards is for GT5 Q and As, not rants.)

 

[United6694]

In my opinion, the online multiplayer ruined games for the most part. Now it seems for a game to sell it must have some sort of online play, which unfortunately makes single player offerings meager and half hearted.

BEST THING I HAVE READ IN THIS THREAD👍

 

[Bluntified]

Do I think DLC ruins a game? NO! Why? Because:

1) The developers may not have had time to put it in before the scheduled release date. So they finish it, then add it.

2) All-new content. the Aventador, GT-86, and 2011 Sprint Cup cars are the perfect example of this.

I see where you're coming from with this BUT there are plenty of car packs that should be free. How does one justify charging nearly a dollar per car? I can buy a whole app for that price!

I personally (as well as others) believe that DLC should be free! Look at the app world (the PC/Mac world), once you buy the software, you get free lifetime upgrades/patches (life of the product). Why don't they incorporate that into the video game industry? Money? Isn't DLC just a software upgrade?

 

[another_jakhole]

I see where you're coming from with this BUT there are plenty of car packs that should be free. How does one justify charging nearly a dollar per car? I can buy a whole app for that price!

I personally (as well as others) believe that DLC should be free! Look at the app world (the PC/Mac world), once you buy the software, you get free lifetime upgrades/patches (life of the product). Why don't they incorporate that into the video game industry? Money? Isn't DLC just a software upgrade?

Updates are. DLC will always cost money.

In my opinion, the online multiplayer ruined games for the most part. Now it seems for a game to sell it must have some sort of online play, which unfortunately makes single player offerings meager and half hearted.

I agree with this. In the case of GT5, neither is good enough.

 

[xNeroZero]

What ever happened to unlocking special items in games? Never mind that! Just pay $4.99 for the next car pack, racing gear, paint chips!

 

[xNeroZero]

This!

Max Payne 3 has online even though it was originally a single player game. Something wrong there?