DLC is ruining content of games

[GReeK_W1ZaRd]

DLC:

Good:
● Updates the game. Most games on PS3 last for few hours, but DLC keeps the game alive. GT5 is the only game I play from 2010.
● Even if games were 100% ready, due to the internet people would ask for companies to make extra content. Following that belief, DLC pleases the majority of the fans.
● In the case of GT5, DLC is consisted of high quality content. Also, many of the DLC cars perform rather well in online races.
● More cash goes to PD. Thats good. PD already has a vast budget, more is always better. Each game will not just be an improvement, but something in a completely different league.
● Sony rushed GT5's release to hit the competition (propably). Kaz said it in the interview: "I would have liked a couple of years more.". Imagine if GT5 was out in mid 2011. We would have more premium cars. They didn't make it in time to create a premium Bugatti, or to add Scirocco and Golf.
● DiRT3's Asia X-Games are an event in the game. Well, you can't play it. They have the event included, but you have to unlock it by buying it online first. GT5's DLC add stuff, they don't unlock.
● Considering all the DLC, we pay 1$/car. GT5 is one of the best racing titles in PS3 (for me, the best). Prices don't come from PD, it's all Sony's work.
● More options. You've played the game again, and again, and again. Then the company releases a DLC, and you see things differently. New stuff is added, so now you can do things that you couldnt do before.

Bad:
● Companies like Activision and EA (yes, apparently everyone knows that these two are doing), rely on the DLC. Activision releases a COD game, the a couple of months later they give you a map pack for 14$. Total rip-off. EA releases (let's say NFS: The RUN). Before buying a game I always check (watch this, real story.) and the NFS team said: "And now for our PS3 fans! 7 exclusive cars for PS3 will be available to play in the game!" So I enter the game looking for the said cars, they weren't there of course. They were in the store, available for purchase only.
● We pay 60$ for a game that is only 65% completed. The other 35% is available later for purchase only. That was not the case in PS2. (what a member said about the internet, I completely agree)
● Many DLC packs include stuff that we don't want. Many people for example didn't want the Nissan Leaf. DLC are sold as packs, not individually as they should.
● You end up paying 100$ for game that originally costed 60$.

In case PD was like EA and Activision:
● Seasonals: Those fairly easy events we all like and love? Well, they could be released as DLC. They include a high value of cr and xp also, which people take for granted. "New GT5 Seasonal events are unlocked in the Store! You want to procceed with your career quickly and earn exclusive gifts? Buy the DLC Seasonals now for only 3$."
● OCD: It includes hard-to-find cars in brand new condition. "Are you having trouble finding that one car you always wanted in GT5? New OCD will solve all your problems now! Today's OCD pack includes: ....." Admit it. It makes sense
● 200% login bonus: Heh...." GT5 can be a hard game for all you who want to be 40 level. There is just not enough amount of xp to level you up! Buy Car Pack 1 today and you will be awarded with a login bonus which will send your amount of xp off the roof! All you have to do is login daily to keep the 200% from decreasing and you will level up fast!" Also makes sense, right? The 200% bonus could be awarded to those who only purchased GT5 DLC.
● Customize: "All new GT5 offers numerous customizable options. Would you like to stand out from the crowd? Unlock 15 (yes, 15!) cars today which can be modified in Racing cars (RM) and you will have your own custom built race car!" and "GT5 offers customization even for your home page! You want to be different and have all your friends feel jealous towards you? Polyphony Digital have released a pack with 12 new wallpapers and colours to choose from!" Yes....I know.
● GT-R N24 Schulze Motor Sports '11: Why should we get it for free?
● FT-86 II Concept '11/Racing Kart 125 SPL: Why should PD reward us for buying DLC?
● GT TV: There is content to be bought there, but instead of checking vids whenever we want for free, it could be like this: " You know it is high quality when we are talking about Gran Turismo TV! Shows and events that Kazunori Yamauchi has participated in! You want to be one step closer to the producer of Polyphony Digital and professional driver in numerous races, also take a sneek peek at content not yet released? You can get all that by purchasing the year-long subscription for only 29.99$" Come on.....Call Of Duty Elite.

I do make a good salesman though right?

 

[xNeroZero]

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Maybe its just your wording or my bad comprehension, but can you explain it a little more

Sorry, when I'm trying to prove a point I tend to type really fast without thinking about what words to say, and I tend to leave words out, but I'll explain it. Lets use Forza 3 and Forza 4 for an example. Forza 3 came out with DLC. People bought that DLC. Forza 4 came out that DLC from Forza 3 was included in Forza 4 and now that DLC from 4 will probably be in the next installment of the series. Basically what I'm saying is, wait for the next game because the content that was in the previous will be better in the next one.

 

[thelvynau]

To all the people that get all defensive when they think I'm bashing GT5 and the price of DLC. I'm using GT5 as an example of decline of video games in general. I read through the pages, and people are using the excuse, "It's only $5, it's not going to break the wallet." Take that $5 DLC into consideration, and the people that think that way, the developers are making a huge profit on content that should be in the game and are more likely to keep doing that more often. That's one example of how the developers are taking advantage of people. An other thing that I see people talking about is how they didn't touch this game until DLC was available for the game and how great it has made this game in terms of content. Isn't that how it is for all games today? Even if there is DLC for the game a new game in the series is going to have more content regardless of DLC in the previous game. I have proof of this. Look at Forza 3. That game had loads of DLC that people probably bought and when they went to go buy the fourth one, the DLC from the third one was in there.

After reading this regarding forza 3 and 4 I think he might have a point or rather partially.

What I think would ruin a great game would be too much dlc too often especially if its items that were supposed to be in the game in the first place back when the first dlc came out I would have thought that the op was crazy but after reading this thread and others my thinking has changed slightly.

I think dlc is great but not if its items that were supposed to be in the game in the first place

 

[TokoTurismo]

Sorry, when I'm trying to prove a point I tend to type really fast without thinking about what words to say, and I tend to leave words out, but I'll explain it. Lets use Forza 3 and Forza 4 for an example. Forza 3 came out with DLC. People bought that DLC. Forza 4 came out that DLC from Forza 3 was included in Forza 4 and now that DLC from 4 will probably be in the next installment of the series. Basically what I'm saying is, wait for the next game because the content that was in the previous will be better in the next one.

OOOOooohhhh, even though I understood it already. But, but. The cars, tracks. That'll be tough. lol But I fully get the picture now.

 

[xNeroZero]

After reading this regarding forza 3 and 4 I think he might have a point or rather partially.

What I think would ruin a great game would be too much dlc too often especially if its items that were supposed to be in the game in the first place back when the first dlc came out I would have thought that the op was crazy but after reading this thread and others my thinking has changed slightly.

I think dlc is great but not if its items that were supposed to be in the game in the first place

You might think Forza 4 has a lot of DLC, it's only going to get worse with games like GT5.

 

[Schwartz]

Sorry, when I'm trying to prove a point I tend to type really fast without thinking about what words to say, and I tend to leave words out, but I'll explain it. Lets use Forza 3 and Forza 4 for an example. Forza 3 came out with DLC. People bought that DLC. Forza 4 came out that DLC from Forza 3 was included in Forza 4 and now that DLC from 4 will probably be in the next installment of the series. Basically what I'm saying is, wait for the next game because the content that was in the previous will be better in the next one.

Although I understand and agree with what you're saying, but with the way the world works these days, people want things and the want them NOW, no matter the price. So if the demand is there, the company is doing the right thing by selling DLC. Just imagine if GT5 hadn't released any DLC by now, GTPlanet would have been burned to ashes with all of the angry people mobbing and iRioting.
Just think of it this way, if GT5 were released fully finished, it would most likely be at the same point it is now, with people begging for more and saying how PD is crap for not giving them everything they want NOW.

But, since PD released the game in a very very unfinished state, they have left lots and lots of content to give to the people over the 5 plus years they are waiting for GT6.

Now this gets me thinking... Does a game's status at release dictate how long before the next game in the series is released? GT5 releases an unfinished game with a long time between releases, while Forza releases a pretty well finished game while their releases are not nearly as spread apart as releases in the GT series are.

Now this leads me to another thought... Does GT5 have all or almost all of their future DLC finished and they are just waiting to release it in incriments until GT6 has been released? This could all be carefully planned planned out by PD to keep people happy for 5+ years until they have finished GT6 and it comes out.

In this case, I have no problem with PD not releasing all content right away because I know it will keep others playing the game for years to come.

All in all, I think that video game companies may work on a game for a long time but when they are finished, release an unfinished version of that game by taking some of the content out. Then, while they are working on their next game that will take x number of years, they release the content they had finished before so they can put all their man hours into the new game, instead of taking focus away from the future and trying to patch up the old game. It only makes sense.

Some may think this is a rip off, but I see it as a great way to keep people interested in Gran Turismo while at the same making money. If GT5 were released in full form originally, it would be such a massive game it would be worth $100+. This would have been an outrage. Instead, PD is giving the option for you to pay as much for the game as you think it is worth by releasing small DLC's, which when all is said and done will most likely be worth over $100. You don't have to buy all of them, you just buy as many as you think is worth it to you and your financial situation.

 

[Tornado]

● Customize: "All new GT5 offers numerous customizable options. Would you like to stand out from the crowd? Unlock 15 (yes, 15!) cars today which can be modified in Racing cars (RM) and you will have your own custom built race car!" and "GT5 offers customization even for your home page! You want to be different and have all your friends feel jealous towards you? Polyphony Digital have released a pack with 12 new wallpapers and colours to choose from!" Yes....I know.

PD DID do this.

 

[GReeK_W1ZaRd]

PD DID do this.

Yes, but not through payment. I don't remember buying anything in the Store to unlock this......"feature".

 

[Tornado]

And what do you call the paint chips?

 

[xNeroZero]

Although I understand and agree with what you're saying, but with the way the world works these days, people want things and the want them NOW, no matter the price. So if the demand is there, the company is doing the right thing by selling DLC. Just imagine if GT5 hadn't released any DLC by now, GTPlanet would have been burned to ashes with all of the angry people mobbing and iRioting.
Just think of it this way, if GT5 were released fully finished, it would most likely be at the same point it is now, with people begging for more and saying how PD is crap for not giving them everything they want NOW.

But, since PD released the game in a very very unfinished state, they have left lots and lots of content to give to the people over the 5 plus years they are waiting for GT6.

Now this gets me thinking... Does a game's status at release dictate how long before the next game in the series is released? GT5 releases an unfinished game with a long time between releases, while Forza releases a pretty well finished game while their releases are not nearly as spread apart as releases in the GT series are.

Now this leads me to another thought... Does GT5 have all or almost all of their future DLC finished and they are just waiting to release it in incriments until GT6 has been released. This could all be carefully planned planned out by PD to keep people happy for 5+ years until they have finished GT6 and it comes out?

In this case, I have no problem with PD not releasing all content right away because I know it will keep others playing the game for years to come.

Yes I do recall people bashing PD for not releasing DLC. It makes me sad to think that video games have come to this. People can't get enough of what they got from their $60 purchase. I guess that's what happens when these companies pollute all these people's minds thinking that they need more and more. It's like they're trying to fill an empty gap in their gaming experience. I will be one to admit the game before all this DLC came out wasn't that entertaining. Although it wasn't that entertaining I have friends that I race against, which is fun even without the DLC. Hell I remember when Spa came out in GT5 I was able to race on it with one of my friends, a couple of weeks later I wasn't able to race on it? Because I didn't have the DLC? Pretty obvious when I see cars in the dealer ship that I'm able to demo them, that this is just an extortion for me to buy their product.

 

[Schwartz]

Sorry, I'm still slowly editing my last post. I added some things into it that I thought were some statements to think about if anyone is willing to take a look...

Edit: Sorry for DP

 

[Schwartz]

Hell I remember when Spa came out in GT5 I was able to race on it with one of my friends, a couple of weeks later I wasn't able to race on it? Because I didn't have the DLC? Pretty obvious when I see cars in the dealer ship that I'm able to demo them, that this is just an extortion for me to buy their product.

A couple more thoughts:

First, I think the thing with non DLC players being able to use Spa may have been a glitch that PD didn't take into consideration when they released the DLC. A pretty big fail on PD's part. This may or may not be true. But PD does have the right to patch that Spa glitch (or even if it wasn't a glitch) because you didn't actually buy the DLC, you were getting it for free. Instead of being mad, you should thank PD for being able to use Spa for free while games like CoD block whole parties if someone doesn't have the map pack

As for the car bit, no matter how much PD shows you the cars in the dealership, it is ultimately your decision to buy them or not. Most people should be able to control their emotions when they see something they want and not impulse buy. If you can't, you have no reason to blame PD for that. Its more of a personal problem.

 

[xNeroZero]

A couple more thoughts:

First, I think the thing with non DLC players being able to use Spa may have been a glitch that PD didn't take into consideration when they released the DLC. A pretty big fail on PD's part. This may or may not be true. But PD does have the right to patch that Spa glitch (or even if it wasn't a glitch) because you didn't actually buy the DLC, you were getting it for free. Instead of being mad, you should thank PD for being able to use Spa for free while games like CoD block whole parties if someone doesn't have the map pack

As for the car bit, no matter how much PD shows you the cars in the dealership, it is ultimately your decision to buy them or not. Most people should be able to control their emotions when they see something they want and not impulse buy. If you can't, you have no reason to blame PD for that. Its more of a personal problem.

Maybe it was a glitch, maybe not. But I'm able to play that 18 mile oval track with one of my friends. As for the cars being there, I played the game for 100 %, I'm level 40 A and B. I own every car and have everything gold, in every A and B spec. When I see those cars, I feel I don't have 100 %, but I don't buy it because I know what the marketing ploy they're trying to pull on me. I'm not an impulse buyer like most people that don't understand what I'm saying about DLC.

 

[Biffy]

DLC has always been, and always will be, a rip-off. Consumers will always clamour for new content, it's a natural urge to try something different and own something you've never had before, so if it is your favourite game, then a lot of people are going to buy that new content so they can increase the life-span of that game as much as possible. This is why it works so well. And Game Developers/Publishers take advantage of that market by sell this new content for what people think is a low price, when in reality it is quite expensive for what you're buying.

Take for example the most recent car pack. £4.79 for 6 cars. There are around 1000 cars in the game, 200 premium, and several tracks. GT5 was around £40 at launch. £4.79 is almost an eighth of the original game price. That is pretty much saying, 6 premium cars are worth the same as an eighth of the content in the original game. Seems a little off, don't you think? And if you think that is bad, Call of Duty map packs are practically daylight robbery.

 

[QB1o]

Bare with me for the slightly off topicness of this response, but if the internet itself is the problem, then are you saying games are worse now that you can:
~ Download game demos whenever you want for free
~ Developers can beta test to extremely large audiences to decrease major bugs in the release
~ Release free updates for unforeseeable bugs that may develop and to add features based upon player's feedback
~ Allow you to play with your friend full screen without having to be in the same room as them.

I don't think you understood me.

The internet is great.

Needing an internet connection to download the couple of gigs of updates between GT5 and GT5 v2.03 is not great, particularly if you have no internet connection, or a poor connection.

i wouldn't actually be able to play it if my data were corrupted and my internet was out and I had to install 1.0 again - Because, GT5 on release day, was a big wet can of pish. Fact.

And Skyrim. Bear with me.
I bought this last year and a few hours in I got a framerate bug. Obviously the game wasn't tested on an actual PS3, but it was sold to me knowing they could patch me up at their leisure.

So, next to the freemium DLC trend, selling me buggy software because I can download the patch xx months later is way more evil.

 

[SlyckTires]

I can see the point the OP is making here, and its one I've often considered myself. Trouble is, I'm so into the game,I can't help myself from buying the DLC.

At least PD waited a year - codemasters had about 30 quids worth of content in the store practically from launch. Then there are the games that make you pay to go online if you're buying secondhand, like Driver. PD aren't the worst offenders.

The choice argument is semi valid but so is the idea that if nobody bought the dlc, then pd might be encouraged to make it better. or then again they might assume nobody cared anymore

 

[LuxxusPrime]

I think DLC is pathetic at a certain point. Some developers give you good DLC's and some don't. I do miss the days of when it was "you get what you see" type games. No DLC, just 1 fully developed game. Now that the internet is booming and online multiplayer is growing companies have to find a way to keep there games profitable till the next installments. If it were not for DLC, these companies would have to crank out more games each quarter, thus, spending more money rather than make more money. I like that GT5 offers DLC, i just hate that the amount of items in each pack are slim. Why 4 cars and not 10? Why 2 tracks and not 8? You really just have to sit and think about the value of the DLC before you buy it. Why is there a Nissan Leaf in a car pack? No one wants a leaf, no one ever will. The only leaf i want is the one that goes in my billy-bong thorton. Imagine the amount of DLC on the PS4. Without the internet your game system sucks balls.

 

[peter_vod69]

They were expansion packs I said. I didn't say there were DLC. I said they could be considered ground work for what DLC is today for the console. Instead of a dev sending you a patch online or allowing you to purchase a DLC online, you have to buy 2.0 version (not really what it is called). Once again go back and read. Geez.

I was 100% in agreement with that but adding that there were console games that were considered expansion packs. You say kinda of the sonic stuff, however Sega called it an expansion pack. So who are we to believe here, a desk jockey really wanting to be right or Sega the makers of the game and the pack?

FOR THE LAST TIME, THEY WEREN'T DLC, THEY WEREN'T PATCHES, THEY WERE HARDWARE IMPROVEMENTS DESIGNED TO EXTEND THE CAPABILITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE MACHINES, NOT INDIVIDUAL GAMES. THEY WERE THE CONSOLE EQUIVALENT OF ADDING A STICK OF RAM OR A NEW VIDEO CARD. THEY WEREN'T THE SAME AS DLC, THEY WEREN'T PRECURSORS OF ANYTHING. THEY WERE USED BECAUSE (IN THE DEVELOPER'S EYES) THE GAME COULDN'T BE MADE TO WORK ON THE CONSOLE ANY OTHER WAY.

And Sonic and Knuckles wasn't an expansion pack. It was a direct sequel, with the unique HARDWARE FEATURE that it could be joined to Sonic 3 to form a seamless story. Sega never called it an expansion pack. They did however make a fuss of the "Lock On Technology", and rightly so, since it was a unique feature at the time. But they still charged full price for both, and you are STILL wrong.

 

[MasterSquidP4]

This post was just controversy waiting to happen. You had to realize this was just going to cause upsets. If I were you, I would've kept my thoughts to myself. Just sayin'.

 

[Tornado]

And Sonic and Knuckles wasn't an expansion pack.

Yes it was, by every definition of the word. It patched the ROM of the original game at startup almost exactly like modern game patch systems and expansion packs do; fixing up (many) bugs in the original game, greatly expanding the save system and swapping some of the music, changing some of the graphics and modifying some of the level design. And that's before you get to any of the actual content it added.


Knuckles in Sonic 2 does the same, though it works in an entirely different way than modern patches usually do (it patches things on the fly as the game is running rather than piggybacking changes at startup).

 

[CDJW]

I have to wonder how young the op is here. Having played every console since the first Pong machine, it's pretty obvious that games are leaps and bounds ahead of older games. Games are plentiful and quite cheap compared to the cost of most games in the old days (and that includes paying for DLC). DLC can only add value to an existing game, not make it bad. It's illogical to think otherwise. Consoles are limited in their power, unlike a PC, so it isn't like the next version of a given game will be any better on the current consoles. This means it only makes sense to add new things to the current game. Time travel back to 1976, pay $599.99 for a Pong machine to hook up to your TV (That's ONE GAME for that kind of money in 1976. Imagine how much money that really was back then.) then come back and have the nerve to complain about being "ripped off" for DLC. I bet you will NEVER complain again.

 

[MasterSquidP4]

I have to wonder how young the op is here. Having played every console since the first Pong machine, it's pretty obvious that games are leaps and bounds ahead of older games. Games are plentiful and quite cheap compared to the cost of most games in the old days (and that includes paying for DLC). DLC can only add value to an existing game, not make it bad. It's illogical to think otherwise. Consoles are limited in their power, unlike a PC, so it isn't like the next version of a given game will be any better on the current consoles. This means it only makes sense to add new things to the current game. Time travel back to 1976, pay $599.99 for a Pong machine to hook up to your TV (That's ONE GAME for that kind of money in 1976. Imagine how much money that really was back then.) then come back and have the nerve to complain about being "ripped off" for DLC. I bet you will NEVER complain again.

 

[TokoTurismo]

I have to wonder how young the op is here. Having played every console since the first Pong machine, it's pretty obvious that games are leaps and bounds ahead of older games. Games are plentiful and quite cheap compared to the cost of most games in the old days (and that includes paying for DLC). DLC can only add value to an existing game, not make it bad. It's illogical to think otherwise. Consoles are limited in their power, unlike a PC, so it isn't like the next version of a given game will be any better on the current consoles. This means it only makes sense to add new things to the current game. Time travel back to 1976, pay $599.99 for a Pong machine to hook up to your TV (That's ONE GAME for that kind of money in 1976. Imagine how much money that really was back then.) then come back and have the nerve to complain about being "ripped off" for DLC. I bet you will NEVER complain again.

Wrote like a *Boss*

 

[Bobby-Vegas]

I have to wonder how young the op is here. Having played every console since the first Pong machine, it's pretty obvious that games are leaps and bounds ahead of older games. Games are plentiful and quite cheap compared to the cost of most games in the old days (and that includes paying for DLC). DLC can only add value to an existing game, not make it bad. It's illogical to think otherwise. Consoles are limited in their power, unlike a PC, so it isn't like the next version of a given game will be any better on the current consoles. This means it only makes sense to add new things to the current game. Time travel back to 1976, pay $599.99 for a Pong machine to hook up to your TV (That's ONE GAME for that kind of money in 1976. Imagine how much money that really was back then.) then come back and have the nerve to complain about being "ripped off" for DLC. I bet you will NEVER complain again.

Wrote like a *Boss*

Now thats perspective. Totally agree. 👍👍

 

[xNeroZero]

I have to wonder how young the op is here. Having played every console since the first Pong machine, it's pretty obvious that games are leaps and bounds ahead of older games. Games are plentiful and quite cheap compared to the cost of most games in the old days (and that includes paying for DLC). DLC can only add value to an existing game, not make it bad. It's illogical to think otherwise. Consoles are limited in their power, unlike a PC, so it isn't like the next version of a given game will be any better on the current consoles. This means it only makes sense to add new things to the current game. Time travel back to 1976, pay $599.99 for a Pong machine to hook up to your TV (That's ONE GAME for that kind of money in 1976. Imagine how much money that really was back then.) then come back and have the nerve to complain about being "ripped off" for DLC. I bet you will NEVER complain again.

To answer your question, I'm 21 years old and I've been playing games since I got my first console in 1996 which was a PS1. What really offends me in terms of story to a game, (off topic of GT5) is cutting out STORY related content. Take for example Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Great game, in terms of story, but DLC that cuts out story? The reason why I refer to games back in the late 90s to the early 00s is because when you went to purchase your game, you got a game with a story or in GTs case a game with challenges such as license tests ect. None of this per-order get this car, or day one DLC, or we'll patch the content in the game and you get it from a DLC. As far as a game working, games back in the day didn't need a million patches to make it work. Sure it had a few bugs but the game was fun. Using GT5 as an example again. For me I strive to complete a game to 100 %. This involves collecting various items such as all the cars and completing the various challenges that the game throws at you. You can forget the paint chips and race suits as I've never painted a car or dressed my character up.

 

[Vaxxtx]

I have to wonder how young the op is here. Having played every console since the first Pong machine, it's pretty obvious that games are leaps and bounds ahead of older games. Games are plentiful and quite cheap compared to the cost of most games in the old days (and that includes paying for DLC). DLC can only add value to an existing game, not make it bad. It's illogical to think otherwise. Consoles are limited in their power, unlike a PC, so it isn't like the next version of a given game will be any better on the current consoles. This means it only makes sense to add new things to the current game. Time travel back to 1976, pay $599.99 for a Pong machine to hook up to your TV (That's ONE GAME for that kind of money in 1976. Imagine how much money that really was back then.) then come back and have the nerve to complain about being "ripped off" for DLC. I bet you will NEVER complain again.

Totally agree. When the OP says old game...like 13 years ago, I assume thats old to him.

Also, being an older gamer as well, there has been "DLC" (term used loosley) for a long time. Things called expansion packs. Rainbow 6's exmpansion packs added new missions and maps. Mechwarriors expansion packs, added new weapons and mechs. Everquests expansions added new zones and races.

Its just mainstream now for the consoles. They are just catching up to what PC gamers have been getting or years.

To answer your question, I'm 21 years old and I've been playing games since I got my first console in 1996 which was a PS1. What really offends me in terms of story to a game, (off topic of GT5) is cutting out STORY related content. Take for example Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Great game, in terms of story, but DLC that cuts out story? The reason why I refer to games back in the late 90s to the early 00s is because when you went to purchase your game, you got a game with a story or in GTs case a game with challenges such as license tests ect. None of this per-order get this car, or day one DLC, or we'll patch the content in the game and you get it from a DLC. As far as a game working, games back in the day didn't need a million patches to make it work. Sure it had a few bugs but the game was fun. Using GT5 as an example again. For me I strive to complete a game to 100 %. This involves collecting various items such as all the cars and completing the various challenges that the game throws at you. You can forget the paint chips and race suits as I've never painted a car or dressed my character up.

I was right about your age. 21 is hardly an older gamer.

More go into games today that 10 years ago. ITs not 4 guys programming in a basement. Its big business. Now that boradband internet is avaiable to more people, and consoles have embraced it, DLC and patches are the norm.

Thats the bottom line....It isnt going to change.

But if you are so keen on the 90's games, then...go play them. There is a huge selection and if you think they are better nothing is stopping you from moving away from current gen.

 

[xNeroZero]

Totally agree. When the OP says old game...like 13 years ago, I assume thats old to him.

Also, being an older gamer as well, there has been "DLC" (term used loosley) for a long time. Things called expansion packs. Rainbow 6's exmpansion packs added new missions and maps. Mechwarriors expansion packs, added new weapons and mechs. Everquests expansions added new zones and races.

Its just mainstream now for the consoles. They are just catching up to what PC gamers have been getting or years.



I was right about your age. 21 is hardly an older gamer.

More go into games today that 10 years ago. ITs not 4 guys programming in a basement. Its big business. Now that boradband internet is avaiable to more people, and consoles have embraced it, DLC and patches are the norm.

Thats the bottom line....It isnt going to change.

But if you are so keen on the 90's games, then...go play them. There is a huge selection and if you think they are better nothing is stopping you from moving away from current gen.

I do play old games. Also you're right when it's not going to change. The point that I'm trying to prove is people are ok with this extortion, half-assed games coming out. You can't stop progress, that's a proven fact. When I come here, I'm just disgusted of how people react to new DLC, a new patch coming out and they're expecting DLC in it. They don't even think.

 

[Bobby-Vegas]

I do play old games. Also you're right when it's not going to change. The point that I'm trying to prove is people are ok with this extortion, half-assed games coming out. You can't stop progress, that's a proven fact. When I come here, I'm just disgusted of how people react to new DLC, a new patch coming out and they're expecting DLC in it. They don't even think.

The gaming industry is no different than the movie industry.. I can claim extortion about going to see all the 'Lord of the Rings' because why should I have to pay for three seperate movies to get the ending?? Look at the new 'Star Wars' movies that will be in 3D, and all the re-makes of past movies?? It's business and the gaming industry is no different.

 

[peter_vod69]

I can claim extortion about going to see all the 'Lord of the Rings' because why should I have to pay for three seperate movies to get the ending??

You are aware that the original story was quite long?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes it was, by every definition of the word. It patched the ROM of the original game at startup almost exactly like modern game patch systems and expansion packs do; fixing up (many) bugs in the original game, greatly expanding the save system and swapping some of the music, changing some of the graphics and modifying some of the level design. And that's before you get to any of the actual content it added.


Knuckles in Sonic 2 does the same, though it works in an entirely different way than modern patches usually do (it patches things on the fly as the game is running rather than piggybacking changes at startup).

Give it up Peter_Vod thinks he is correct and wont budge, being blinded by your view and not wanting to see it from the other perspective seems to be the users game. Toronado good job anyways.