Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Locclo wrote:Do the Dawn of War expansions not count anymore? Because Retribution is an expansion to Dawn of War 2, and it came out a mere year ago...
.

*Facepalm* forgot about that. Not to mention the Starcraft 2 expansions under production lol

LordofHats wrote: like the one used in League of Legends, has going I think are very good ones.

The problem with that, is that they release so much new content it's impossible to get it all UNLESS you shell out the money for them. I think it's upwards of $300 just to get all the characters, with more being added in bi-weekly. It's just too much, and since you need to be able to counterpick to play the game well...

TF2 is better solely for the factthat you can trade stuff, me thinks.

Slarg232 wrote:

LordofHats wrote: like the one used in League of Legends, has going I think are very good ones.

The problem with that, is that they release so much new content it's impossible to get it all UNLESS you shell out the money for them. I think it's upwards of $300 just to get all the characters, with more being added in bi-weekly. It's just too much, and since you need to be able to counterpick to play the game well...

What I mean though is that paying for stuff in LoL doesn't give anyone a game breaking advantage over anyone else. The characters can all be acquired through other means (though it takes FOREVER to get even 6300 IP for one champ). Counter picking doesn't really matter for most people I think. In all my games, only about a quarter of them have I seen anyone pay attention to team comp and I've only had a few games where counter picking occurs. It just doesn't happen in solo que from what I see. Maybe in higher ELO's than mine, but my ELO is fairly low.

That's what I mean. A lot of micro-transaction systems are pay to win. A few, such as LoL, are not and that's my preferred form of the system (ideally it should be every ones).

I see, forgive me for jumping to conclusions.

I like DLC, I'll come straight out and say that. For the most part it adds a fair bit of new content and can breathe new life into games that may be getting a little stale. Lots of people in this thread are bemoaning Day 1 DLC too. I'm not the biggest fan of this in some senses but in others I don't mind. With Day 1 DLC, it often isn't released to the public straight away and is kept exclusively for those who bought collectors editions or pre-orders. To use Deus Ex: HR as an example; I pre-ordered from Amazon and got an extra mission, a new gun and some other items. This DLC pack was only available if you pre-ordered from Amazon. Pre-ordering from another place got you a different pack. These packs were unavailable to the public for a while afterwards and were released later. This is an approach I quite like; it allowed the developer to reward those that pre-ordered or bought collectors editions, the different packs adding variety, and making choosing where to order from quite difficult whilst also allowing others the opportunity to get the same stuff some time after initial release.

As to expansion packs being dead, I kind of agree; but one thing I've seen. Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare was a DLC pack, but it fundamentally changed the single player to such an extent that it became a seperate game in and of itself. I've seen it for sale as a standalone title many times.

I've never been a DLC fan because I've never had the need to have it and somehow it feels like the game is incomplete. I know in most circumstances DLC is just extras - whether it be a new character, new maps, new missions or weapons or whatever. Cosmetic DLC I am all for because its optional and I don't need it; which is in a way I like the micrtransactions method of TF2 because it's stuff I don't need yet can get without forking out cash.

But game-changing DLC I cannot get behind. THat's a gimmick to make cash fast which, OK, might be the end goal for all DLC, but so much so they'll give you gamewinning weapons for your money. That isn't fair.

And on the subject of making money, why should developers get money back when games nowadays are incomplete and buggy as hell? I don't recall PS2 games being as buggy as what they can be today. This can't really be argued against since I bet any gamer has found it annoying when game is now v3.4.5 instead of v1. If they actually made games that weren't buggy on release (Valve springs to mind) then I'd probably be more willing to toss money at them.

Online passes though, I never had an issue with because I buy my games new (at a cheaper price than what they were released at )

If you sell me a complete game* and continue to support it months later with new content, I will gladly pay money for that content assuming that it appeals to me.

If you sell me an incomplete game, or lock-out content that's already on the disc (or on your servers) the day that the game is released, I will not pay money for that content. In fact, I will also make it a point not to buy any of your games anymore.

I had no problem with the Arrival DLC for Mass Effect 2. It came out months after the game's initial release, and it served as an "ending" to the game by bridging the gap between Mass Effect 2 & 3. Nor did I have any problem with the Stone Prisoner DLC for Dragon Age Origins, as it was Day One DLC that you got for free if you purchased the game new. This is how I feel that all Day One DLC should be handled.

I did have a problem with the From the Ashes DLC for Mass Effect 3. It was Day One DLC that I had to pay for, even though I purchased a new copy of the game. Even worse, it was discovered that part of the pack's content was already on the game disc. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of practice represents bad faith on the part of the game's publisher/developer, and in the long run will damage DLC as a viable income stream for game companies.

*= I understand that "complete game" is something of a subjective quantifier, but until we adopt a universal 10 point grading system to determine what is complete and what isn't, it will have to do.

The entirety of From Ashes is actually on the disc. If you have a PC you can actually go into the game files and activate the content for play (I don't advise doing it )

Microtransactions for an item or something in a game annoy me, because usually the person who spends the most in those games is the most powerful. I think RuneScape's system is good, where you have the free game and its skills, and if you want the upgrade you can have it, but it's not a requirement.

Personally I much preferred playing games on PC where I could download community made maps and mods for many games for free.

The pricing of a lot of DLC seems little short of gouging (especially online passes for pre-owned games - hint: if you release games at a reasonable price, less people will be looking to buy pre-owned, and why is your DLC still the same cost x months/years down the road?).

The only DLC I have bought is the Broken Steel add on for Fallout 3, simply because I rushed the main story and there were so many loose ends I wanted to tie up and a lot of achievements left to get.

A game should come complete when you buy it, or the add ons should be free. As far as I see it, the DLC already existed and the content could be on the disc in the first place: they just want to get more money from you.

Karon wrote:Anyone who doesn't pick Option 3 is wrong.

I don't like paying for ANYTHING, but I still buy it because I want it.

Unless they work in the industry and would be 'wrong' not to pick it.


S.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The only DLC I have bought is the Broken Steel add on for Fallout 3, simply because I rushed the main story and there were so many loose ends I wanted to tie up and a lot of achievements left to get.

A game should come complete when you buy it, or the add ons should be free. As far as I see it, the DLC already existed and the content could be on the disc in the first place: they just want to get more money from you.

I bought that one for the expanded level cap and story expansion. I think it was worth it.

The thing that annoys me is the online pass and account specific DLC - my wife and I sometimes play the same games (and I am sure that many people living with siblings/partners who game will also play the same games as other people in the house). Why should I have to buy the same thing twice so we can both play on the same console?