|
|
Post by Rambo M on Mar 14, 2009 23:15:14 GMT -5
yeah paid DLC is silly, but when it's free it's awesome. The good news is most paid DLC is so superfluous you can get by without it completely and still enjoy the game. Until an important-type decides the current definition of "superfluous" is not profitable enough and has it changed. Rinse and repeat until you have something to complain about. Or just default to dual's analogy which sums up this grand con very nicely. |
|
|
|
Post by Justinzero on Mar 14, 2009 23:34:29 GMT -5
Yeah, Street Figher Alpha II was a real shitty game lolwut? But really, I don't have much to say here: DLC should be just for extra episodes like GTA4's Lost and Damned, and not like MM9 or SF4. Sarcasm doodski. And yes, I totally agree with you 100% |
|
|
|
Post by michiyoyoshiku on Mar 15, 2009 0:57:57 GMT -5
baby need a baba?
|
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 15, 2009 2:01:12 GMT -5
I like DLC, in SOME ways. If it CAN be on the disc then DO IT. If it can't, then sure, make it DLC. But really, I don't have much to say here: DLC should be just for extra episodes like GTA4's Lost and Damned, and not like MM9 or SF4. These are the only two non-retarded pro-DLC comments in this entire thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Mar 15, 2009 2:08:25 GMT -5
You're not one to talk about which posts are retarded and which aren't, jackass.
|
|
|
|
Post by neomerge on Mar 15, 2009 2:15:13 GMT -5
These threads make me miss Isao. Would of loved to see him spazz in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 15, 2009 2:46:33 GMT -5
BTW, I almost missed these zzz threads where he blows something massively out of proportion. You're not one to talk about which posts are retarded and which aren't, jackass. What the fuck is your problem? I have ignored your shit for a looooong time, and it's always been uncalled for, but now it seems like you're just going out of your way to act like a cocksucker. |
|
|
|
Post by conn on Mar 15, 2009 2:50:05 GMT -5
DLC are a fine idea in theory. it allows developers to go back to a game and release bonus content for a relatively small sum. For example, all of the Street Fighter revisions and rereleases could easily become DLC, and that's definitely a good thing. Sadly, in practice it doesn't work well; developers instead release a rushed or otherwise incomplete game because they realise they can get some extra money through DLC. It's even worse when the content is actually on the disc, and the DLC just unlocks it.
That said, I honestly don't see a big problem with this. Yeah, it probably shouldn't be DLC, but who cares? You've still got the 12-hour single player mode (with online co-op, might I add), which is- or at least should be- the draw to RE5. There's dozens of other multiplayer FPSes if you want them. Plus, these multiplayer modes are relatively cheap.
|
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 2:54:09 GMT -5
I like DLC, in SOME ways. If it CAN be on the disc then DO IT. If it can't, then sure, make it DLC. But really, I don't have much to say here: DLC should be just for extra episodes like GTA4's Lost and Damned, and not like MM9 or SF4. These are the only two non-retarded pro-DLC comments in this entire thread. I strongly disagree. Lemme lay some actual reality on you real quick. Capcom, like all PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES, is in the business to make MONEY. Let me explain to you, the obviously ignorant internet layman, how capitalism in the digital age works. Let's look at DLC, and the uses it has for a developer or publisher. Example: DLC is used to keep players interested in a game long after it's release date. Most triple A games, the ones that cost TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE, sell ninety percent of their lifetime sales in the first month. After that, it's all used copies at Gamestop and Ebay. I don't need to tell you that, from a pure business perspective, the likelyhood of most triple A games making their money back from initial sales is pretty shaky. So, DLC allows companies to offer incentives to keep a copy of a game around after you've finished it. Burnout Paradise, for example. Most DLC was free until these last few months, but the point stands. Costume DLC for SF IV, map packs for every goddamn FPS ever made since Halo 2, new characters and modes for Mega Man 9, Little Big Planet, and now RE 5. Here's some more beef. According to Pachter and other games industry analysts, the average triple A game must sell TWO AND A HALF MILLION COPIES before it breaks even. We're not even into the profit arena yet. They're on to something, because the industry is in the shitter at the moment. I don't know if you keep tabs on the games business, but the only fucking publisher to post a profit last year was Activision. Take 2 sold 13 million copies of GTA 4 and posted a 50 million dollar loss. EA took some risks on new IP, and suffered for it. Square Enix continued to pay Tose to crap out yet more remakes and ports for DS, and posted losses too. Games these days are expensive to make and market, and DLC offers a way to generate supplementary income on a game to help make up the costs of actually producing it. So. DLC offers a way to: A) Keep interest in games long after their release date. After all, if someone keeps a copy of Burnout because of all the DLC, then thats one less used copy to keep Gamestop bloated, and one more new copy of the game sold to actually pull in income for the publisher... So they can continue to produce games. And, B) Lengthen the tail on revenue generated by games, and create an additional source of income for the developers and publishers that doesn't rely on direct sales... Especially considering the increased profits created when you take the retailers out of the equation. Lets also not forget that sometimes a game has already gone gold, and there isn't a way to get the content on the disc without pushing back release dates. RE 5 went gold months ago. Admittedly, there have been cases in the past when the content was locked on the disc, and that is a pretty shady practice. Iit has been abandoned for the most part, and rightly so. The best part about supplementary DLC? YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT TO PLAY THE GAME! I spent an enjoyable seven hours with Resident Evil 5, and the experience was well worth the money I spent. Do I need the multiplayer DLC? No. Might I buy it anyway, because I enjoyed the game and might enjoy another few hours of new content? It's my choice. I already played the game, but if I want to wring a few more hours out of it, five bucks is a reasonable asking price to do so. Christ. People act like publishers are literally stealing money out of their wallets when this shit happens, or like they're being robbed. YOU'RE NOT. It's supplementary. Unnecessary. Optional. I hope you've gotten the gist by now, because I've run out of synonyms and don't feel like opening a tab to thesaurus.com. When a game releases that demands you pay extra to unlock the ending, or to use a controller, or to actually play the game past the title screen, you can bitch all you want. Until then, shut up. If you don't like DLC, don't buy it and vote with your wallet. You act like you have some kind of God given right to all the content in the world, free of cost, when the reality of the situation is exactly the opposite. When people bitch about this shit, it drives me up the wall, especially considering that most of the internet fucktards doing the bitching have no interest in the offending DLC anyway. /rant |
|
|
|
Post by conn on Mar 15, 2009 3:04:55 GMT -5
Well, in theory. There's some games out there that have content on the disc that can only be unlocked by... purchasing DLC. Some games even require DLC for achievements (hi Beautiful Katamari).
|
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 3:18:43 GMT -5
Well, in theory. There's some games out there that have content on the disc that can only be unlocked by... purchasing DLC. Some games even require DLC for achievements (hi Beautiful Katamari). ...Which I mentioned in my rant. Namco Bandai is the worst offender in the DLC department bar none, but even they've reigned it in. My point is this: As consumers, you have the option of voting with your money, and as far as DLC goes, we're light years away from the Ace Combat Six era. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Fine. If you DO want it, you're going to have to pay for it, and there you go. I avoided Beautiful Katamari for that exact reason: I'm not paying for something twice. I object mostly to the rhetoric used by the OP. Straight up internet retard reductive pseudo-logic. All DLC is 'bullshit', because Capcom is offering DLC to a game that already offers a pretty thorough single player and co-op mode, and therefore "Capcom sucks", and if we don't agree with him, then we're "retards". Fuck that, and fuck him. Just like everything else in life, there's plenty of stuff that falls on the other side, and in the middle as well. |
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 15, 2009 3:21:54 GMT -5
When people bitch about this shit, it drives me up the wall, especially considering that most of the internet fucktards doing the bitching have no interest in the offending DLC anyway. I liked the Mercenaries mini games in past Resident Evil games. Would I pay extra money for it? Certainly not. It's not about a "god given right", it's about things that went without saying before and now they don't. It's like suddenly have to pay extra to get a slice of cucumber on your burger. Do I like cucumber on my burger? Hell yeah! I'm not gonna pay extra for it, though. What is my goddamn right (I see it as my duty, to some degree) as a customer, is to complain about what I consider BS. Game companies' service just went significantly worse during this generation, and if I don't like it, I'm gonna let the company know, and I let everyone else know about my opinion. Isn't that what message boards are for, for the most part? What is it with all the "every opinion is retarded, except mine" and "STFU"-attitude in threads like this, anyway? If someone keeps on making the same point multiple times without further elaborating, it probably deserves mention, but why does everyone seem to try to deprive other people of their freedom of speech/opinion here? [/exaggeration] I'm not particularly mad at Capcom for this one, assuming at least this time it's not DLC-on-disc, a practice which borders on plain out scam. It's like buying a car with built-in stereo, but to use it, you have to purchase an unlock code. |
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 3:35:57 GMT -5
When people bitch about this shit, it drives me up the wall, especially considering that most of the internet fucktards doing the bitching have no interest in the offending DLC anyway. I liked the Mercenaries mini games in past Resident Evil games. Would I pay extra money for it? Certainly not. It's not about a "god given right", it's about things that went without saying before and now they don't. It's like suddenly have to pay extra to get a slice of cucumber on your burger. Do I like cucumber on my burger? Hell yeah! I'm not gonna pay extra for it, though. Quite simply, games cost a Hell of a lot more money to make these days. HD textures, animation, online components, etc. etc. etc.... Which is most of the reason that all these companies are in trouble. Hence, post release DLC. I stand by my assertion that as long as there's a full game already in place upon initial purchase, that DLC is perfectly fine. The key word here is 'optional'. What is my goddamn right (I see it as my duty, to some degree) as a customer, is to complain about what I consider BS. Game companies' service just went significantly worse during this generation, and if I don't like it, I'm gonna let the company know, and I let everyone else know about my opinion. Isn't that what message boards are for, for the most part? What is it with all the "every opinion is retarded, except mine" and "STFU"-attitude in threads like this, anyway? If someone keeps on making the same point multiple times without further elaborating, it probably deserves mention, but why does everyone seem to try to deprive other people of their freedom of speech/opinion here? [/exaggeration] Which is what pissed me off about the OP in the first place. It's a 'rhetoric' thing. There's a huge difference between bitching about something like an idiot, and bitching about something armed with facts. Note that bitching like an idiot without presenting any facts you might posses puts you squarely in the idiot camp. Now, complaining about shenanigans like the Battlefield Bad Company DLC debacle is excellent and totally necessary. Charging money to unlock weapons for online play IS bullshit, and in that case, EA listened to the furor and relented. Bravo internet, and bravo to the folks who complained. This isn't that situation though, and from what I've been able to find, it looks like the RE 5 DLC is NOT on the disc, and is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. There are achievements and trophies associated with it, but so what. There were achievements associated with Shivering Isles and Halo 3 title updates too... But no one bitched about those. |
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 15, 2009 3:59:45 GMT -5
These are the only two non-retarded pro-DLC comments in this entire thread. I strongly disagree. Lemme lay some actual reality on you real quick. Capcom, like all PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES, is in the business to make MONEY. Which somehow means that we're not entitled to voice our dissatisfaction as customers? I'm honestly not 100% certain if this is smarky sarcasm or not. Pachter!? Are you fucking shitting me? That quack!? If your arguement is based on any of his "analysis" then, well... you've been misinformed. The industry is generating record levels of revenue. What the hell are you talking about? Have you ever thought that ignoring what customers want is the reason for this? How can they expect to turn a profit when they treat customers like they do? And then they just assume that people will tolerate this kind of treatment? If they're going to act like what the customer wants doesn't matter then people are simply not going to do business with them. So, ignoring customers = loss of customers = loss of profit. All of the companies that you mentioned earlier use a lot of DLC. And they're all losing money. So, obviously DLC ain't that great a business model. And, in this case, you shouldn't have to. Ever. Period. There is no demand for this kind of DLC. The customer determines the value of a product. Not the company. And with profits going down for all of the companies that follow this kind of business model, that just shows that DLC is not what people want. Companies that continue to ignore their own customers will continue to lose money. We're the ones paying the money. We decide whether these practices are acceptible or not. Not Capcom. If they're going to ignore their customers like that then it's no surprise they're losing money. |
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 15, 2009 4:01:57 GMT -5
Quite simply, games cost a Hell of a lot more money to make these days. HD textures, animation, online components, etc. etc. etc.... Which is most of the reason that all these companies are in trouble. I can't see how "all these companies" are in trouble. At the same time production costs rised, the market for games grew exponentially compared to the old days. When I heard of the rarely occasion of a company folding during the last years, reasons brought up where usually mismanagement (and please don't bring up Midway, who only survived the arcade crash thanks to MK's gore hype, anyway). On the other hand, I hear more and more often publisher's boasting on how they catch up with the movie industry. I don't know any specific numbers, but I'd expect game development costs still to be quite a bit lover than your average Hollywood Blockbuster, while each game goes for 6-7 times the price of a cinema ticket (not to compare the value for the user here, just turnover per consumer). There are achievements and trophies associated with it, but so what. There were achievements associated with Shivering Isles and Halo 3 title updates too... But no one bitched about those. I don't think there would be any justification to complain about achievements - Microsoft has a clear policy - 1000 points for a full game, and also a set maximum amount for possible DLC, no matter what is its nature (once again I don't know the PS3 situation). |
|
