Free DLC fixing a game post launch sets a worrying precedent. For me it is just as terrifying as micro transactions...
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.
Never
First one must ask themselves, why does a game launch incomplete?.. Devs?... No.
Publishers... Every. Single. Time.
Vote with your wallet. Let them know you want a game that's finished/not broken-half alpha state. They release 'em broken just so they can meet a high sales time/look good to shareholders at their next meeting.
There's a reason why Kickstarter games are so beloved, "and true form".. And it's because there's no suit standing above the team forcing them to work 80 hour work weeks till a game meets their launch demand, "or you're fired!", and the vision is the teams alone. No need for more guns just to appeal to stupid teenagers when you can spend more time developing real gameplay mechanics/story.
..But the truth is this, it no longer matters.. You can't, "vote with your wallet", anymore because there's so many casuals out there that don't really care about games that they'll buy anything that catches their eye... Even if people who do care boycott companies or games, all they do is play less games.
Corporations won. Look at Sony. 80 dollar ps2 remasters.
I think because I have a lot of patience when it comes to waiting for games I want it doesn't bother me much when games are released that need a patch, as long as it comes relatively quickly. I'll think "bit of a poor effort" and shelve the game for the time being but I'm not left devastated.
They are just games after all and there's plenty of them to play when one isn't quite ready.
Absolutely not. Remember Halo 3 ODST dlc after Halo: MCC? Not only was the DLC just a reskin, the game remains broken.
Nope. Friday the 13th: the Game was a mess, and still has several issues. Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 is exactly the same. We game in an era where it's okay to release now and fix later. Fact - if a developer has concerns about the quality of their content, open-beta rather than in-house beta is the way to go.
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't it cost in excess of tens of thousands £/$ to patch a game last gen? Wheras it's free this gen? (Xbox at least). That's but one of the many reasons we live with the above issue. Publishers being another, and arguably the worst.