I have to post this, It's funny as hell(debate about DLC)

[Zoltor]

This guy is so ignorant, and thinks that there is only one side to it, It's not funny(since when is "anything" only one sided, with only one possible reason for doing something).

I myself listed 3-4 legit reasons to have DLC, and a bunch of other people posted the reason I forgot, along with repeating basically what has already been said, but nomatter what anybody says, he just ignores it. He just repeats all DLC is greed, there is no reason for it, I(as in he)would rather have a complete game on the disc(lol, even though that is impossible in most situations to do).

Here's the Link: http://www.atlus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5536

Have fun trying to talk reason with him.

[TRM]

I skimmed it briefly, and although I won't go so far as refuse to buy a game with DLC, I do agree with the OP that to me, DLC is just a way to exploit more money from a customer by selling them an incomplete game to begin with.

[Zoltor]

I skimmed it briefly, and although I won't go so far as refuse to buy a game with DLC, I do agree with the OP that to me, DLC is just a way to exploit more money from a customer by selling them an incomplete game to begin with.

Not all companies are like Square, Sony or Microsoft, there are a bunch of legitimate reasons to have DLC, and the main one is, almost no game was ever complete to begin with, just most people didn't know that a bunch of stuff needed to be abandoned(for anywhere up to a dozen reasons).

Then there's stuff that developers might've thought of after the game was released(they could make a stupid remake that will cost you 60$ or they can add it as DLC for 10-20$ total, now what is cheaper).

Those are just the two most common/major uses, there's atleast 3 other pretty big legit reasons to have DLC.

[Bojay1997]

I skimmed it briefly, and although I won't go so far as refuse to buy a game with DLC, I do agree with the OP that to me, DLC is just a way to exploit more money from a customer by selling them an incomplete game to begin with.

I agree. Up until a few years ago, there was no such thing as DLC, so I don't buy the argument that it isn't possible to put the entire game on the disc. From Capcom charging for a multi-player mode and costumes that should have been included to the publisher of Raiden IV charging for a couple of extra ships that also should have been included, and dozens of publishers charging to unlock content already on the disc, it is a pure money grab. Moreover, from a collector's point of view, it makes it almost impossible to collect the entire game since the DLC is not always available in disc form and of course, can't then be resold. The only DLC I support is content that doesn't really expand the game, but is really something more, but maybe not quite a full game in and of itself. An example would be the GTA IV DLC.

[Bojay1997]

Not all companies are like Square, Sony or Microsoft, there are a bunch of legitimate reasons to have DLC, and the main one is, almost no game was ever complete to begin with, just most people didn't know that a bunch of stuff needed to be abandoned(for anywhere up to a dozen reasons).

Then there's stuff that developers might've thought of after the game was released(they could make a stupid remake that will cost you 60$ or they can add it as DLC for 10-20$ total, now what is cheaper).

Those are just the two most common/major uses, there's atleast 3 other pretty big legit reasons to have DLC.

Then you don't ship the damn thing or you make the DLC free to everyone and offer regular update discs to people without access to the web. The fact that companies are shipping unfinished product and still charging $60 is incredibly ridiculous. Remember, this is already $10 more than we were paying for games in the last generation and game sales in general have been up with the exception of the last six months as a result of the recession. The fact that a lot of DLC is coming out just weeks or a couple of months after the game releases is especially offensive since it is a clear sign of a company just trying to milk more money out of us.

[Porksta]

Until a company can make a perfect game, the last thing they need to be doing is spending time on DLC.

[skaar]

Until a company can make a perfect game, the last thing they need to be doing is spending time on DLC.

Huh? I don't get it.

[Porksta]

Huh? I don't get it.


If the game is not perfect, obviously their time should be spent making it better, and not making DLC. It is like in school when doing Powerpoints. Don't put in all the bells and whistles until the information on the slides is perfect.

[Clownzilla]

Then you don't ship the damn thing or you make the DLC free to everyone and offer regular update discs to people without access to the web. The fact that companies are shipping unfinished product and still charging $60 is incredibly ridiculous. Remember, this is already $10 more than we were paying for games in the last generation and game sales in general have been up with the exception of the last six months as a result of the recession. The fact that a lot of DLC is coming out just weeks or a couple of months after the game releases is especially offensive since it is a clear sign of a company just trying to milk more money out of us.

That's the main sticking point for me. I understand that there are good reasons for pay based DLC (Grand Theft Auto expansions are a good example) but I really get upset when a game is released and then you have to pay for content that should of been in the game to begin with. Want the multi-player mode......extra cash. Want the best gun in the game.......extra cash. Want the player's alternate outfit......extra cash. I can understand a special edition weapon or outfit occasionally (no excuse for multi-player though) but it's getting a bit out of control with many games.

The problem is that the companies are making money off of these scams so it will continue (I don't blame them either). The only way all the rip-off DLC will stop is if gamers stop buying it. That is FAR from happening though.

[BetaWolf47]

By the guy's criteria, it looks like Duke Nukem Forever is the only game suited for him.

Some sites have arguments like this every day. I find this sad, sad in a sincere way. People think they're qualified journalists and that their opinions are irrefutable facts just because they have a computer with internet access. People who do no research, but act like their opinion is prophecy, are going to become miserable people.

[Bojay1997]

By the guy's criteria, it looks like Duke Nukem Forever is the only game suited for him.

Some sites have arguments like this every day. I find this sad, sad in a sincere way. People think they're qualified journalists and that their opinions are irrefutable facts just because they have a computer with internet access. People who do no research, but act like their opinion is prophecy, are going to become miserable people.

I'm curious as to what you are responding to. This isn't really the kind of argument that benefits from research, it's really all opinion based. You'll never be able to find any factual support for the contention that DLC is necessary as there are entire systems that have large libraries with no DLC (Nintendo DS, PS2 and Wii for example) and many developers which don't release any DLC for their games on the PS3, PSP and 360. You also won't find any factual support for the contention that DLC isn't necessary to sustain industry growth.

I personally agree with the OP on the Atlus board and I am very concerned about just how willing people are to accept this DLC scheme as the new economics of buying games which as I noted earlier are already $10 more (well, sometimes even more than that if you buy the collector's edition which often come with little more than some extra DLC) than they were just a few years ago. The only thing about this whole thread that strikes me as funny and a little sad is how brainwashed the OP here is in thinking that everyone agrees with him that DLC is a good thing. I'm glad I'm not alone in my opposition.

[Zthun]

This has been said many times before, but the problem with DLC is that it's not really DLC. It's shit that's already on the disc or something that was done in the initial release. That's a load of crap. It's like Obama's health reform stuff. It sounds nice on paper, but in execution, it bites everyone in the ass.

If companies offered DLC as an expansion, that's one thing, but to have DLC for minor stuff like weapons, guns, and extra characters - that's just ridiculous.

[Zoltor]

I'm curious as to what you are responding to. This isn't really the kind of argument that benefits from research, it's really all opinion based. You'll never be able to find any factual support for the contention that DLC is necessary as there are entire systems that have large libraries with no DLC (Nintendo DS, PS2 and Wii for example) and many developers which don't release any DLC for their games on the PS3, PSP and 360. You also won't find any factual support for the contention that DLC isn't necessary to sustain industry growth.

I personally agree with the OP on the Atlus board and I am very concerned about just how willing people are to accept this DLC scheme as the new economics of buying games which as I noted earlier are already $10 more (well, sometimes even more than that if you buy the collector's edition which often come with little more than some extra DLC) than they were just a few years ago. The only thing about this whole thread that strikes me as funny and a little sad is how brainwashed the OP here is in thinking that everyone agrees with him that DLC is a good thing. I'm glad I'm not alone in my opposition.

Actually you're wrong, It's not opinion based, when there are facts on why things are done(varies depending on company, and circumstances). that guy as well as anyone agreeing with him, is stating that "all" DLC is, is greed. That is 100% false, infact very few companies have showed any sign of greed as the reason they have DLC(there are big differances between a company being greedy, and a company having DLC for just reasons).

[The 1 2 P]

I liked DLC during the original Xbox(not the 360) days. For starters, most of it was free(except for Halo 2 multiplayer maps, but there might have been others). Also, it wasn't completely required for the campaign or multiplayer experience. Adding an extra free space station to Knights of the Old Republic or free maps for Doom 3 and Star Wars: Republic Commando was a far cry from the "pay for content already on the disc" model that many publishers use today.

[BetaWolf47]

I'm curious as to what you are responding to. This isn't really the kind of argument that benefits from research, it's really all opinion based. You'll never be able to find any factual support for the contention that DLC is necessary as there are entire systems that have large libraries with no DLC (Nintendo DS, PS2 and Wii for example) and many developers which don't release any DLC for their games on the PS3, PSP and 360. You also won't find any factual support for the contention that DLC isn't necessary to sustain industry growth.

Wii actually does have DLC though. While there's no factual support that it's needed, there's no factual support of what the OP in the linked thread was trying to press on everyone.

By the way, Wii does have DLC, albeit more scarce than the other systems. It's just most prominent in the GH/Rockband games and WiiWare titles.

[Bojay1997]

Actually you're wrong, It's not opinion based, when there are facts on why things are done(varies depending on company, and circumstances). that guy as well as anyone agreeing with him, is stating that "all" DLC is, is greed. That is 100% false, infact very few companies have showed any sign of greed as the reason they have DLC(there are big differances between a company being greedy, and a company having DLC for just reasons).

Prove it. Of course you can't because all you have to go on is what the companies are telling you and that's not factual, that's pure PR hype for their own purposes. The reason all for-profit companies do things is for profit. That's the basis for their existence and the second they stop pursuing that goal, they either collapse or they become something other than for-profit companies. To believe otherwise is pure niavete. DLC that's not done for greed is called a "patch" or an "update" and the companies don't charge for it. So, yes, all DLC is greed just like releasing a game is greed.

[Emuaust]

Greed, "Greed" is the backbone of capitalistic shareholding companies and they have a duty to maximize profits for shareholders!, its the nature of the beast in business, regardless of our stance, this is the way of companies upping the cost of games without it appearing so at retail and it will only continue more so into the Digital Distribution age. The only real way to fight back is to go without, while people buy DLC it will only become more of a staple.

I have no problem with DLC in the right context, extra cars and the like that are genuine additions? sure Ill look at them, extra modes/addons that are already present on the disc but you want extra money from to to use them? no fucking way. DLC can be a way of adding more life to games you may have finished or would people prefer to take the capcom stance and pay full retail price for a rerelease of a game with some new features, ala 16bit day Street Fighter.

/me looks at RE5 and EA games.

[Zoltor]

Greed, "Greed" is the backbone of capitalistic shareholding companies and they have a duty to maximize profits for shareholders!, its the nature of the beast in business, regardless of our stance, this is the way of companies upping the cost of games without it appearing so at retail and it will only continue more so into the Digital Distribution age. The only real way to fight back is to go without, while people buy DLC it will only become more of a staple.

I have no problem with DLC in the right context, extra cars and the like that are genuine additions? sure Ill look at them, extra modes/addons that are already present on the disc but you want extra money from to to use them? no fucking way. DLC can be a way of adding more life to games you may have finished or would people prefer to take the capcom stance and pay full retail price for a rerelease of a game with some new features, ala 16bit day Street Fighter.

/me looks at RE5 and EA games.

Omg so right, I am so sick of seeing remekes(crappy remakes at that, since they almost always change stuff that should've been left alone), that just has a few extra things in it, yet they charge you full game price, well with DLC, It's unlikely we'll have to deal with that BS as often anymore.

[Bojay1997]

Omg so right, I am so sick of seeing remekes(crappy remakes at that, since they almost always change stuff that should've been left alone), that just has a few extra things in it, yet they charge you full game price, well with DLC, It's unlikely we'll have to deal with that BS as often anymore.

You do realize that DLC is usually not free, right? Just because you don't have to go to the store to buy the updated version doesn't mean they aren't still making just as much money off of you for stuff which should have been included to begin with. Of course, Capcom wants the best of both markets, so we not only get Super Street Fighter IV in 2010, but plenty of DLC in the meantime which should have been included in the game to begin with.

[Zoltor]

I don't think Capcom shares your view. Super Street Fighter IV will be coming out in 2010 with some new fighters and arenas, but little else.

Lol yea, sadly not.

It's one thing if thet are different formats(aka different feel) like 3rd strike, Marvel Vs Capcom, and a regular street fighter, but It's getting out of hand now, It's crazy.

Yes I know DLC is not free duh lol, but it beats the hell out of buying 1,001 remakes, doesn't it?

Well I'm not one of those suckers that fall for buying remakes anyway, besides Marvel Vs Capcom, and 3rd Strike is really all you need to fill your fighter needs(maybe alittle Soul Caliber for a break from the other two).

[izarate]

Will the DLC servers be around in ten years when I'm in the mood of playing some old school GTAIV? Obviosly no.

That's why I don't take into account any kind of DLC when deciding which version I'm buying. Be it the PC, 360 or PS3 version, I don't care which one has DLC or not since I'm not buying it. If the game is broken since the beginning and requires a patch to actually work (it has happened), I'm not getting it.

Some people ask me what I'm going to do when everything is sold in digital platforms only. Easy: I'll stop buying games. I have more than enough to last me two lifetimes anyway.

[Rob2600]

Up until a few years ago, there was no such thing as DLC... don't ship the damn thing or you make the DLC free to everyone

Actually, this has been going on for more than a decade. Today, it's called DLC. Eleven years ago, it was called an "expansion pack." Remember StarCraft: Brood War? How about all of the Rainbow Six expansion packs? Half Life, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.

It was the same thing, except back then, the extra content was released on a new $20 disc instead of online.

[b0ub0u]

I think the worst kind of DLC is when you download "extra" content for a game and that the download size is only 100K!

This is when you realize that this "extra" level had been included in the game all along, all this DLC is doing is unlocking it!

Beautiful Katamari is a pretty good exemple of this.

[exit]

I'm on the fence when it comes to DLC, I personally don't mind it when it's something silly that I won't normally care about (i.e. skins, weapons and items I'd never use anyway), or when it's something that completely expands the game and is decently priced (Burnout Paradise: Big Surf Island). It's another thing when I'm playing the game and someone runs up to me about a quest, then a prompt pops up after accepting said quest asking me for monies (Seriously, what the fuck Dragon Age), that's just unacceptable and sadly there are people who will fall for it.

Like I said tho, I normally don't deal with DLC anyway, unless it's for a game I play the shit out of and it's adds something that will actually be used for more than a couple of minutes.

[Zoltor]

I'm on the fence when it comes to DLC, I personally don't mind it when it's something silly that I won't normally care about (i.e. skins, weapons and items I'd never use anyway), or when it's something that completely expands the game and is decently priced (Burnout Paradise: Big Surf Island). It's another thing when I'm playing the game and someone runs up to me about a quest, then a prompt pops up after accepting said quest asking me for monies (Seriously, what the fuck Dragon Age), that's just unacceptable and sadly there are people who will fall for it.

Like I said tho, I normally don't deal with DLC anyway, unless it's for a game I play the shit out of and it's adds something that will actually be used for more than a couple of minutes.

Yea I heard about that Dragon Age BS, advertising DLC in game, is not cool.

People know if a game has DLC or not off the bat, if they want to look into what that is(which basically everyone will atleast look up what the game has for DLC anyway), they'll do so, taking time to code advertising aspects in the game, is nothing but greed.

[Bojay1997]

Actually, this has been going on for more than a decade. Today, it's called DLC. Eleven years ago, it was called an "expansion pack." Remember StarCraft: Brood War? How about all of the Rainbow Six expansion packs? Half Life, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.

It was the same thing, except back then, the extra content was released on a new $20 disc instead of online.

Actually, I don't consider that the same thing. Those expansion packs really were expansions and didn't just add a few levels or items to the game like a lot of DLC does today. They were entirely new campaigns and in some cases, entirely new games. If all DLC was similar to those old expansion packs or even at the same level as the GTAIV stuff or the later Fallout 3 stuff (both of which were made available on disc as well, by the way), I wouldn't really have an issue, but those are far and away the exception and most DLC is stuff that definitely should have been included on the game and in many cases is actually on the disc or a tiny download.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'm with Bojay on this one. And for the record, you don't have to by DLC if you feel the company is overcharging or handling things improperly (buying unlock keys).

My process for buying digital is this:
If it is a full game and exclusive to digital distrobution (No physical media option), that appeals to me, it has cleared the first bar. Now, how much is it? $10 is my upward bound, because my internal set of values won't allow me to pay more for a game experience I can't "own" than I do for a similar situation of purchasing a movie theater ticket. If it's a re-release of a physical media game, then I expect a hefty discount from the latest MSRP or going rate second hand. I had no problems dropping 800 points each on Alien Soldier and Gley Lancer, for example. But, full retail digital? No way, bitches must be crazy!

[Oobgarm]

Actually, this has been going on for more than a decade. Today, it's called DLC. Eleven years ago, it was called an "expansion pack." Remember StarCraft: Brood War? How about all of the Rainbow Six expansion packs? Half Life, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.

It was the same thing, except back then, the extra content was released on a new $20 disc instead of online.

I hope this juicy tidbit doesn't get lost in the shuffle because it's painfully true.

It seems like railing against DLC is in vogue these days. Personally, I find it acceptable as long as the added content is good for more than a moment of my attention and is moderately priced. Which is why I've not gone after and DLC I have to pay for. The only one that's been tempting is the add-on for Mega Man 9.

But if people want to spend their money on that kind of stuff, then more power to them and the businesses that provide it.

[SegaAges]

From every 360 game I have played, you can get the full 1000 ach points without any dlc. So you are not missing out on anything special from not getting dlc.

Just don't buy it if you don't support it. I don't see what the big deal about it is. It is that simple.

[Porksta]

From every 360 game I have played, you can get the full 1000 ach points without any dlc. So you are not missing out on anything special from not getting dlc.

Just don't buy it if you don't support it. I don't see what the big deal about it is. It is that simple.

Judging from previous threads, nobody here supports that statement.

[ScourDX]

Actually, this has been going on for more than a decade. Today, it's called DLC. Eleven years ago, it was called an "expansion pack." Remember StarCraft: Brood War? How about all of the Rainbow Six expansion packs? Half Life, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.

It was the same thing, except back then, the extra content was released on a new $20 disc instead of online.

The expansion pack release isn't as often as DLC. So basically you can expect 1 expansion per game or 3 expansion if the title is successful. These day you can have company releasing 100+ separate DLC. For me I would rather have all DLC with one price than 1 DLC with separate price.

[Zthun]

From every 360 game I have played, you can get the full 1000 ach points without any dlc. So you are not missing out on anything special from not getting dlc.

Just don't buy it if you don't support it. I don't see what the big deal about it is. It is that simple.

Some games aren't marked as complete unless you get the DLC.

[Berserker]

I think there's a marked difference between typical DLC and expansion packs. For instance take Oblivion, a relatively recent game that happened to have both. It had DLCs, things like armor for your horse, or hideouts for various character archetypes, and even a side quest line. It also had an expansion, The Shivering Isles, which was basically a whole separate condensed world with its own set of areas, creatures, items, and main quest line, completely independent of the original game's world.

Now, I know they packaged together the DLCs and sold them as an expansion for the PC, but I think most people would recognize this as an expansion in name only. Basically they just threw a bunch of unrelated bits that were oblivious to each others' existence into a box. SI was a true expansion -- designed from the ground-up to be a coherent, integrated package.

So to me when someone says that DLC and expansion packs are the exact same thing, it's kind of like they're saying that a piece of lettuce is the exact same thing as a BLT. One is an ingredient, and the other is a combination of ingredients that have been intentionally arranged to interact with each other in a specific way. And the fact that you might be able to buy a slice of tomato to sit next to your piece of lettuce doesn't give you a sandwich -- they're still just separate, unrelated ingredients. That's what most DLC is.

[ScourDX]

I think there's a marked difference between typical DLC and expansion packs. For instance take Oblivion, a relatively recent game that happened to have both. It had DLCs, things like armor for your horse, or hideouts for various character archetypes, and even a side quest line. It also had an expansion, The Shivering Isles, which was basically a whole separate condensed world with its own set of areas, creatures, items, and main quest line, completely independent of the original game's world.

Not entirely. The Fallout 3 had 5 DLC and all of them are expansion. Some of the new weapons & armors are not compatible with the original game. In a sense, DLC is consider expansion in the current gen. Problem is game developer can now release small quantity of add-on and charge us whatever they want.

[Berserker]

Not entirely. The Fallout 3 had 5 DLC and all of them are expansion. Some of the new weapons & armors are not compatible with the original game. In a sense, DLC is consider expansion in the current gen. Problem is game developer can now release small quantity of add-on and charge us whatever they want.

What they did with Fallout 3 was a little different, in that they blurred the line somewhat between what I guess you could call traditional DLC and full-blown expansion packs, which is a good thing. They didn't just give us a piece of horse armor or a hideout, but rather completely new areas, items, creatures, and quest lines, integrated coherently — so less like single ingredients and more like finger sandwiches.

GTAIV is another good example of this. I hope the trend becomes more prevalent, and that they get better at it.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Problem is game developer can now release small quantity of add-on and charge us whatever they want.

That's not always a bad thing though. If they charge too much, no one except the desperate idiots will buy it. A seller sets price, but only so far. A seller can price himself out of a job if they get to wacky with the sticker. There will be a price where you hit diminishing returns, both ways. Price and comp will always spur things to move, even in the locked-in dlc market. Near-monopoly level pricing, while possible, seems highly unlikely to become the widespread norm. We're talking games here, not gas and food. As time goes on, digital will become cheaper. It's still young and finding it's legs.

[kupomogli]

Not all companies are like Square, Sony or Microsoft, there are a bunch of legitimate reasons to have DLC, and the main one is, almost no game was ever complete to begin with, just most people didn't know that a bunch of stuff needed to be abandoned(for anywhere up to a dozen reasons)

To start off. I quoted the most stupid thing you decided to post.

First off, about Square Enix. Last Remnant is the only game I think they've released that has DLC, unless you're counting other companies that they own, which then you can say Batman Arkham Asylum has DLC(possibly others.) Anyways. Last Remnant has four DLC, only one of which you have to pay 100 Microsoft Points for. Guild missions, different formations, and a key. I don't know about you, but three free DLC is good if you ask me, and 100 MS Points is nothing.

For PSP Squaresoft had remade FFT, FF, FF2, Star Ocean, rereleased Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean 2, etc, etc, etc. The PSP does have DLC available as there are actually some developers who do push it. There is none from Square Enix.

Now while the Final Fantasy series has been being milked for quite some time with multiple different releases, etc, etc, one thing that the games have, even if I'm not too fond of alot of the gameplay is a full game. Final Fantasy 12 may be a game I dislike due to the gameplay, but they put a hell of a lot of work into it. Even the terrible Kingdom Hearts games have a lot of work put into them, sure it's graphically and the Kingdom Hearts gameplay isn't something I enjoy or will enjoy, but the games are "complete games." I've never known for Squaresoft to ever skimp out when it comes to amount of content in their games.

At first, Sony was good with DLC and keeping it free, but now, they've made one, LBP, almost solely based off on DLC, and all their recent FPS games have DLC as multiplayer maps. Now Microsoft, I don't know what they have as DLC other than Halo 3 had DLC for multiplayer maps.

Anyways. Here's how I see add-on content should be used. If it's a small add-on that not really adding much to the game, even for mutiplayer maps on games like FPS and such, then it should be free. For example, the first Resistance had DLC that added multiplayer maps, all of which was free. The developers of Batman Arkham Asylum had released the Joker content(PS3 only,) and so far, two DLC that each added a new invisible predator challenge area and new free flow combat challenge area(areas already in the game but haven't been used in the challenge modes.) Stuff like this should be free, and if it wasn't it wouldn't be something I would purchase.

Now here are the ones that are truly the only reasons to pay for DLC. Like people already said. Expansions. "Behind Her Blue Flame," for Valkyria Chronicles, "The Shivering Isles" for Oblivion, Fallout 3 expansions, "Wipeout HD Fury" for Wipeout HD, "Lost and the Damned" and "Ballad of Gay Tony" for GTA4.

Once DLC started getting bigger, companies just started developing DLC along with the games and then releasing it as more profit. Examples such Resident Evil 5 and Street Fighter 4 already having the content on the disc, the DLC is just for unlocking, and Dragon Age forcing you to pay DLC for quests within the game.

Also, EA is the worst with DLC. I'm not really much in collecting trophies/achievements, but an example would be on Mirror's Edge, they have time trials trophies you need to get. Well unfortunately, unless you buy the additional time trials off the Live Marketplace or the PSN, then you're screwed and you're never going to get all the trophies/achievements. I've noticed it and thought that was pretty shitty, because if it's already on the trophies screen you know it was available before the game was released. Infact, atleast one fourth of the trophies available on the game are unable to be acquired without without purchasing that DLC. The DLC is 9.99 btw. No thanks.

So yeah. DLC sucks because most of the time it's not used in a way that is considerate for the customer. Now I agree with the op that posted the thread, but I won't not buy games because of it. If it's missing costumes, missing mini games, etc, then I'll still pick it up. Sure Mirror's Edge is unfinished since the additional maps are unable to be used unless you pay for them, but the game does have a good storyline and is a well developed and lengthy game. However, I won't ever buy it if it's something such as Dragon's Age Origins which was built solely for you to purchase DLC just to go on quests, etc.

[Porksta]

I don't know about PS3, but ALL 360 games have 1000 achievement points right out of the box (except Condemned for some reason). Fable 2 tried to make you use DLC for an achievement till people bitched and Lionhead changed it. All DLC does is add additional achievement points.

I can kind of understand Dragon Age's reasoning behind the DLC, so I am sort of okay with it. The Stone Prisoner was used to get people to buy the game new and not secondhand (which I have no problem with). The Warden's Keep was given to the digital PC CE buyers since they didn't get a map. The only real problem I have is - why even make the CE available via digital?

[kupomogli]

I just looked up a Mirror's Edge guide. Even though it allows to get over 1000 points or you don't need them to get the Platinum, they're still on your listing once patch 1.01 downloads. You can't just not download the DLC and keep them off.


Trophies/achievements 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 are only available after you download and install patch 1.01. They are specifically there for the Pure Time Trials downloadable content pack, and will not affect your chance of
getting platinum

[Zoltor]

To kupomogli: Um you're joking right? Square has 2 CC games on wiiware(Crystal Chronacles) that have like tones of DLC, that are not only meh for the most part, but it literally would cost a fortune to buy all the DLC there is, which also happens to be super overpriced as well(so not only is there alot of it, but everything has crazy prices as well).

[kupomogli]

To kupomogli: Um you're joking right? Square has 2 CC games on wiiware(Crystal Chronicles)

Well that's why. No one cares about the Wii obviously. I guess Square Enix thinks that since people were dumb enough to buy a system with no games, then people might purchase a bunch of DLC for the specific system.

I'm kidding, there are people who care about the Wii. Even if it has no games.

I wouldn't think DLC on a game like My Life As King makes much of an argument. The game itself is DLC as it's a Wiiware title and doesn't come on disc. The game also sucks regardless, so yeah.

[Zoltor]

Well that's why. No one cares about the Wii obviously. I guess Square Enix thinks that since people were dumb enough to buy a system with no games, then people might purchase a bunch of DLC for the specific system.

I'm kidding, there are people who care about the Wii. Even if it has no games.

I wouldn't think DLC on a game like My Life As King makes much of an argument. The game itself is DLC as it's a Wiiware title and doesn't come on disc. The game also sucks regardless, so yeah.

The PS3 is the system that sucks, if it wasn't for NIS, and ATLUS(Disgaea 3, and Demon's Souls), the PS3 wouldn't have a single game worth playing.

PS. DLC, and a game being Down Loaded are two very different things(omg Isn't that the truth, out of all Square's ***** games, that's easily one of the worse ones).

[PapaStu]

From every 360 game I have played, you can get the full 1000 ach points without any dlc. So you are not missing out on anything special from not getting dlc.

Just don't buy it if you don't support it. I don't see what the big deal about it is. It is that simple.


Go play Beautiful Katamari. You can't get all cousins or presents or even have enough 'mass' to roll up 1,500,000KM achievements without getting DLC levels. With the DLC then, not only can you finally hit the 1k, it then gives you an extra 250, bumping the game to a 1250 game. The kicker with that game is that all the stuff is ON the disc. You're downloading 700kb files that 'open' up the new levels.

[portnoyd]

Word of warning Zoltor, kupomogli is the biggest Sony fanboy north of the equator. Every key pressed by his sweaty, Cheetos cheese-laden fingers is empowered with completely blind hatred for anything not by Sony and utter orgasmic delight for everything that Sony does. His main goal in life is to blow enough hot air into the atmosphere, so it melts the icecaps enough to submerge Nintendo Japan HQ underwater. Secondary directives include mastering generation of several thousand word walls of text with nothing of worth within them; being angry at videogame reviewers who are angry and massaging Ken Kuturagi's prostate. His main defense to your argument will be to mention the Wii and mention how he uses it to scrape out his rectum of any shitnuggets and kickbacks from SCEA that he gets, since there is no way anyone with a half a brain cell can be this colorblind to the gaming scene without gobs of dough being left in his colon command center.

Let this be a warning as you continue with your momentarily interrupted troll feast.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hae gaiz whuts oin on in heer?

expansions and mini-expansions = gud
dlc for hats and shinies = okay for people with way too much commitment to a game and not enough sense
on-disc DLC or DLC that changes game mechanics for advantage= satan

[kupomogli]

Word of warning Zoltor, kupomogli is the biggest Sony fanboy north of the equator.

You always say that, but I have atleast four times as many DS games I have PS3 games. I'd also still own a 360 if it wasn't for the fact that it only has about five or so exclusive titles I care about, two of which are on a single disc now(GTA.)

The only time I ever bash the 360 is when it's about XBOX Live. I like being able to play online without having to pay $50 a year when it makes no difference between systems other than cross game chat. When the best games on the 360 and PS3 are multiplatform, it really doesn't matter what system you choose.

*edit*

I should add portnoyd to my PSN friends list.

[Berserker]

Street Fighter 4 sucks ass. Completed C. Vipers second hard trial but it didn't mark the Thunder Knuckle Cancel when I clearly did it.

Pure bullshit.

[Flashback2012]

The PS3 is the system that sucks, if it wasn't for NIS, and ATLUS(Disgaea 3, and Demon's Souls), the PS3 wouldn't have a single game worth playing.

Wow....seriously wow. Y'know, the last time I responded to one of your posts, I thought I'd have a little fun with things. Apparently it was too much for someone and they labeled it "fighting" (O_O) and cried to a mod to lock the thread. No big deal really, as I said in that thread, I did get a little out of hand with the "humor".

I would have just left well enough alone and let you and kupomogli have your little circle jerk "fighting" session but I couldn't ignore the quote above. I'm sorry, but that had to be one of the STUPIDEST things I'd ever seen typed on a message board. It's one thing to be a fan of NIS/Atlus (surprise surprise I am as well) but you're soooooooooooo far up their poop chute that when they pick their noses, there's an imprint of your face on their boogers. :-P

So far they've collectively released...what, three games between the two of them on PS3, right? Cross Edge, Disgaea 3, and Demon's Souls. I'll concede with you that all three of those games are entertaining but to say they're the ONLY three worthwhile games....no, put the crack pipe down. Here, I'll even do you one better, I'll list four games that IMO are just as good as those three and definitely worth owning a PS3 for (since they're console exclusives)...

Little Big Planet
Uncharted
Uncharted 2
Valkyria Chronicles

Nevermind any titles that are on both XB360 and PS3 that are worth owning. I'll let others chime in with some of those. At any rate, what I've managed to glean from your posts so far is you're an absolute Atlus/NIS mark, you have a hate on for Square (not Square-Enix, just Square like they're the only part of the equation) and to a lesser degree you think Gamestop is the devil (which I wouldn't ordinarily challenge except you offered up some replies last time that were cringeworthy and had me wondering if you walk around in a tinfoil hat).

I'm sure this response will be glossed over like before or replied to with the usual inane banter but I had 15 minutes to burn before going to sleep. -_-


PS. DLC, and a game being Down Loaded are two very different things(omg Isn't that the truth, out of all Square's ***** games, that's easily one of the worse ones).

I don't even give a flip about the argument at hand at this point. Most people have already done a good job of covering the bases for the subject already. One can only hope that it's sooner than later that you join the club that includes such illustrious members such as Fighter17 and Diosoth. :drinking:

[Zoltor]

To Flashback2012: When debating about rather or not, a system sucks, the only thing that matters is Exclusive titles, not multi platform, otherwise I would've mentioned Soul Caliber 4(which is probally hands down the best in the series), as well as potentially some other games.

[Bojay1997]

To Flashback2012: When debating about rather or not, a system sucks, the only thing that matters is Exclusive titles, not multi platform, otherwise I would've mentioned Soul Caliber 4(which is probally hands down the best in the series), as well as potentially some other games.

I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread and as the OP, you need to be more focused and appropriate in your handling of this discussion.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Wow....seriously wow. Y'know, the last time I responded to one of your posts, I thought I'd have a little fun with things. Apparently it was too much for someone and they labeled it "fighting" (O_O) and cried to a mod to lock the thread. No big deal really, as I said in that thread, I did get a little out of hand with the "humor".

"Cried"? Really?

You people started fighting in a thread I started to figure out why a game was so expensive when others in the same series were not. I see the same is happening here.

This isn't an unmoderated forum hidden in the bowels of GameFAQs, kids. Cut it out.

[darkslime]

Who fucking cares. If the game has DLC and you don't like it don't buy it.

[Bojay1997]

Who fucking cares. If the game has DLC and you don't like it don't buy it.

Except that some of us actually play and collect games and we now have no choice because companies like Capcom are requiring us to buy things like multiplayer to have the complete game. As long as people don't complain too much and keep buying the stuff, the more common this practice will become. So, I care. If you don't care, there's no need to post here and be a jerk about it.

[Flashback2012]

To Flashback2012: When debating about rather or not, a system sucks, the only thing that matters is Exclusive titles, not multi platform, otherwise I would've mentioned Soul Caliber 4(which is probally hands down the best in the series), as well as potentially some other games.

I have to put the kabosh on this since it's starting to derail the thread from the original topic (though given the OP and his stance on said topic, that might not be a bad thing). Okay champ, let's use your parameters here... a system's worth is only determined by it's exclusive titles and cross-platform titles (good or not) don't factor into the equation.

The question then becomes, how many exclusives does a system need before it becomes "worth" owning? One? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? How many do YOU, Zoltor, feel is enough to merit purchase?

By your own admission that is all great and holy with NIS/Atlus, there's three titles right off the bat.Cross Edge, Disgaea 3, and Demon's Souls. Is the PS3 worth owning at this point? No? I need MOAR exclusives?

How about if we throw in the four I mentioned...Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, and Little Big Planet. That brings us up to seven. No? Still not enough...Okay, lemme dig some more....

Let's add in Folklore, Ratchet and Clank, Killzone 2, Resistance 2, Gran Turismo 5, and Infamous. What's that bring us to now? Thirteen? Is that enough yet?

I'm sure at least kupomogli would agree with me that it's enough and I'd like to think the majority of people who post on here would also agree and would strive to own (or already own) 8-10 of the titles I mentioned for their PS3 collection. If you don't or don't feel it's enough (or whatever mundane reasoning you might come up with next), then I'm sorry, but there's just no pleasing you and no amount of "just the facts" is going to convince you the PS3 is little better than a paperweight (your own words from a different topic). :-/


"Cried"? Really?

You people started fighting in a thread I started to figure out why a game was so expensive when others in the same series were not. I see the same is happening here.

I knew dropping the word "cried" would illicit a response out of you.:moon: I already apologized to you in the other thread about going a little overboard with the "humor" so that's all you get I'm afraid.

Actually what is really humorous is your definition of "fighting". I was merely having fun at Zoltor's expense, using "humor" to help me illustrate my points and expose his arguments as the baseless statements they were. All in all though, it was actually quite harmless. You're free to disagree with that viewpoint and if you do, I'd seriously have to wonder if you have something long and stick-like jammed in a place where sunshine doesn't have a lot of access to. :eek 2:


This isn't an unmoderated forum hidden in the bowels of GameFAQs, kids. Cut it out.

Thank you Captain Obvious! :D The URL bar in my browser window was the first thing that gave away the fact I was on www.digitpress.com. Okay seriously now, I'd argue that my replies to his posts were downright tame compared to some of the exchanges I've seen posted in other threads (go find a few politically slanted ones to see what I'm talking about). Hell, I absolutely love Portnoyd's blunt and straightforward posts as much as the next person, but he cuts kupomogli's Sony fanaticism to pieces in this very thread! Where's the Calexican outrage and butthurt over that exchange? Oh I see...he's one of the kids that also needs to cut it out. :smash:

As for the moderation on these boards, I think the mods here do a :love:GREAT :love: job and I'd like to think I'm posting within the boundaries of acceptability. If I'm not, then I'm sure a moderator would be the first to tell me so. :) I've derailed this thread enough already, I know I'm guilty of that so I'll shut up and hopefully this thread can get back on topic. :drinking:

[vivaeljason]

To Flashback2012: When debating about rather or not, a system sucks, the only thing that matters is Exclusive titles, not multi platform, otherwise I would've mentioned Soul Caliber 4(which is probally hands down the best in the series), as well as potentially some other games.

Gotta disagree with you there, champ. Cross-platform titles can be very, very different on different systems in terms of graphical quality, sound, and content and therefore should be factored into the worth of a system.

Examples:
Mortal Kombat for the SNES is inferior to the Genesis version in part because of the lack of blood in the SNES version.

Doom for 32X has some of the most awful sound imaginable, but on the SNES it sounds great (admittedly nowhere near the PC version, but damn good none the less).

Hell, the very fact that developers are porting the game to that system can be a big deal when one or more systems of the generation are left out. The fact that a lot of games are made for Xbox 360 and PS3 but not the Wii shows the relative worth of the system (and yes, I realize the Wii has sold a lot more units, but I feel it says a lot when a lot of the big cross-platform titles are left off of it).

[kupomogli]

Thirteen? Is that enough yet?

Don't forget 3d Dot Game Heroes. It's being released by Atlus also.

[SplashChick]

It's funny


It's not funny

paradox

[SplashChick]

To Flashback2012: When debating about rather or not, a system sucks, the only thing that matters is Exclusive titles, not multi platform, otherwise I would've mentioned Soul Caliber 4(which is probally hands down the best in the series), as well as potentially some other games.

As an avid fighting game fan, I am MORALLY OFFENDED by this remark!

[exit]

Oh my, this thread has changed drastically, so I guess the topic of DLC has ended then?


....... otherwise I would've mentioned Soul Caliber 4(which is probally hands down the best in the series), as well as potentially some other games.

Soul Caliber 4 was a disappointment, Soul Caliber 2 is easily the best in the series.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

[Zthun]

I was hoping to continue the debate about DLC, but man, the OP just completely derailed this thread into a PS3 vs. other systems thread.

It's like if you were on craigslist and someone messaged you saying they wanted to give you some poon, and then you go over to said persons house and said person has no poon and sticks a giant ron jeremy johnson in your face. I think you'd be pretty pissed too.

[BetaWolf47]

The expansion pack release isn't as often as DLC. So basically you can expect 1 expansion per game or 3 expansion if the title is successful. These day you can have company releasing 100+ separate DLC. For me I would rather have all DLC with one price than 1 DLC with separate price.

Expansions didn't get released as often because they're not as cost-effective as DLC. Some games did get a crapload, even before DLC, however. The original The Sims game has a total of seven expansion packs, and the last one was released in 2003. A lot of successful games had two expansion packs. Expansions cost $10 less than core games, so if a game cost $30, it would cost $70 with two expansions. That's better than $60 + whatever the cost of DLC is, but you aren't force-fed stuff you never plan to use.

[The Sage of Sega]

I didn't see if this was mentioned, but I'm just going to mention that console DLC is way worse than equivalent stuff on PC. It's just the nature of the platform though... Microsoft and Sony can create their own market, but on the PC there's much more of a modding community. I've really enjoyed playing downloaded campaigns for Left 4 Dead and fooling around with downloaded weapons on Oblivion. Commercial DLC is moreso a cash grab than anything else (remember the Ace Combat crap for 360?), only rarely does it make any sort of sense. GTA IV DLC was awesome, and people might bitch about the Map Packs for games like Call of Duty and Halo, but you have to realize that while that content is out there for the purposes of creating income, if they were to include it in the retail game we would have had to wait a couple more months at the very least for the release. I have no issue with a game that has an acceptable amount of content on the onset, and then charges a very nominal fee for new, DECENT content; at least it shows the developer is willing to support their back catalogue rather than do a smash-and-grab.

[ScourDX]

One thing really gets on my nerves is the DLC price. I played the Dragon Age Origins on PC, but the Stone Prisoner DLC cost $15. The quest only takes 2-4 hours of gameplay and I doubt it should cost a lot. If developer constantly doing this, I doubt I will support them.

[Porksta]

One thing really gets on my nerves is the DLC price. I played the Dragon Age Origins on PC, but the Stone Prisoner DLC cost $15. The quest only takes 2-4 hours of gameplay and I doubt it should cost a lot. If developer constantly doing this, I doubt I will support them.

Yeah buy it comes with the game, so I don't see the issue. I have no problem with a company doing that. They could charge $50 for the Stone Prisoner as long as it comes with the game new. They are just trying to get people to buy the game new so they can make money. What's the problem?

[ScourDX]

Yeah buy it comes with the game, so I don't see the issue. I have no problem with a company doing that. They could charge $50 for the Stone Prisoner as long as it comes with the game new. They are just trying to get people to buy the game new so they can make money. What's the problem?

Problem is the DLC is part of the game and you cannot complete the mission unless you buy the DLC. Dragon Age is guilty of it because some stage does require you to purchased the DLC before you can progress. Most likely in the future games will release as incomplete and the only way you can finish the game is buy DLC.

[Porksta]

Again, you are buying it - it comes with the game.

[kupomogli]

Again, you are buying it - it comes with the game.

But what happens if you don't have an internet connection?

[Porksta]

Then you should own a Wii.

[ScourDX]

Again, you are buying it - it comes with the game.

Unfortunately mine doesn't come with it. I heard only the first print gets the DLC for free.

[Porksta]

Unfortunately mine doesn't come with it. I heard only the first print gets the DLC for free.

Really? I thought all new copies came with it? In that case, yeah I will have to agree with you, that is pretty lame.

[Tallise]

I think it depends what it's for. It is annoying that Fall out 3 has so many updates to buy, the game its self is complete, but the add ones really are... well... add ons to the game its self. Like extra objectives and more adventuring (lets not forget the option to survive in the end). Didn't Oblivion have so many updates with DLC that they released a new version with all the updates together on the disk? (correct me if i'm wrong on that)
Buying more songs for rock band to me is ok because the game already has plenty and seems complete (hard to fit and additional 1000 songs to a disk aswell...), but buying content that should have been on the disk like "bonus costumes" for street fighter or what dragon age apparently did (i haven't played it myself but people are obviously pissed, and my dad is annoyed with his) is rather obnoxious of them. I remeber when you EARNED bonus features by PLAYING not paying. DLC should be for extra features like skins or patches, maybe not patches to fix glitches (thats too easy ot exploit) but patches for silly things like how you can patch pc games to customize things...
DLC to me is basically expansions to games, many of which should have been on the game in the first place, but many that were just little after thoughts and legitly deserve to be on there. Somethings, however, should maybe be free, rather than paid for, or just held back for a sequel game. Honestly it's hard to say DLC is the devil.. it really does bring some good excitement (adding maps to L4D after it was succesful).. but its not godly either, and sometiems feels like a rip off...

[MASTERWEEDO]

The first time I got really pissed about DLC was one of the Smackdown vs Raw games, where you needed the psp to unlock Jake Roberts and then download him to the PS2.