Only one being emotional is you right now man so chill out and now you are trying to change the subject. Already explained it nothing more to be said and no I don't spend much time here. Gone most the day. Just post in a bunches then head off. I'm chillin man. You pick wierd battles like Splatoon voice chat and compared it to other team based shooters. You say on disc DLC is A ok. You get all upset over something some company did that is no big deal. Now you are heading off topic. Don't like it don't respond. You are free to be wrong as many times as you want. Not my fault yo. Don't take this personally but with a heart ready to blow up at any moment in my face I honestly don't have the time to care about you to do anything to you.
So I'm out. I don't hate you or like you I have no feelings towards someone I don't know and would have to care to do anything to someone. I'm just telling you how it is and you can't accept it. Fine by me. Carry on. Life moves on.
I'm frustrated with you, clearly. That's why I'm being emotional. I like to discuss things without using emotion but being told I'm wrong and that I don't get it rather than telling me why and discussing it just frustrates me a whole lot.
I'm not heading off topic anymore than you are. I'm not sure what to respond to since you're mentioning past discussions in your post.. I suppose I'll touch on them all (don't worry about responding to all of them if you don't want to, I just felt I'd clarify my position on those topics):
Splatoon can be compared to other team based shooters as it is one. Team based shooters benefit greatly from voice chat as it improves the player's ability to communicate with each other.
On disc DLC is okay in the sense that it's up to developers to decide what is the full game. That being said, it should be looked at on a case by case basis. If a game is low on content but has on disc/day one DLC then I'm not saying that is at all a good thing but if the game offers a heck of a lot of content but also has on disc/day one DLC then I can't really say I have a problem with that. I'm not entitled to content that was decided to not be apart of the product that I purchased. Digital or physical it doesn't matter, we're still buying software and we don't decide what content of that software is available to us.
I assume you're referring to the discussion in the other thread and I'd like to leave that discussion over in that thread so I'll just refrain from responding to that part here.
I apologise for reacting the way that I did but the way you responded was frustrating me and your excessive hyperbole just made it even harder to see your point. I'd like to discuss things and it's okay to be very passionate about certain topics but I'd appreciate if we could discuss instead of argue so we can understand each others view points better because I don't feel that my views are unreasonable.
This statement is false. The previous statement is true.
I'm not reading all of that; but to me DLC is a means for a company to add content (and get paid for the work) that they were not originally able to add or even thought of before the game ships, NOT something the company deliberately removed or locked away specifically so they could charge for it later. If it's already on the disk but locked away until purchased, is it really "downloadable" content?
Yeah, you have the exact opposite thought process as I do.
My position is that there should never ever be legislation for any of it. People should just educate themselves and vote with their money more responsibly. The government should only ever intervene in the market when there's actual harm being done. Not when people are being willing fools.
Sure, you might be responsible enough and I don't disagree but call me cynical, I don't have faith in mass population having a proper sense of reason and voting responsibly with their wallets, at least when it comes to gaming - I consider myself more responsible than most but I'm not immune, there is some content I absolutely crave and would throw money at for that could probably be considered unreasonable amounts. If most people are voting responsibly with there wallets, it doesn't appear to be working (with a triumphant one-off here or there). I don't know that legislation is the right word but it would seem some sort of consumer "protection" seems to be needed.
Which games charge for a multiplayer game mode? Just curious as to what game/s you were referring to there.
I can't really comment on games like Mario Golf but from what you said it seems they handled the DLC well. Do you think they are charging too much for an individual SSB character?
There was one recently where I went "WTH?" when I found out there was MP being added after but I can't remember for the life of me now. And I don't necessarily mean paid DLC (though that's certainly worse). What comes to mind is Resident Evil 5's versus mode as paid DLC and in Gears of War: Judgement you had to pay for game modes that was included since the first Gears game (can't remember if it was Warzone or Execution or both). It's obviously nickel-and-diming consumers buy comparison to before practices like this came into effect.
In any game charging anything for content I've had in previously games is too much IMO. I don't even know the price for Mewtwo and Lucas but I know they cost too much if they are more than $0. I still take the stance Nintendo (first party) is more reasonable with DLC than anyone else though.
Sure, you might be responsible enough and I don't disagree but call me cynical, I don't have faith in mass population having a proper sense of reason and voting responsibly with their wallets, at least when it comes to gaming
Haha well you've hit upon the dilemna at the heart of mine, and many people's, entire political worldviews! Which is worse? Mob stupidity or state corruption? To be honest, I'm not even sure. It seems to switch from year to year. Look at censorship nowadays. Until quite recently, that was hugely a worry about the government. Now it's a worry about whatever twitter mob happens to arise out of the scum pits.
I would say the main difference is that state legislation is very hard to remove once it's in place. Mob zeitgeist can easily change quickly. For better or worse.
The problem is that the government is there for a reason. If you take power away from it, it will only end up congealing in another group, that probably doesn't have the people's best interests in mind. You can say what you want, but the end result is that the USA really does not function like most other countries and that affects the people and the companies inside it.
There was one recently where I went "WTH?" when I found out there was MP being added after but I can't remember for the life of me now. And I don't necessarily mean paid DLC (though that's certainly worse). What comes to mind is Resident Evil 5's versus mode as paid DLC and in Gears of War: Judgement you had to pay for game modes that was included since the first Gears game (can't remember if it was Warzone or Execution or both). It's obviously nickel-and-diming consumers buy comparison to before practices like this came into effect.
In any game charging anything for content I've had in previously games is too much IMO. I don't even know the price for Mewtwo and Lucas but I know they cost too much if they are more than $0. I still take the stance Nintendo (first party) is more reasonable with DLC than anyone else though.
Versus in RE5? As in PvP? Are both players human or what?
I don't know if that's a good example, RE became more about the co-op. I can't see how a versus mode in RE would even be played had it come with the main game so I suppose making it optional DLC isn't so bad.
Hmm. Was Gears of War: Judgement any cheaper than the previous Gears games? Isn't it kind of a spin off? If they charged less then I can see why they would have done that.
In regards to SSB DLC, they're charging $3.99 USD for Mewtwo for each platform or $4.99 for both; I'm guessing Lucas will be the same price. They are also selling Mii costumes for $0.75 for each platform or $1.15 for both, plus there's a bundle too.. You can check it all out here:
(So I tried to quote and then edit my post after and it screwed it all up...)
Quoting CUD...
Versus in RE5? As in PvP? Are both players human or what?
I don't know if that's a good example, RE became more about the co-op. I can't see how a versus mode in RE would even be played had it come with the main game so I suppose making it optional DLC isn't so bad.
Hmm. Was Gears of War: Judgement any cheaper than the previous Gears games? Isn't it kind of a spin off? If they charged less then I can see why they would have done that.
In regards to SSB DLC, they're charging $3.99 USD for Mewtwo for each platform or $4.99 for both; I'm guessing Lucas will be the same price. They are also selling Mii costumes for $0.75 for each platform or $1.15 for both, plus there's a bundle too.. You can check it all out here:
- It was human players vs. each other. I can't see how paying to add a MP mode to any game is ok. I bought a game for $60 (or whatever). It's fine if you worked on it after without it planned for the original game, but you nor I should have to pay again for it. I can't say for sure but with such practices now it doesn't seem likely, it was probably predetermined. My point is we're now conditioned to believe it "isn't so bad" to pay more for something that should be shipped with the game or is locked on the disc no matter how nominal the fee is and that's the problem. It's been abused terribly.
- GoW Judgement did not sell for less.
- Again, I don't think it's reasonable to pay anything for extra content we had before at no extra cost.
- It was human players vs. each other. I can't see how paying to add a MP mode to any game is ok. I bought a game for $60 (or whatever). It's fine if you worked on it after without it planned for the original game, but you nor I should have to pay again for it. I can't say for sure but with such practices now it doesn't seem likely, it was probably predetermined. My point is we're now conditioned to believe it "isn't so bad" to pay more for something that should be shipped with the game or is locked on the disc no matter how nominal the fee is and that's the problem. It's been abused terribly.
- GoW Judgement did not sell for less.
- Again, I don't think it's reasonable to pay anything for extra content we had before at no extra cost.
- That's like complaining about no versus mode in a Mario game or Borderlands or something.. It's far from the main appeal of the game (the singleplayer/co-op story mode is). I haven't yet played RE6, but versus mode in Resident Evil? Does anyone even play that? That sounds like a completely optional mode that would only appeal to a very small amount of people. I don't recall RE having a versus mode before RE5 anyway so I'm not sure why it would be expected as free content.
Why is it that you feel a versus mode should have shipped with the main game or been free when it was never was a part of the series before this? I honestly don't see why we would be entitled to an optional game mode like that.
You say that we're conditioned to think that it's not so bad to pay more but you then go on to say that it's something "that should be shipped with the game". We're not the ones to say what should ship with the game and a versus mode in a game that is primarily about the story mode is far from something that should have shipped with the game. I'm not sure how much extra content you feel you're entitled to for free.
- I haven't played GoW: J so I can't really say if the amount of content in the main game is enough to say that selling the rest of this as DLC is fair. That being said, it did seem like a smaller game in the series with Gears 1-3 being larger releases so I wouldn't be surprised if Judgement had a smaller budget than previous titles in the series which I would say makes charging for this DLC more understandable.
It should be looked at on a case by case basis. If GoW:J has enough content then this DLC isn't such a big deal, sometimes it's a fine line though.
- So you want the exact same Mewtwo from Melee?
This statement is false. The previous statement is true.
To all the people saying Mewtwo is too expensive, go google the Skullgirls Kickstarter debacle to get a good rundown of how much developing a fighting game character costs. Charging $4 for him is hardly unreasonable.
CUD, when I buy a disk, I expect to be "entitled" to the contents of the disk. There's no justifying when a company sells me content and then tells me to pay for it again once I try to access said content... which is basically what companies do with locked-in-disk DLC.
And on another note, stop saying free content. It's not free content, the publishers accounted for the extra game modes when they set the price.
To all the people saying Mewtwo is too expensive, go google the Skullgirls Kickstarter debacle to get a good rundown of how much developing a fighting game character costs. Charging $4 for him is hardly unreasonable.
CUD, when I buy a disk, I expect to be "entitled" to the contents of the disk. There's no justifying when a company sells me content and then tells me to pay for it again once I try to access said content... which is basically what companies do with locked-in-disk DLC.
And on another note, stop saying free content. It's not free content, the publishers accounted for the extra game modes when they set the price.
You're not paying for that content so you're not buying it again. It's not the best practice but if they have this content ready and decide that it's not part of the main game it'll be sold as DLC anyway but people have an issue with day one DLC too so... Software is different to what you'd expect from a completely physical product. To put it simply, the software content of the disc aren't yours to decide; people tend to forget that in buying a physical disc you're still just buying a license for the content on that disc. So you're not paying for the locked content, unless the packaging blatantly lied and stated that the content is included with the game otherwise you really have no reason to complain; unless you feel that you should get all the content that you want rather than what the developer/publisher decides?
You started off your post saying how reasonable it is to charge for an individual character because you understand the work that goes into it but then go on to contradict that by somehow deciding that the extra game modes and content that devs/publishers decide aren't part of the base game are not worth an additional fee.
This statement is false. The previous statement is true.
- That's like complaining about no versus mode in a Mario game or Borderlands or something.. It's far from the main appeal of the game (the singleplayer/co-op story mode is). I haven't yet played RE6, but versus mode in Resident Evil? Does anyone even play that? That sounds like a completely optional mode that would only appeal to a very small amount of people. I don't recall RE having a versus mode before RE5 anyway so I'm not sure why it would be expected as free content.
Why is it that you feel a versus mode should have shipped with the main game or been free when it was never was a part of the series before this? I honestly don't see why we would be entitled to an optional game mode like that.
You say that we're conditioned to think that it's not so bad to pay more but you then go on to say that it's something "that should be shipped with the game". We're not the ones to say what should ship with the game and a versus mode in a game that is primarily about the story mode is far from something that should have shipped with the game. I'm not sure how much extra content you feel you're entitled to for free.
- I haven't played GoW: J so I can't really say if the amount of content in the main game is enough to say that selling the rest of this as DLC is fair. That being said, it did seem like a smaller game in the series with Gears 1-3 being larger releases so I wouldn't be surprised if Judgement had a smaller budget than previous titles in the series which I would say makes charging for this DLC more understandable.
It should be looked at on a case by case basis. If GoW:J has enough content then this DLC isn't such a big deal, sometimes it's a fine line though.
- So you want the exact same Mewtwo from Melee?
I never complained RE5 didn't have a versus mode. I complained that a MP mode was added for a cost outside of the selling price for the game. And yes I and other people played it. Sure, it was very much optional for an extra cost but you seem to be missing the point. The problem I have is that the mentality for this now is ok compared to the times when I paid for the price of a game and didn't pay extra for parts of it later. I paid full price for Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and got a versus mode "that sounds like a completely optional mode that would only appeal to a very small amount of people". It doesn't matter, no one was nickel and dimed for it back then. I didn't expect RE5 Versus Mode as "free content". I paid already.
"Why is it that you feel a versus mode should have shipped with the main game or been free when it was never was a part of the series before this? I honestly don't see why we would be entitled to an optional game mode like that."
I... I can't...
...
...
Is it really THAT bad amongst gamers now?? That from the get go we don't feel all playable modes are not entitled to us after paying full price for a game? That anything new should always be just optional for an extra cost?
You know what extra content I feel I'm entitled to? How about the ending for a game?
^ If you can't see from that example how awful these practices have mostly turned to then there is nothing more I can say. You would be at a whole 'nother level.
GoW:J had just as big a budget as any of the previous games. It was made partially by a different developer and just wasn't as good. Again, small budget or not, NOTHING makes it ok to charge extra for something that was blatantly not shipped completed with the game to be charged for later. Most of it was already on disc. I agree it is a case by case basis as with Mewtwo I'm kind of ok with, just kind of. I realize he wasn't in the last game and he was reworked since he was last seen so I'm 50/50 on it.
Bottom line is no one is the authority on what is right and wrong in DLC practices but I can't see how one can be completely blind to what is very obvious and blatant cash grabs. It's just super clear to see when you look back.
To put it simply, the software content of the disc aren't yours to decide; people tend to forget that in buying a physical disc you're still just buying a license for the content on that disc
Which is how it should be, but publishers are locking the content on that disk and asking you to pay up in order to unlock it. There would be a huge uproar if Autodesk pulled this kind of crap with 3ds Max, but somehow it's okay for game publishers to do this.
unless you feel that you should get all the content that you want rather than what the developer/publisher decides?
I feel the game should have as much meaningful content as the developer's time and budget allows them to create, because meaningful content is what makes games good. Day one DLC leeches time and budget away from the main game in order to create disposable content. Or sometimes they just cut out meaningful content from the main game in order to sell it as DLC, like in Asura's Wrath, which is even worse.
DLC in theory is a fine concept, but the way it's executed is awful.
You started off your post saying how reasonable it is to charge for an individual character because you understand the work that goes into it but then go on to contradict that by somehow deciding that the extra game modes and content that devs/publishers decide aren't part of the base game are not worth an additional fee.
Just because I think Mewtwo is worth an additional fee it doesn't mean I think all DLC is worth and additional fee. That's something that needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
I never complained RE5 didn't have a versus mode. I complained that a MP mode was added for a cost outside of the selling price for the game. And yes I and other people played it. Sure, it was very much optional for an extra cost but you seem to be missing the point. The problem I have is that the mentality for this now is ok compared to the times when I paid for the price of a game and didn't pay extra for parts of it later. I paid full price for Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and got a versus mode "that sounds like a completely optional mode that would only appeal to a very small amount of people". It doesn't matter, no one was nickel and dimed for it back then. I didn't expect RE5 Versus Mode as "free content". I paid already.
"Why is it that you feel a versus mode should have shipped with the main game or been free when it was never was a part of the series before this? I honestly don't see why we would be entitled to an optional game mode like that."
I... I can't...
...
...
Is it really THAT bad amongst gamers now?? That from the get go we don't feel all playable modes are not entitled to us after paying full price for a game? That anything new should always be just optional for an extra cost?
You know what extra content I feel I'm entitled to? How about the ending for a game?
^ If you can't see from that example how awful these practices have mostly turned to then there is nothing more I can say. You would be at a whole 'nother level.
Some games have multiplayer and some don't. I'm sure we can agree on that. While Sonic 2 had a multiplayer mode, a game like Vectorman was only singleplayer. No one was 'nickel and dimed' for it back then because they really couldn't have been, if development is over and the game is released then that is all you got.
You paid already for the game but you didn't pay for content that wasn't included with that game so expecting any more would be expecting free content. If there were no such thing as DLC and that versus mode was decided to not be part of the main game for whatever reason (maybe the publisher had a strict timeframe so they had to cut some features out) then we wouldn't have got that content at all. I can't say I'd prefer that over the current situation.
That from the get go we don't feel all playable modes are not entitled to us after paying full price for a game? That anything new should always be just optional for an extra cost?
I expect that the listed modes as being part of the main game are part of it, not any more than that. I realise that I'm not the one that decides the content of the game so I get what I'm paying for. How are you entitled to more than you paid for?
I'm not implying that anything new to a game, that wasn't in previous games or whatever, shouldn't be added for free. Of course I want new content and better content but I also defend the dev/publishers right to decide what content they are selling as the main game, I know that I don't decide that and more often than not I find the games that I buy to have plenty of content for the price and the ability to buy more content as DLC is an added extra.
As for the Final Fantasy video. If they really sold a game that lacked an ending then that is not how DLC should be done. I do not support DLC that is blatantly cutting content out of games. There is such a fine line sometimes though, most people would probably say that in having on disc DLC they would have cut that content out of the game and they'd feel ripped off about it but I would first look at the main game itself and judge whether there is enough content for the money I paid. I have said this many times now but the devs/publishers decide the content of the game so we cannot honestly say that certain content was cut from the main game without it being an expression of disapproval of their DLC practices.
GoW:J had just as big a budget as any of the previous games. It was made partially by a different developer and just wasn't as good. Again, small budget or not, NOTHING makes it ok to charge extra for something that was blatantly not shipped completed with the game to be charged for later. Most of it was already on disc. I agree it is a case by case basis as with Mewtwo I'm kind of ok with, just kind of. I realize he wasn't in the last game and he was reworked since he was last seen so I'm 50/50 on it.
Bottom line is no one is the authority on what is right and wrong in DLC practices but I can't see how one can be completely blind to what is very obvious and blatant cash grabs. It's just super clear to see when you look back.
I'll take your word on the budget for now. There are a lot of factors to consider so I can't really say that GoW: J was really a 'cash grab' without playing it myself.
Okay then. I'm completely blind because I don't feel that I am entitled to more than I pay for.
Which is how it should be, but publishers are locking the content on that disk and asking you to pay up in order to unlock it. There would be a huge uproar if Autodesk pulled this kind of crap with 3ds Max, but somehow it's okay for game publishers to do this.
They're locking the content from the perspective of the consumer but they also didn't include it in the license agreement to begin with.
To put it simply, the software content of the disc aren't yours to decide; people tend to forget that in buying a physical disc you're still just buying a license for the content on that disc
To clarify, you're also not paying for or deciding what content is part of the license agreement.
Well I'm not sure that 3ds Max is a good comparison since you're paying a lot more for a license and they're not even permanent licenses. It's not unusual for some software products to have different subscription fees for different licenses which differ in features based on the license you buy. That is probably more comparable to subscription based MMOs than just purchasing game software but whatever the case you're still paying for a license than the developer and publisher have agreed to and that you are agreeing to by purchasing the software.
I feel the game should have as much meaningful content as the developer's time and budget allows them to create, because meaningful content is what makes games good. Day one DLC leeches time and budget away from the main game in order to create disposable content. Or sometimes they just cut out meaningful content from the main game in order to sell it as DLC, like in Asura's Wrath, which is even worse.
DLC in theory is a fine concept, but the way it's executed is awful.
That's why I believe it should be looked at on a case by case basis. If the game is really low on content then it is probably fair to say that content was cut to be sold as DLC but if it has plenty of content to begin with then DLC, even on day one, isn't really an issue.
It's all dependent on how the game is designed to begin with. If they were to take day one DLC into account while planning a main game that is full of plenty of content then I just don't see it as an issue.
I just don't see it as being so awful as some people make it seem.
Just because I think Mewtwo is worth an additional fee it doesn't mean I think all DLC is worth and additional fee. That's something that needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Definitely. You can at least acknowledge that it takes more work to make more content so you should be able to see when content is worth an additional fee or not. The problem is that in judging these things on a case by case basis we're doing so with our own perspectives, some are going to think it's worth the price and some will not. With such subjectivity it's hard to say how bad DLC practices really are, I get the impression that the amount of complaining about DLC is much higher than the amount of companies that have bad DLC practices.
This statement is false. The previous statement is true.
Some games have multiplayer and some don't. I'm sure we can agree on that. While Sonic 2 had a multiplayer mode, a game like Vectorman was only singleplayer. No one was 'nickel and dimed' for it back then because they really couldn't have been, if development is over and the game is released then that is all you got.
And that's exactly my point. They can now, and a lot of times we are because developers can now. That's all I've been saying.
You have indeed said many times devs/publishers do decide the content and a lot of times it's blatant content cut for extra money. There's absolutely no denying that (No, not is all cases). You're not blind because you don't feel that you're entitled to more than you pay for. You're blind if you can't acknowledge due to DLC/patches and what devs/publishers can do now that sometimes you get what's obviously an unfinished game.
There is no denying a lot of times there is a fine line. I haven't disagreed on most points. All I'm saying is there are times when the abuse is cut and dry.
