Hey everyone I thought this group of people above all else should be the first I contact regarding....what this post is about haha. Hopefully it's alright to post this here, but if not, no hard feelings if this thread gets locked.
Basically I'm tired of us gamers getting ripped off for map packs and other DLC, having to pay more for them on top of an already overpriced game. It is not fair and it is not right. Big industry "leaders" (for lack of a better word) release games with a fraction of the content they should have just so they can charge extra for the rest of it later on down the line, in multiple transactions no less! That's ridiculous and unacceptable in my eyes.
So I've created a page on Facebook (as a start) to help raise awareness to the issue, gather gamers that are also sick and tired of being ripped off for bad games and extra content that costs more, and well try to get these publishers and developers to see that enough is enough. We don't want it anymore and refuse to buy into the money grubbing scams.
So I ask you, Stardock gamers, gamers who are very well versed in the world of gaming, gamers who support The Gamer's Bill of Rights movement, and gamers that are pro-modding, freedom, and virtually unlimited and ever changing user based content within the games we love. I ask you to join in and help raise attention to the issue of paying for pitiful content that should be included with games for free.
Keep in mind PC gamers, Xbox gamers, Wii gamers and PS3 gamers are all gamers. We are all in this together.
Myself, and I assume many others here are fed up with the greed and want to bring the gaming industry back to where it belongs...where the developers and publishers think about the GAMERS FIRST!
We, the gamers, the consumers that buy the games put on the shelves are the driving force behind the video game industry. We need to remind companies of that fact and make sure they know we won't put up with being ripped off any longer. We need to take a stand, gamers of all platforms uniting to combat the greed that has taken over the gaming world.
It's GAMERS vs. GREED and the gamers need to win!
I invite you all to join up on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fight-For-Free-DLC/151294358277116
You're invited to be an active part of the page because after all, without gamers...gaming can't exist! Feel free to show your support, complain about these money hungry companies, chat in the discussion board or reminisce and share stories of the older better days of gaming, or spread the word and share stories about companies like Stardock and developers like Ironclad who have it right! Spread your knowledge and experience to others on our page and don't forget to tell all your gamer friends about our cause. The more the merrier!
We're also on Twitter at http://twitter.com/fffdlc
We will also be adding videos to YouTube before long at http://www.youtube.com/fightforfreedlc so feel free to subscribe there too!
Thanks everyone for taking the time to read this and I look forward to chatting with some of you more on the issue.
Have a great day!
I miss the days when we got games that were finished, and full priced expansions that were worth a damn. Not an intended jab at Elemental as I liked the game as it shipped. That being said, the number companies that have done the whole dlc expansion thing right is pretty short. Gearbox did a fantastic job with the Boarderlands expansions, seeing as it gave us a pretty reasonable amount of new content for a reasonable price. Rockstar did right with GTA4 as each dlc was more like a full blown game, especially when you consider how much time people spend screwing around in a sandbox game. I certainly don't blame Hidden Path for making a couple of mini map packs for Defense Grid. Four new map packs with 2 maps each at like 99 cents, oh i am really breaking the bank here for a rather generous amount of content. I'm not going to pick on the indie developers too much seeing as they usually have thier heads screwed on a lot straighter than the rest of the industry when it comes to drm, mods, expansions, and dlc. Personally I am not a huge fan of multiplayer map pack DLC as it divides the player community. I especially hate what Activision has done with the Call of Duty map packs. 15$ for a map pack with only 3 original maps and 2 rehashes? That's rediculous, especially when I can go buy an indie title for 10$, get more milage out of it, and still have money for a bag of Doritos. I am a huge fan of free long time support of a game and its modding community. Obviously a developer needs to make games to make money, but if Egosoft can afford to release a compatibility update for the X series which also happens to also include a content update, some fixes to glitches, some graphics improvements and include community mods and scripts, then there is no reason we can't expect something like that from EA and Activision. Oh and Egosoft did that for all 5 of the X games while making the 6th.
I don't mind paying for DLC; as long as the price to content is fair. I payed for all the Sins content, as well as most of the other games I currently play. Its only the rare but extreme examples where I have been forced to amputate part of my upper limb; using a cutlass, and replace it with a steel hook, gouge out one of my eyes using a dirk; forcing me to wear a black eye-patch, and fetch the parrot out of its cage.
my example:
Romance of the Three Kingdoms 11 (English version). Bought it for $80 (actually form memory it was 79.95 but you get my point). Shortly after purchasing the game Koei announces they will not be releasing the expansion (Power Up Kit as Koei called it), for the English version. "OK so no big deal", I'll just get a Chinese/Japanese version with PUK (expansion) and then use one of the English translators to translate the game to English. Price of the non-English version with PUK (on top of the $80 I've already spent), $150. So that's a grand total of $80+150= $230 for a video game (hmm... I think not).
The price of video games has actually gone down over the last 15 -20 years. DLC is a good way to get people to spend as much as they used to.
This is because of inflation... paying $60 for a game in 1995 and $60 for a game today is an awesome deal for customers, considering that many things costs ~25% more than they did at that time. We really should be spending $80+ for brand new video games if we value them as much as we did in the past.
While I am also wary of DLC and have never bought any, I do think that if done right they could be a good thing. I think the main problem is that usually the DLC is overpriced and replaces an expansion pack which would come with more meaningful additions.
The only DLC I would buy would be a full expansion pack, back in the day I had Starcraft, then the expansion came out so I got it. Added entire campaigns, I mean that is the way it should be. It should add something to the game that wasn't there before. 1 or 2 mission DLCs are a rip-off, but when you get something like Dragon Age: Origins Awakening - that would be worth the 30 dollars you pay for it. It added like another 20+ hours to gameplay.
DLC should add 10+ hours of gameplay minimum, imo.
What worries me most about DLC is that it can uneven the playing field in multiplayer. Those who buy a game in 2010 should always be able to keep playing the game with others without the others gaining an in-game upgrade via DLC in 2011 or 2012.
But other than that particular circumstance, I have no problem with DLC. If it costs too much and doesn't deliver enough, then (hopefully) the smarter gamers will refuse to buy it, and the less smart will get what they deserve. But the developers are still free to put whatever they want on the market.
I have little constructive to add after this post. It wins.
On average, games are CHEAPER now than they were 25 years ago. Games still cost roughly $50. Which, thanks to your wonderful friend inflation, is less than the $50 we all spent for the Legend of Zelda in 1987.
I also think the argument of DLC is a lost cause. It's here to stay. The only choice you have is to purchase games from companies that you trust to provide worthwhile DLC or not purchase any DLC games at all.
Not all DLC is horse armor.
By this reasoning ($30 for 20 hours) shouldn't you be willing to pay $10 for 6 hours and 40 minutes worth of gameplay? And considering that a 6 hour 40 minute DLC patch can be built in AT LEAST 3 times as fast and certainly takes less than 1/3 the time for the company to beta test, doesn't it offer some benefits? Take it further, how about 3hours and 20 minutes for $5? You're getting exactly the same value and without the six to twelve months of waiting for the full xpac.
It's quality that matters (and that bad DLC threatens) not quantity.
But you are paying 10 dollars for a mission that may only be 2 or 3 hours of gameplay, when I can wait a month or two more and get a completely new questline that is going to be 10 times that.
It's easy to make up numbers. You're using random numbers without any backing to support your argument. You can certainly point at SPECIFIC DLC that was $10 and only gave 2 or 3 hours of gameplay, but I can point at $10 DLC that was 6 hours. Likewise you can point at plenty of $30 xpacs that were 20 hours and great and I can point at plenty of $30 xpacs that were significantly less that 20 hours or were terrible or both.
My whole point was that if you're getting equal value based on YOUR $30 for 20 hours metric, then DLC isn't bad and in fact has some benefits in that the smaller pieces can come faster.
There's a difference between good DLC and bad DLC just like there's a difference between a good $50 game or $30 xpac and a bad one. Over-generalization is useless.
Especially when you have sandbox games like SoaSE or anything Total War where the replayability makes quantification impossible. You play a single game for 6 hours, but what portion of that is actually the DLC?
And then with Fallout 3, the DLC adds hours of gameplay (depending on your gaming speed) and new traits to the main game (weapons, enemies, etc.). The game is still complete without the DLC but it even adds to the quality of future games (such as Fallout: New Vegas, thus adding more value for your dollar). If you're a smart consumer, you purchase the GotYE, which means you save considerably and get the same material (plus whatever other perks come with the edition, such as the map, bobblehead, etc.). On top of that (which could arguably be quantified), there are the many directions you can take your character, adding the same element of replayability.
I'm sure there is bad DLC, but if I get so much as Diablo II: Lord of Destruction quality or above without breaking the bank, I'm a happy camper.
Sure are a lot of "my opinion is better than yours" people in these here forums. I feel like putting in my slightly derogatory comments too.
I don't think many people have a problem with good DLC, but the unhappy campers (me included) with the newest fad is that for every good DLC, there are 2 bad ones. And to quantify what I consider as bad, they're not worth the price of admission. $10 for an actual six hour adventure isn't so bad. $10 for a six hour adventure that really only takes me 2 hours is not. $15 for 3 multiplayer maps? No. Thankyou. DLC that was taken out of the game for the sole purpose of selling it? Bad. I still savor the tears of the legion of captain bioware's who still deny that Shale was an original character, even though bioware didn't delete all of his original files from the game disc.
Don't buy them you say? I don't. Want me to not complain about it on a public forum about gaming? Go fuck yourself!
I hope for every one sale it each worthless DLC has, it gets pirated 1000 times, so that we can have separate installation limits per DLC, and have to call the developers $4.99/minute hotline every time we have to install them, or that without a constant internet connection the game will force close and your saves will be unloadable... scratch that, the last one already exists.
I'm hoping that when DRM hits full swing on the consoles next generation, coupled with the economy struggling along, that all gaming platforms will huge hits and wipe out most of the playing field. Then maybe we can have some actual new innovation, tech rushing, and advancements instead of the stagnant industry we're rutting around in today.
And in the 10 seconds that I skimmed through, I saw a lot of people mention inflation and how $60 is still a good deal for a game. That's a neat economic 101 tidbit without considering any other factors involved, so since that's cool, I'll throw some in too. Forgetting about production and distribution costs plummeting, as well as the many game companies becoming industry giants, and probably many other factors my economic 201 class didn't teach me, we'll just settle on units sold. More gamers, more systems, more sales, more profit.
I'm still undecided on my view of cosmetic DLC that adds nothing to gameplay. If people want to play Barbie Dress Up Fashion Show, but do it while playing Portal 2 or Hat-Fortress, and are willing to pay lots of money to do so, and it means that I'll get free meaningful updates, then it doesn't sound so bad. The idiots suffer and we all get the benefits. I'd still prefer the old nostalgic ways, but as long as it's not free-to-play, but pay-to-win then it's easier to stomach.
You honestly think that the Fallout DLC is the same quality as LoD was as an expansion? If you paid $50 for just the 5 DLC's from FO3, would it have been a good game? How does that $50 compare to the $50 of the vanilla game?
If you think that DLC is mostly on par with LoD, I either need some of the drugs that you use, or need directions to your state of mind, because reality isn't nearly as nice.
Game of the year edition. I didn't pay anywhere near that for the DLC. It's called smart shopping.
LoD? It gave you 1 of 5 chapters. The smaller missions added by the DLC probably gives you about 1/5 of the total missions, rough estimate. Then it adds weapons and new bad guys that make the rest of the game more versatile and harder. LoD didn't really do that. It added some sets and all, but you don't see those as consistently as FO3. Just like LoD, I can play the game over and over with different builds.
No drugs, just know what I like and am thrifty.
Buying the GotY edition is fine with me. You got a good amount of content at a good price. The developers still only get their $30-$50 from you, and you didn't buy them all on release day. Would you have been satisfied if that GotY edition costs you $120 though? That's my argument against it. Bethesda has made some decent and some terrible DLC, but so far they've added more to the games instead of putting out more "horse armor" items. I'm not going to bat against them. I still won't buy their DLC, but it's not on the evil side of the spectrum.
A lot of DLC isn't like that however, and there aren't GotY editions to buy.
LoD added much more than just a single campaign and a few items. I can make a very long list of all of the improvements it added to the game, but it's not quite relevant to the scope of my argument here. I'm just a bit shocked that you consider them the same, since my opinion is wildly different. And we all know that my opinion is better than everyone else's.
And as for the crappy DLC = crappy expansion argument. It holds a little water, but not enough to sink the boat. If an expansion was terrible, ignoring the fans who will love it despite itself, they didn't hurt the game or the community, other than being disappointing. $30 expansions weren't released a month after the game was, so it wasn't necessary to stay competitive in MP or have the entire game. DLC can fracture gaming communities, especially multiplayer, where as expansions usually brought some new life to them with a group of new players buying "gold" editions, and old players coming back to play for a while longer with the new toys.
Game of the Year editions are great, but as Kodiak888 said, GotY editions aren't always available.
I got Homeworld not long after my dad got this computer I am using, and it was great because that it was the GotY edition, so it came with the soundtrack.
LoD made Diablo II into the game everyone knows, because it was definitely more than a new act, it was a new experience, something Blizzard does better than anybody with their expansions.
Well, that's a major part of my past points. Being responsible is as important for the consumer as it is for the producer.
If everything remained the same price and they just lumped it together, of course I wouldn't be happy with it. I just haven't run across that yet.
I haven't gone for any games that have shaped up this way yet. Keep in mind that I only PC game and am rather picky to make sure the overall game is worth the money and has tons of replayability.
Okay, I'll go with that here. It's hard for me to remember all the details since it's been years and there were quite a few patches. Keeping track of changes was not high on my list of concerns. Even still, I waited to get a cheap, used copy of LoD. Again, thrifty.
I'm not so much aiming to say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. If you find a place in a past post where I said that, let me know and I'll fess up to it. I'm just saying that of the few DLCs (more a casual gamer nowadays) I've bought, I've felt I got my money's worth. But a major part of that is being patient. If I ran out and got every one on release date, I would feel ripped off, but then I could only blame myself as we all know things go down in price along with demand.
ditto
I could argue that this is generally true. Granted, I opted out after Warcraft III. Not a fan. Assuming they have maintained the same general model, I would say that they do well.
Well, the ones I have played have been great, and I barely found out about StarCraft and Diablo, haven't tried to get into Warcraft yet.
I was a fan of Warcraft 1 and 2 and the expansion to 2. Didn't care for the RTS/RPG mix they did for 3 and I felt they back peddled a lot on the story. I know they did an expansion to it just as big as they did for the 2nd, but I wasn't going to bother.
Diablo didn't have an expansion, but the expansion to Diablo 2 was great, as was Brood Wars for Starcraft. Starcraft 2 isn't worth dishing out the cash right now, so I might pick it up well down the line when they have a nouveax battlechest.
That is exactly what I am thinking, and I don't have a computer capable of handling it.
Funny that. Once I saw the price, I didn't even bother checking the specs.
Yeah, the cost is going to be a lot, between Wings of Liberty and the expansions Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void, that is going to be a small fortune.
My main issue with DLC is that it gives gaming companies a solid reason to hold features back at release that otherwise would have been in the game so that they can sell it to you later. DLC also causes companies to lean away from allowing modding by the community (which is many cases produces higher quality free 'DLC').
I'm uncertain about this. The original Starcraft had a mission editor, which makes me wonder if they have one for the second. That aside, Sins has two DLC components out already and another on the way, but the inherent design is to be a highly modifiable game. Total War wasn't an easily modifiable game, but with a little skill it was done and certain versions had DLC or an expansion of some kind. Homeworld was at least as much trouble to mod as anything Total War, maybe more, but not designed with any DLC.
I think modding has to be a forethought, DLC or no. It's become more popular and the designers are making it a little easier here and there, but some genres seem to lack such an intentional design.
I'm not so much aiming to say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. If you find a place in a past post where I said that, let me know and I'll fess up to it.
I wasn't meaning all of my reply toward you, I was just quoting you to respond to the LoD comment. Most of what I type is to be taken in general toward everyone. The rest is just the tantrum of a sarcastic blowhard whose type is often misconstrued without tone to emphasize the meaning.
We do seem to share similar opinions of games, their DLC, and their worth.
P.S. Don't buy Starcraft 2 unless you're really into the multiplayer. I could write another dissertation on how disappointing it is.
That's one thing I've heard on this forum and since the mechanics look similar to the original, I think I'll probably save the cash.
Just checking.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
