Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Ohh yeah the Sims 2 DLC is just a huge collection of rip offs. You can pay a dollar just for a wooden table.

[penguinofhonor]

I mean, they're pretty well known for taking all the extra basic content in expansions (i.e. not new mechanics like pets) and charging extra for it. Just now they've put it in their in-game store instead of "stuff packs".

[Myroc]

I don't get why people are bringing up Planetside 2. You do realize you can unlock everything ingame without paying a single real-world dollar? The real-money option's there for people who want to pay money instead of time to unlock something.

Of course you can. All you need to do is spend two years playing the game nonstop.

[Kanil]

Sims definitely wins this by a wide margin, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

I don't really mind the guns in PS2 (cert gain has basically more than doubled since open beta, and prices have gone down) but the camouflages are pretty ridiculous. $5 for your soldier, then $5 for his vehicle, then $5 for his gun. Then another set or two should you want your camo to match the environment you're in. 'course you can get all this on sale and pay a lot less, but it seems pretty rude to sell it this way.

[majikero]

Bah, those camo skins are useless anyways. I tend to shoot things not in my team's color.

[CognitiveDissonance]

I really, really don't understand the PS2 hate. The game itself is F2P and the paid unlocks are a core mechanic. Free games still need to earn money, and I personally am happy to give $5-$15 to a company I like for every month I play. It's like an MMO subscription, except I get shinies out of it. No complaints.

In addition to that, for everything infantry, the regular gun is usually (almost) the best choice for all but the most dedicated players. If you are extremely dedicated, you then actually benefit from the other guns. Not quite the same for vehicles, but still applies.

As far as my personal most offensive DLC... it's a tie between Call of Duty DLC's and Sims series.

For Call of Duty, it being a multiplayer game, I feel the DLC is necessary to actually play the game properly. The new content is what is going to attract the players, and is extremely expensive for what it is. After I saw $45 worth of DLC come out in short succession, I stopped playing the game and haven't invested into the series for years now.

For Sims, the DLC's are way too expensive given their quantity. Especially considering that they have come out so long ago.
During Christmas season, there was a 66% sale on Steam. Sims 3 still went over $100 just for the content I'd actually want. I said screw it, and didn't buy it.

That said, I appreciate season passes for games. Sometimes, it's silly. In a lot of cases though, I like the ability to prepay for all future DLC's.

Yeah. In general, I don't mind DLC and F2P markets - just make it worth my money.

[PrimusRibbus]

I don't really mind the guns in PS2 (cert gain has basically more than doubled since open beta, and prices have gone down) but the camouflages are pretty ridiculous. $5 for your soldier, then $5 for his vehicle, then $5 for his gun. Then another set or two should you want your camo to match the environment you're in. 'course you can get all this on sale and pay a lot less, but it seems pretty rude to sell it this way.

That's what I don't really understand about the complaints. You can try every gun before you buy in trials and VR, and cert gain is so over the top now that most people I know (even casual PS2 players) are sitting on a couple thousand certs.
I guess if you're an OCD completionist it could be pretty frustrating, but once you've figured out your preferred playstyle it's pretty easy to get the build you want and have certs leftover in case of buffs/nerds (which, admittedly, SoE has been way too over-the-top with).

I do agree that the cosmetics are a little highly priced though. I've taken to running only my outfit's uniform these days (bought on sale for 250 SC) as I can't see myself spending $7 for a skin.

[miauw62]

Agreed with both of thte above.

[Girlinhat]

Any DLC that comes out on launch day.  See: Paradox games.  They did Mount and Blade right, they did Magicka and Leviathans: Warships wrong.  On THE DAY OF RELEASE, Leviathans had 2 DLC for extra ships you could add to your choices.

Pre-order content is also one of the shittiest things ever.

[hector13]

I remember back in the day when new content generally was added free (via patching) or just released in a new game (expansion pack, sequel etc.)

All this DLC nonsense is just because companies hire so many people that it costs them more to make the game than they can reasonably make back in sales. Consequently, they tend to rush the game in order to minimise that cost, and as a result release a sub-par game that needs to be fixed, and then some have the audacity to charge for that. It's a sickening state of affairs, particularly if they create this stuff before the game even comes out, and put it on the disc too!

When I pay upwards of $50 for a game, I don't want to buy the rest of it later, okay?

[CognitiveDissonance]

I remember back in the day when new content generally was added free (via patching) or just released in a new game (expansion pack, sequel etc.)

All this DLC nonsense is just because companies hire so many people that it costs them more to make the game than they can reasonably make back in sales. Consequently, they tend to rush the game in order to minimise that cost, and as a result release a sub-par game that needs to be fixed, and then some have the audacity to charge for that. It's a sickening state of affairs, particularly if they create this stuff before the game even comes out, and put it on the disc too!

When I pay upwards of $50 for a game, I don't want to buy the rest of it later, okay?

Well okay, I feel like doing a short aside on this. Which I'll spoiler as it's midly OT.

Spoiler: Aside (click to show/hide)

From the industry's perspective, games have come to be very, very, very expensive to develop. As expensive as, or sometimes more than, movies.As a result, only the Most Likely to Succeed usually get past the planning stage, and even then it doesn't always happen. This is the same reason why there is an ongoing gold rush to mobile development as it is significantly cheaper.

The costs include the normal programming costs, voice talent (which is ridiculously expensive), video talent, license costs, testing costs, more license costs, advertising overhead and finally, even more license costs.

From what I understand, an ongoing DLC model is a way to make games more appealing to publishers, as they will make money over time in exchange for lower initial return. This potentially allows a wider variety of games to roll out of the programming factories of all major manufacturers. Before DLC model was proven to work, there was talk about drastically increasing game costs because studios simply could not break even in their contracts with the publishers.

Now arguably this is a symptom of a terrible publishing industry, but that is a horse I'd rather not beat with a stick here and now.
It is also why we are seeing what I call an indie revolution, where people leave the programming/publishing industry behind and try to make it on their own using the power of internet.

Indie games come with very different expectations, and different sales goals. Rarely do they sell as much as a big game, but they never cost as much. This is due to the fact that they rarely require propriatery technology/licenses as well as highly paid voice talent. At the same time, those are completely expected from AAA titles and I suspect the industry does not feel like they can afford to risk NOT having the best in that department. And the cycle repeats, and that's how 2013 gaming came to be.

Do remember that the predicted future is that all games will be downloadable for free, with varying degrees of DLC/cash shop support/requirement.

TL;DR - DLC also exists to allow more games to see the light of day, but may or may not be a symptom of an ailing industry rather than a step forward

[Neonivek]

Sims definitely wins this by a wide margin, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

It is pretty bad. It fulfills these
1) It is overly expencive
2) It does very little
3) The game nags you with DLC IN GAME unless you turn it off
4) Even if you DO turn it off there are two large distracting buttons for DLC

But still On disk DLC is the worst anyhow.

[Enzo]

I'm surprised Train Simulator 2013 hasn't been mentioned.

Add all DLC to cart : 2501.85 USD

There's not really a whole lot more that can be said about that.

[Canisaur]

Yeah but Train sim's DLC actually adds completely different content (and there are probably over 100 DLC).  I agree that it's too expensive ($20 just to drive a different train model around), but it's not 'offensive' in that it's not like EA's DLC that are really just patches to fix what was broken on release.

[EnigmaticHat]

While I admit I was playing PS2 a while back when cert gain was generally agreed to be "glacial", the thing that really annoys me about PS is how specific the unlocks are.  I can upgrade one aspect, of one class,vehicle, or weapon, of one character, on one team, on one server.  On top of that, the cert cost to fully upgrade the base stats of single vehicle (again, this is without purchasing extra weapons, and only for a single character that cannot switch teams or servers) is something in the area of 5000 cert assuming you never switch gear, which is more I saw in all my not insignificant time playing the game.  The in-game vehicle purchase system also encourages you to upgrade air vehicles, land vehicles, and MAXs separately, each of which require the similar time and money investments.  Each aspect of each class must also be upgraded separately (I think there's 4-6 gear slots for each) and each weapon can be upgraded as well.  And if what you want to see what a different team plays like, have fun doing it all over again.