Members see less ads - sign up now for free and join the community!
Excessive in the unnecessary sense. In the sense that they're releasing it for the sake of it.
I have nothing against pre-order DLC, as long as it's not something like an entire section of the game that was removed from the game to serve as Day One DLC, like with Mass Effect 3 and DmC Devil May Cry. As for the art gallery and blood DLC, the notion is what I find so ludicrous. Even if it's free, it goes back to the first point. Of being something that should be in the game already, but removed to serve as DLC. What is the point of adding something that you could easily fit into the game via options or a movie theater like in FFX?
DLC should be more something made after the game has already been released and they want to add extra content for it. Or small bonuses like exclusive weapons that you only get for either Xbox One or PS4, or from Amazon.
I have nothing against pre-order DLC, as long as it's not something like an entire section of the game that was removed from the game to serve as Day One DLC, like with Mass Effect 3 and DmC Devil May Cry. As for the art gallery and blood DLC, the notion is what I find so ludicrous. Even if it's free, it goes back to the first point. Of being something that should be in the game already, but removed to serve as DLC. What is the point of adding something that you could easily fit into the game via options or a movie theater like in FFX?
DLC should be more something made after the game has already been released and they want to add extra content for it. Or small bonuses like exclusive weapons that you only get for either Xbox One or PS4, or from Amazon.
1. There´s nothing saying that this [insert extra feature here] should and shouldn´t be in the game other than consumer preference.
2. You already said, they will be releasing content made for the game after it releases, no problem there.
3. You already answered it once again, the art gallery and blood DLC will be bonuses, which non of them are detrimental to the product whether they are absent or not.
2. You already said, they will be releasing content made for the game after it releases, no problem there.
3. You already answered it once again, the art gallery and blood DLC will be bonuses, which non of them are detrimental to the product whether they are absent or not.
Likes:
LeonBlade
You're missing the point. Why should an art gallery be DLC? What is the point of that? It's nothing that needs to be made DLC. If you don't want to include it in the game, there's always artbooks. But an having an entire DLC based on inserting art into the game is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. It doesn't work as a DLC option.
Don't condescend to me by saying I answered my own questions. I didn't ask about whether or not I gave an answer. I asked for your opinion. My opinion quite frankly is that it's a stupid idea. If you don't agree, just say so, but don't act like you're somehow superior to me when you phrase it like that.
Don't condescend to me by saying I answered my own questions. I didn't ask about whether or not I gave an answer. I asked for your opinion. My opinion quite frankly is that it's a stupid idea. If you don't agree, just say so, but don't act like you're somehow superior to me when you phrase it like that.
No one said you had to download it...? What if the art gallery is simply something they don't feel is important to the main game and so they focus on the main game and add DLC for the art gallery at a later time. Why do you feel the need to incessantly criticize every practice that they may or may not do. No one is forcing your hand or telling you what to do, but when people give you an answer, it's met with this defiant behavior.
Likes:
Bites the dust
The interviewer asked if it'd cost money, he said it like there's no way they'd charge for such a little thing like that. It'll be a bonus for people who want it. It's right now just a thing they worked out to play around with VR. If they release it, It'll be free.
Likes:
Rin and LeonBlade
NOW for my rant about people who complain about DLC. (I've started this a couple of times but got distracted). This is an in-general editorial, not directed at any individual.
It's time to get over it.
I do understand then when it was a new concept, it's a scary proposition. Visions of the worst case scenario flying around. Complaints about having to pay for something you think should be free. Fears of companies blocking important story content. I get it. I may not understand basic sentence structure, but I get the fears.
But, as I assured people something like a decade ago, the market will find itself. And, by and large, it has. If a company today tried some kind of pure evil scheme to put their main content behind a paywall, they'll be ostracized. They've, for the most part, found their middle ground already. Generally unimportant/pure cosmetic stuff as optional paid DLC, and general content added as free DLC, unless it's part of something big enough to be considered an expansion pack, which is really not that different.
It's not perfect and never will be, but the benefits are absolutely tremendous. EVERYBODY wins. It's healthy for the video game economy. It's good for people who don't want to pay $89.95 for a standard video game. It's good for independent developers that need a way to get people to try their games. It's good for the people who have more money than sense that don't mind paying a little extra so they can level a little faster or look cooler doing it.
If there was no such thing as DLC/Microtransactions, 10 years from now, the industry, if i hadn't collapsed by then, would be nothing but the top 20 or so companies making the same shit over and over again. New/independent developers would have a hard time breaking into the scene at all. The major companies would have a stranglehold on the market because the costs associated with getting your name out there. Not unlike the cable/tv industry is today. You won't see too many mom and pop cable companies spending the billions of dollars it takes to build their own infrastructure just so they can compete with the company that's already there and doesn't have as many costs to recuperate. They just keep trading the already built systems and don't have to compete with anyone.
And because of that, we'd get no new ideas. Everything would be another sequel. No indie companies out there to come up with new concepts for the bigger companies to emulate or improve upon. Prices would also go up as the market would be heavily in favor of the game companies and not the fans. It's basic supply and demand: The bigger companies wouldn't have to compete with the little guys, but the demand wouldn't go away. They'd have complete control over the market.
Now, as a result of those independent developers, right now AAA games are in trouble. They can't raise their prices without the internet having a collective heart attack, but they also can't make a profit to counter the budgets. DLC allows them to have some content available for people who WANT to pay extra to feel like their money isn't wasted, and today, every effort is made to make sure that the people not paying for it don't feel like they're getting gypped. You don't need the Mage Mashers to enjoy FFXV, but if someone wants to pay extra for them, they get a neat little bonus, the company makes a profit and future awesome titles, and you got, essentially, a game that should cost $89.95 for 60 bucks.
So, it's time to get over it. Complaining about there being basic DLC jsut comes off as a little bit childish and selfish at the same time. The industry does not exist to bend to your whims. The money, which is the lifeblood of any industry, needs to flow. Profits need to be made. I don't think a lot of people truly understand what goes into these games. FFXV has thus far taken 300 people 5+ years (minus gaps) to build. That's a hell of a project. Hopefully, it's a hell of a game. Luckily, we don't have to pay what we should have to pay to make that happen, the profits are coming from all over. If it was a 1:1 transaction, a game like that might have to costs everyone $120 just to try it, but DLC (across all of their games, which this game should promote) allows them so many opportunities for the money to trickle in from people voluntarily paying for things you never have to pay for if you don't want to, that they can afford to put the game out at a reasonable price for everyone.
(Edit: In this particular case, it takes an effort to think of it as a bad thing. Not only is Tabata talking about free DLC, he's answering people's demands for features that aren't planned by telling them that once the game is done, they just might go ahead and give that to you. There's nothing bad about that at all. Hell, that wasn't even possible 10 years ago.)
It's time to get over it.
I do understand then when it was a new concept, it's a scary proposition. Visions of the worst case scenario flying around. Complaints about having to pay for something you think should be free. Fears of companies blocking important story content. I get it. I may not understand basic sentence structure, but I get the fears.
But, as I assured people something like a decade ago, the market will find itself. And, by and large, it has. If a company today tried some kind of pure evil scheme to put their main content behind a paywall, they'll be ostracized. They've, for the most part, found their middle ground already. Generally unimportant/pure cosmetic stuff as optional paid DLC, and general content added as free DLC, unless it's part of something big enough to be considered an expansion pack, which is really not that different.
It's not perfect and never will be, but the benefits are absolutely tremendous. EVERYBODY wins. It's healthy for the video game economy. It's good for people who don't want to pay $89.95 for a standard video game. It's good for independent developers that need a way to get people to try their games. It's good for the people who have more money than sense that don't mind paying a little extra so they can level a little faster or look cooler doing it.
If there was no such thing as DLC/Microtransactions, 10 years from now, the industry, if i hadn't collapsed by then, would be nothing but the top 20 or so companies making the same shit over and over again. New/independent developers would have a hard time breaking into the scene at all. The major companies would have a stranglehold on the market because the costs associated with getting your name out there. Not unlike the cable/tv industry is today. You won't see too many mom and pop cable companies spending the billions of dollars it takes to build their own infrastructure just so they can compete with the company that's already there and doesn't have as many costs to recuperate. They just keep trading the already built systems and don't have to compete with anyone.
And because of that, we'd get no new ideas. Everything would be another sequel. No indie companies out there to come up with new concepts for the bigger companies to emulate or improve upon. Prices would also go up as the market would be heavily in favor of the game companies and not the fans. It's basic supply and demand: The bigger companies wouldn't have to compete with the little guys, but the demand wouldn't go away. They'd have complete control over the market.
Now, as a result of those independent developers, right now AAA games are in trouble. They can't raise their prices without the internet having a collective heart attack, but they also can't make a profit to counter the budgets. DLC allows them to have some content available for people who WANT to pay extra to feel like their money isn't wasted, and today, every effort is made to make sure that the people not paying for it don't feel like they're getting gypped. You don't need the Mage Mashers to enjoy FFXV, but if someone wants to pay extra for them, they get a neat little bonus, the company makes a profit and future awesome titles, and you got, essentially, a game that should cost $89.95 for 60 bucks.
So, it's time to get over it. Complaining about there being basic DLC jsut comes off as a little bit childish and selfish at the same time. The industry does not exist to bend to your whims. The money, which is the lifeblood of any industry, needs to flow. Profits need to be made. I don't think a lot of people truly understand what goes into these games. FFXV has thus far taken 300 people 5+ years (minus gaps) to build. That's a hell of a project. Hopefully, it's a hell of a game. Luckily, we don't have to pay what we should have to pay to make that happen, the profits are coming from all over. If it was a 1:1 transaction, a game like that might have to costs everyone $120 just to try it, but DLC (across all of their games, which this game should promote) allows them so many opportunities for the money to trickle in from people voluntarily paying for things you never have to pay for if you don't want to, that they can afford to put the game out at a reasonable price for everyone.
(Edit: In this particular case, it takes an effort to think of it as a bad thing. Not only is Tabata talking about free DLC, he's answering people's demands for features that aren't planned by telling them that once the game is done, they just might go ahead and give that to you. There's nothing bad about that at all. Hell, that wasn't even possible 10 years ago.)
If it's not planned, he should have just said that, he shouldn't have offered up an idea that is idiotic to do. Whether or not it's free isn't the issue. Whether or not there's too much isn't the issue. There are tons of games that make DLC in large quantities work. I'm not saying that DLC is in general is bad. What I want to point out is that maybe there should be a limit to what type of content should be DLC and in game already and what should probably not even be considered as DLC.
Having an art gallery as DLC doesn't work because, even though it's not planned to be featured in the game, it doesn't even have to be. There are plenty of other ways to share art. Such as the art books that come with the limited edition or collectors editions.
But when larges chunks of a game that was planned to be part of the game but then taken out to be Day One DLC? I'm not talking about weapons or music. I'm talking about an entire playable scenario that wasn't made after the games release and intended to be part of the main being taken out and used to wring more money out of the players. Such as DmC and ME3 as I mentioned. How about that?
Now, if you don't mind this, that's fine. But lots of us still have issues with how certain DLC is made and marketed, and it's fine to feel differently about it.
Having an art gallery as DLC doesn't work because, even though it's not planned to be featured in the game, it doesn't even have to be. There are plenty of other ways to share art. Such as the art books that come with the limited edition or collectors editions.
But when larges chunks of a game that was planned to be part of the game but then taken out to be Day One DLC? I'm not talking about weapons or music. I'm talking about an entire playable scenario that wasn't made after the games release and intended to be part of the main being taken out and used to wring more money out of the players. Such as DmC and ME3 as I mentioned. How about that?
Now, if you don't mind this, that's fine. But lots of us still have issues with how certain DLC is made and marketed, and it's fine to feel differently about it.
You're allowed to have a different opinion on it all you want, but it doesn't mean it's not transparently misguided.
Likes:
LeonBlade and Bites the dust
Being misguided and having a different opinion isn't the same thing. Misguided is if I were to send a letter to SE telling them that they're horrible people and I'd wish they'd lose their jobs. Because that wouldn't solve anything and is just not an acceptable way to handle anything.
In the end, SE is a business and making money is the point. But that doesn't mean that you can't criticize how they choose to make money, as long as aren't attacking them for it. I don't like the proposals for certain DLC that Tabata has suggested. I think that releasing an art gallery DLC is not exactly a good idea for a DLC. Not because it wouldn't sell or anything, but because it's a pointless addition that wouldn't add anything to the game like new scenarios or costumes and stuff would. The point of DLC is to experience the game in a new light. Adding an art gallery that wasn't there before doesn't change the game unless you have to collect them, like the Crown Puzzles in Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix. If it was something like that, then that'd be a worth while thing because it's not adding just a new thing in the menu to look at. But an actual new minigame that would justify going around and looking for it to try and collect it.
In the end, SE is a business and making money is the point. But that doesn't mean that you can't criticize how they choose to make money, as long as aren't attacking them for it. I don't like the proposals for certain DLC that Tabata has suggested. I think that releasing an art gallery DLC is not exactly a good idea for a DLC. Not because it wouldn't sell or anything, but because it's a pointless addition that wouldn't add anything to the game like new scenarios or costumes and stuff would. The point of DLC is to experience the game in a new light. Adding an art gallery that wasn't there before doesn't change the game unless you have to collect them, like the Crown Puzzles in Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix. If it was something like that, then that'd be a worth while thing because it's not adding just a new thing in the menu to look at. But an actual new minigame that would justify going around and looking for it to try and collect it.
Exactly.
I'm not saying you have no right to express your opinion. I'm saying you attitude/understanding of DLC is fundamentally misguided. This is why you've gained absolutely no traction on your complaints. And you won't, except in the presence of others who are also equally misguided. I'm sure you mean well.
I'm not saying you have no right to express your opinion. I'm saying you attitude/understanding of DLC is fundamentally misguided. This is why you've gained absolutely no traction on your complaints. And you won't, except in the presence of others who are also equally misguided. I'm sure you mean well.
Likes:
LeonBlade and Bites the dust
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=straw+man+examples
Criticism about the game is not automatically dismissed as misguided. Your opinions on this matter are being dismissed as misguided because they are based on an incomplete or distorted understanding.
Criticism about the game is not automatically dismissed as misguided. Your opinions on this matter are being dismissed as misguided because they are based on an incomplete or distorted understanding.
Likes:
LeonBlade
You do realize that instead of linking something, you could have just said "You come off as a strawman", right?
Again, a question then, how am I a stray man when I didn't even state that I was absolutely right or that I knew exactly what I was talking about? Did I say I know what Tabata is thinking?
No, I didn't. I said I wasn't a fan of the DLC proposals, that's all. I gave plenty of examples to support how I feel that DLC can be implemented poorly. That isn't a strawman's argument, that's just giving a different idea based only on what has been given to us. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's in anyway misguided.
Again, a question then, how am I a stray man when I didn't even state that I was absolutely right or that I knew exactly what I was talking about? Did I say I know what Tabata is thinking?
No, I didn't. I said I wasn't a fan of the DLC proposals, that's all. I gave plenty of examples to support how I feel that DLC can be implemented poorly. That isn't a strawman's argument, that's just giving a different idea based only on what has been given to us. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's in anyway misguided.