The VG Resource

maps or weapons make more sense then NOW YOU CAN PLAY AS SOMEONE FROM SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY though

Yay now I can pay for a gun to shoot people with for a game I already completed! AWESOME!
Not to mention it's unfair on the people who don't have the gun... or the maps... thus booting you out from games and giving up on playing it.

The only good DLC was the WipeOut HD expansion, but that was pretty much a whole new game.

how is it unfair when you're not allowed to play with people who have dlc you dont have

The only GOOD DLC that I know of is for Crackdown, but it can be argued that the features that the DLC gives you should've been in the game anyway.

Either way, it adds some fun new stuff to the game.

Because its a way of MAKING you buy stuff you don't care about just so you can continue playing the game you already paid for.

(02-04-2010, 08:20 PM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]Because its a way of MAKING you buy stuff you don't care about just so you can continue playing the game you already paid for.

only not really if its pulled off right

like in Killzone 2

there's 6 DLC maps
and around 3 games out of the 20 or so in the lobby(at my rank) at any given time that actually use them


the maps are fun, you get weapons exclusive to two of the maps(boltgun can only be used in arctower landing, and flamethrower can only be used in sujeva cliffside) and more trophies(the ps3 equivalent to achievements) after buying them for some added fun, and they really do nothing to detract from the game's fun


this same method for map DLC is used in most games

explain how having maps that allow people who pay for them to have extra fun somehow takes from the fun people who don't pay have
because i dont get it

DLC should NEVER be used to unlock content that's already on the game disc. You spent 60 bucks on the isc, so you should have access to all of the content on it.

But DLC as far as downloading new things is fine, as much as I dislike it.

yeah i guess that's what im getting at


all the DLC i've gotten up to this point had trophies and shit that came with the DLC itself

it wasn't in the list of stuff to get before you downloaded it


DLC like this is good


DLC that you are required to get to 100% the game is stupid

(02-04-2010, 09:00 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]But DLC as far as downloading new things is fine, as much as I dislike it.

It's pretty much a development company's way of being lazy

"Bugs? bah, I'll fix it in the DLC"
"Actually make better maps/graphics? bah, I'll add it in the DLC"

Again with a crackdown example, it had one of the best ways of handling DLC also.
Essentially, the way it worked is that it came with one free DLC pack and another paid DLC pack.
The free one was basically a game update/upgrade, while the paid one actually unlocked content like weapons and cars and stuff.

However, if you didn't get the paid DLC but played Co-op online with someone who did, the game would allow you to temporarily use all of the paid stuff until your online session with that person was over, essentially making it a "try-before-you-buy" type thing.

All games should do that if they have DLC.

---

(02-04-2010, 09:04 PM)SengirDev Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-04-2010, 09:00 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]But DLC as far as downloading new things is fine, as much as I dislike it.

It's pretty much a development company's way of being lazy

"Bugs? bah, I'll fix it in the DLC"
"Actually make better maps/graphics? bah, I'll add it in the DLC"

Not only this, but gimping the source game to be lazy as you said, or providing the full experience after a separate purchase just to make a quick buck is a really dick move.

or just that publishers prefer to not spend so much on content that maybe wont be used of the game goes down. from a financial point of view, it makese sense, they dont want to waste money on stuff that wont even be used.

dlc is also a way to keep people hooked within a game, before they get rid of it. but really, you can live entirely without downloading anything for anything and still be happy. a fake sense of 'option', but its still there.

I'm talking games that are purposely gimped in order to make a quick buck off the DLC. I can't name any off the top of my head, but I'm sure they're out there.

Essentially, what I mean is how perfect dark for the N64 had no single player, half the multiplayer modes, and only half the maps and characters if you had no expansion pack.
While that was forced due to hardware limitations and isn't the best example, the fact that 3/4ths of the game isn't even playable is comparable to what some games have going with their DLC.

I'm perfectly fine with adding NEW content when they make it after the game's release, but taking out stuff that was supposed to be in the original game anyway and making is DLC is a dick move.

But yeah, I get your point.

Crackdown allowing you to 'share' it on co-op was an awesome idea.
Too bad that game will no longer let me play it...

Saints Row 2 DLC... now THAT was ass.

RE5 DLC is the best example of this.

you have to pay an extra $5 to unlock Versus mode, even though Versus trophies are already listed in the trophies list???????

Beautiful Katamari for the 360 is like that too. It's got achievements from the start that are only unlockable when you buy the DLC. After you've unlocked every level in the game, there are actually still a bunch of empty areas on the map, because they're where the DLC levels go. Fuck crippleware, there's really no excuse for it except "we wanted more money."