EA have finally pushed the post-launch DLC thing too far.

johnny_ultimate · 30-03-2011 6:44pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Just curiosity... What does change in newer titles of same golf game? I am talking not the upgrade from normal to hd, but those that are all hd. It's golf... Same idea... Ball, field, hole...

If there are same courses on bouth games, what is tue change then so that it would force me to buy new title?

I am not bashing new one or old one, I newer ever played golf games, so I am just want to know

Same things as any sports game or sequel I'd imagine - improved mechanics being the major one (like many games of all genres actually). I'm sure the hardcore fans will explain in detail. Like I still see FIFA as guys running around a pitch, but I'm assured by more intense soccer fans than I that they are improvements. Really.

gizmo · 30-03-2011 6:46pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

i did not brushed them all in same color, no need making this: i "are" smart, so i wount bother discussing it with you.

You haven't done it but many others both on this thread and others have however.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

i dont need explanation why content is on the disc, we all know why: its easyer to handle content, no need additional servers online, they put it on the disc so its even more cheaper and profitable to make money. moust of us dont AGREE with content that is physicly on your "property" cannot be used unless you pay more money! And if that content was developed allready, why its not part of the game. Moust of us DONT AGREE with stuff which was unlocable by playing games, is now a dlc for which you got to pay more money.

And this is why I said I wasn't going to continue debating it, you've basically ignored most of my posts above and what the developers (not publishers) themselves have said despite it making sense technically.

For what it's worth, neither the publishers nor the developers host said content online, it's all done by the platform holders.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

DLC is a great great idea, but like any good idea, when greedy people come near it, they will feck it up.

I completely agree.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

you cant understand the frustration alot of people have, and just putting it off in " bad avertised at release " wount make your argument solid.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there but I understand people's frustrations when it makes sense. From what I've seen of the Tiger Woods situation it does not make sense to be frustrated. EA have given you the same number of courses as in previous iterations AND given you the ability to replay some of your old favourite courses from previous iterations via DLC. Simple as.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

great ida of dlc: fallout series. Developers gave theyr best and made fallout 3, everyone plays it, some enjoying it, some hating it. when people got all content completed, developers gave anather bit of content for a tenner. It gave people more gametime out of theyr game, to ather - a reason to buy game, as that dlc might be more appealing then original story etc.

And how do you know that content wasn't already completed before launch? Fallout 3 was released at the end of October '08 and the first batch of DLC was released in January '09. You think it took them three months including Christmas to put that together?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

bad dlc: making a game like this golf game, before even be able to buy it or seing a review of the game, you allready offered a DLC!!! So you buy a game, and then buy a right to use content on the disc? that game has such a huge dlc list on release date! how can you look at it and say: yup, thats how it should be!

As has previously been stated you are getting the same number of courses as in the previous iterations. If you wish to play MORE courses then you can pay extra for them but you still have 100% of the game to use your example earlier. More importantly, if the number of courses in the current iteration had been reduced compared to previous years and said DLC was available THEN I'd happily agree with you.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

we all know, that EA made crapy way of dlc, becouse of the second hand game market. gamestop can resale one game 5 times and make all the money, while EA got money only from the first sale. So its greed fighting bigger greed. even so, if dlc that comes on release date is free with NEW game purchase, then its reasonable. As it will bite in the arse not a EA customer, but gamestop customer.

I assume you're talking about the Online Pass which is a totally different issue.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

How come the mod community is still able to churn them out at a fast rate at a quality that can eclipse paid for DLC and all for free? I also very much doubt that a costume pack requires much work.

Apologies Retr0gamer, only spotted this now. Well why do some indie titles play better than AAA games? Just because someone is paid to work in a studio doesn't mean there aren't people out there who can do a better job. But with regards current platforms, said new content has to be tested internally by the studios QA and then passed onto platform cert so the process is drawn out even longer than it should.

As for the costume pack not taking much work, well tell that the to the artist who has to create it. Of course it doesn't take as long as creating an entirely new model but it sure as hell takes longer than what it used to in the last gen.

Hogzy wrote: »

What i highlighted above was free on previous games since the series began. Its an absolute joke how much they are charging. Fair enough if the RRP was like €20 but this game will be €50-60 in shops. Seeing that list puts me off buying from EA ever again.

Some of what you highlighted was included in last years version of the game according to the list provided by Helix so I'd hardly consider it "free".

Hogzy wrote: »

I dont know why this DLC thing has become so bad on consoles. It was never bad for PC's and they always had access to the internet.

It's the distribution system via XBL/PSN that has made it easier.

ShadowHearth · 30-03-2011 7:02pm

Gizmo. I was not talking about online pass, which is sort of a joke too.

Dragon age 1 and 2, mass effect 2, forza 3. got dlcs which are activated when you buy a game. You basicly enter a code to get that content. So when I trade in game I take those 2 dlcs with me, ather person who gets my game second hand wount be able to play those dlcs, he will have to pay for them.

As for fallout 3, you are right, but I said that in my previuos posts. No one knows how much content developers did before release and how much of that content was cut out to make more money. Fallout had moust fair dlc I ever came across. That was a big gap you mentioned, you said yourself it takes time make content. And yes not you, not me know when they made it, but in recent games of EA we 100% know they had content done, but decided to charge extra for it in nice cover of dlc.

We bouth agree that dlc is a great idea, but now developers started abusing it. As what suppost to be an additional content became an extra charge on content that had to be in game!

They are getting away with it now. As sad as it is, it's feck all we can do with the likes of EA, as they got bought biggest and best gaming names... I hate what it does, but I know I will bitch, rant, you will listen

, and in the end of the day I will go and buy bf3, me 3, nfs shift 2....

Retr0gamer · 30-03-2011 7:08pm

Considering the complete and utter mess that Bethesda made out of releasing the first 3 DLC packs to Fallout 3, I'm pretty sure they were still making them up until release.

ShadowHearth · 30-03-2011 7:12pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Considering the complete and utter mess that Bethesda made out of releasing the first 3 DLC packs to Fallout 3, I'm pretty sure they were still making them up until release.

I got them as goty. The one with slavers and the one in a swamp were prety good. Will have to come back and finish the rest.

P.s my moust favourite game in the world is still fallout 2, amd fallout 3 camt even stand near it, but as there is no fallout 2.5 I have to make the best of 3++

gizmo · 30-03-2011 7:26pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Dragon age 1 and 2, mass effect 2, forza 3. got dlcs which are activated when you buy a game. You basicly enter a code to get that content. So when I trade in game I take those 2 dlcs with me, ather person who gets my game second hand wount be able to play those dlcs, he will have to pay for them.

Well treating those as an incentive for first time buyers is pretty much fine as far as I'm concerned, given that neither the publisher nor developer will see a penny from that second hand sale.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

As for fallout 3, you are right, but I said that in my previuos posts. No one knows how much content developers did before release and how much of that content was cut out to make more money. Fallout had moust fair dlc I ever came across. That was a big gap you mentioned, you said yourself it takes time make content. And yes not you, not me know when they made it, but in recent games of EA we 100% know they had content done, but decided to charge extra for it in nice cover of dlc.

Well my points here are related, who cares when it was made as long as you get the "full game". For Fallout 3 I doubt anyone came away from the game feeling they had been ripped off, the DLC was just a nice addition. With Tiger Woods you're getting another 17 courses this year just like last year when you got a different 17. Again, there is some DLC which is a nice addition should you wish to get more content.

In each case, you're still getting the full game but also have the option of getting more content. As I said above, if you weren't getting the full game but that DLC existed then you would be in a situation where you could complain about being ripped off.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Considering the complete and utter mess that Bethesda made out of releasing the first 3 DLC packs to Fallout 3, I'm pretty sure they were still making them up until release.

Bugged to hell? Most definitely. But no way they started development on it after the release of the game or after it went gold.

Helix · 30-03-2011 7:27pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Just curiosity... What does change in newer titles of same golf game? I am talking not the upgrade from normal to hd, but those that are all hd. It's golf... Same idea... Ball, field, hole...

If there are same courses on bouth games, what is tue change then so that it would force me to buy new title?

I am not bashing new one or old one, I newer ever played golf games, so I am just want to know

well this time around theyve managed to make what was a previously good game into a complete pile of turd

thats quite a change

Helix · 30-03-2011 7:28pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Gizmo. I was not talking about online pass, which is sort of a joke too.

absolutely nothing wrong with online pass

super_furry · 30-03-2011 7:33pm

Helix wrote: »

absolutely nothing wrong with online pass

That's one thing I'd agree on. Developers are well within their rights to claim a slice of GAME's and Gamespot's pawnshop deals.

Retr0gamer · 30-03-2011 7:33pm

gizmo wrote: »

Bugged to hell? Most definitely. But no way they started development on it after the release of the game or after it went gold.

Not bugged to hell more like putting up an unfinished build on the first day of the DLC before later correcting it. Full of placeholder textures or no textures at all. Weird thing was they managed to do it three times in a row.

Venom · 30-03-2011 7:48pm

DLC when done right such as Fallout3, GTA IV and Borderland adds value to the original game. Sadly EA, Bioware and Microsoft produce rip off DLC which is really nothing more that bits cut out of the full game served up as an extra money grabbing method to fleece the customer.

al28283 · 30-03-2011 7:58pm

The one thing I really hate is when I spend 20+ hours unlocking guns/maps/cars or whatever unlockables are in the game and then someone who has just bought the game can buy all the unlockables straight away.

gizmo · 30-03-2011 7:59pm

Venom wrote: »

DLC when done right such as Fallout3, GTA IV and Borderland adds value to the original game. Sadly EA, Bioware and Microsoft produce rip off DLC which is really nothing more that bits cut out of the full game served up as an extra money grabbing method to fleece the customer.

You mean Dragon Age there because the DLC for Mass Effect 2 has been pretty great in general.

Venom · 30-03-2011 8:27pm

gizmo wrote: »

You mean Dragon Age there because the DLC for Mass Effect 2 has been pretty great in general.

Yeah Dragon Age 1 and 2 launch day DLC pretty much killed any respect I had for Bioware as being a quality software studio.

keane2097 · 31-03-2011 6:43pm

Hogzy wrote: »

What i highlighted above was free on previous games since the series began. Its an absolute joke how much they are charging. Fair enough if the RRP was like €20 but this game will be €50-60 in shops. Seeing that list puts me off buying from EA ever again.

I dont know why this DLC thing has become so bad on consoles. It was never bad for PC's and they always had access to the internet.

EA are probably the worst out there for DLC though.
Gran Turismo 5. Now theres a game. No DLC and no plans for any. Just FREE updates. Well worth the wait and i am glad i paid full €€€ for the game too.

You're getting much better value with the fact that a lot of the 17 standard courses are new.

If you only get 17 courses and they were all the same as previous releases, while you have to pay for all the new ones then you're getting much more badly fcuked.

CORaven · 01-04-2011 9:26am

Azure_sky · 01-04-2011 4:31pm

E250 for a golf game?! You could get a 3DS with Street fighter for that. I heard golf is a rich persons game but this is taking the p!ss.

Helix · 01-04-2011 6:44pm

Azure_sky wrote: »

E250 for a golf game?! You could get a 3DS with Street fighter for that. I heard golf is a rich persons game but this is taking the p!ss.

sure while youre being completely ridiculous why dont you add on the price of the console, price of the tv, cost of electricity and price of the house to the cost of the game

ArphaRima · 01-04-2011 6:56pm

sure while youre being completely ridiculous why dont you add on the price of the console, price of the tv, cost of electricity and price of the house to the cost of the game

Actually its you that's being ridiculous. He compared a single game plus DLC to being approximate to another game plus a full console. Quite relevant I thought. Not ridiculous at all.
What you say to do is as you say completely ridiculous.

Helix · 01-04-2011 7:31pm

fluffer wrote: »

Actually its you that's being ridiculous. He compared a single game plus DLC to being approximate to another game plus a full console. Quite relevant I thought. Not ridiculous at all.
What you say to do is as you say completely ridiculous.

no, youre being ridiuclous. youre suggesting that people need to pay all that money for the game

they dont

they pay rrp, anything else is extra

Magill · 01-04-2011 9:37pm

Absolutely amazing that they can get away with this sort of ****. EA Sports games are a fvcking joke. I wouldn't even consider them new games from year to year because the changes are barely noticable, how they can justify charging extra for content that they've already developed when the main game is basically a cosmetic upgrade of last years edition, dont sit there and tell me that these courses are hard to develop, because thats bull****.

Anyone that thinks this is anything but a rip off needs their head examined. It would be like the new elderscrolls game selling the main game but charging people to complete the side quests. At least with a game like Oblivion you know it took some serious amount of work to develop, over a span of more than ONE FVCKING YEAR.

There shouldnt be any DLC for these sports games....

ShadowHearth · 01-04-2011 9:43pm

Magill wrote: »

Absolutely amazing that they can get away with this sort of ****. EA Sports games are a fvcking joke. I wouldn't even consider them new games from year to year because the changes are barely noticable, how they can justify charging extra for content that they've already developed when the main game is basically a cosmetic upgrade of last years edition, dont sit there and tell me that these courses are hard to develop, because thats bull****.

Anyone that thinks this is anything but a rip off needs their head examined. It would be like the new elderscrolls game selling the main game but charging people to complete the side quests. At least with a game like Oblivion you know it took some serious amount of work to develop, over a span of more than ONE FVCKING YEAR.

There shouldnt be any DLC for these sports games....

Oh m8, hold on now. We got some developer EA defence force here.

Magill · 01-04-2011 10:11pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Oh m8, hold on now. We got some developer EA defence force here.

LOL, i know... its as if they actually want to pay 60 euro for half an expansion pack... which is essentially all these games are.

Helix · 01-04-2011 10:20pm

Magill wrote: »

LOL, i know... its as if they actually want to pay 60 euro for half an expansion pack... which is essentially all these games are.

17 courses (no tiger woods game has ever had more) is half an expansion pack?

how do you work that out?

Magill · 01-04-2011 10:38pm

Helix wrote: »

17 courses (no tiger woods game has ever had more) is half an expansion pack?

how do you work that out?

17 new courses ??? No.. i didnt think so.

And i dont care what previous tiger woods games have had.... The games industry isnt static ffs, its suppose to be improving every year, theres not much they can do in terms of gameplay so they have no excuse for not having a huge amount of courses etc. Im being generous comparing it to half an expansion pack, a world of warcraft expansion has probably 10 times the amount of new content compared to this sh1t.

ShadowHearth · 01-04-2011 11:12pm

Magill wrote: »

17 new courses ??? No.. i didnt think so.

And i dont care what previous tiger woods games have had.... The games industry isnt static ffs, its suppose to be improving every year, theres not much they can do in terms of gameplay so they have no excuse for not having a huge amount of courses etc. Im being generous comparing it to half an expansion pack, a world of warcraft expansion has probably 10 times the amount of new content compared to this sh1t.

He has a point. Shouldn't games improve and give you more? Sequels always tried to push content up.

How you can be happy if you had 17 courses and now paying again for 17 courses? And if you want more you got to pay more? I don't care that some of them different from older version. So what? You will finish those 17 and then buy more? buy Older ones that were in your old game?

Sorry, as much as I can see point in anather dlcs, even if they are preccoked on disc, I can't approve 250 eu worth of dlc on brand new game.

So soon maybe games will give less content then previous game? Instead of giving us more stuff to do, they will start cutting off abilities we had in previous games? Grand turismo 6 - you get one car with new game, then you got a dlcs for 2000 cars!!!! More content! If you don't want it, don't buy it! It's only extra content, you can enjoy game with 1 car!

Kirby · 01-04-2011 11:51pm

Helix wrote: »

would you have had less of an issue if the courses werent hinted at in the game? i think this is the main problem here, people are seeing the extra courses but the fact that they have to pay immediately gets them angry. if ea didnt actually mention that the courses were there, and instead just let people who wanted to buy them get the dlc and have it plug in automatically, i reckon people would be fine with it

Whether or not it's "greyed out" or invisible completely isn't really relevant. People aren't stupid. Everybody would be just as angry.

Any DLC that comes from week one is held back to screw the customer and to try and get them to pay for something that was made months ago.

If you bought a brand new car that included a stereo......and the dealer told you you had to pay an extra 500 quid to "unlock" the stereo......what would you say?

Helix · 02-04-2011 12:24am

Kirby wrote: »

Whether or not it's "greyed out" or invisible completely isn't really relevant. People aren't stupid. Everybody would be just as angry.

Any DLC that comes from week one is held back to screw the customer and to try and get them to pay for something that was made months ago.

If you bought a brand new car that included a stereo......and the dealer told you you had to pay an extra 500 quid to "unlock" the stereo......what would you say?

not a very good comparison. more accurate would be you buy a car that will do x mph out of the store, its actually capable of going faster, but you have to pay to unlock that ability. that happens every single time a car is sold btw

im not defending ea here, tiger 12 is rubbish, but people are being ridiculous about this

what difference does it make if the courses are on the internet or the disk?

D4RK ONION · 02-04-2011 1:26am

Fighting Games in general have always been known for releasing many iterations, but they're really jumping on the DLC bandwagon. Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 came with 2 characters on the disc which were released as DLC later on. More DLC to come there too. It's going to make tournaments a bloody nightmare now, with some people having certain DLC characters on their team.

Mortal Kombat's upcoming iteration already has the DLC announced. The game isn't even out yet! I hate that sh*t.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

(although am a bit iffy about the way they highlight potential DLC songs in menus in RB3).

As a sidenote, you can turn this off in the menus somewhere. I have done myself. My RB library is fupping huge >_< But the songs aren't on the disc, they're added long after the game comes out so I'm okay with that myself. Fairly cheap too.

Magill · 02-04-2011 3:08am

Helix wrote: »

not a very good comparison. more accurate would be you buy a car that will do x mph out of the store, its actually capable of going faster, but you have to pay to unlock that ability. that happens every single time a car is sold btw

im not defending ea here, tiger 12 is rubbish, but people are being ridiculous about this

what difference does it make if the courses are on the internet or the disk?

I dont think that it being stored on the disc is the problem(But it does highlight the problem), its the fact that games like tiger woods are so thin already(Its practically the same game as last year) that there is simply no reason for them not to include these courses with the main game since the contents been developed alongside the rest of the game. To use everything thats on your disc and that has only taken EA a year to make will cost 5 or 6 times what a normal game costs.

Explain to me why exactly you think its fair ? Do you think EA have done such a great job and put enough work into this game for it to merit them chopping so much content off the 60euro game to use as DLC ? Do you think this extra content is worth 5 times what the actual game is worth ?

I just dont see were you're coming from tbh.

EA have finally pushed the post-launch DLC thing too far.

Comments