Are you joking me?

cloud493 · 07-02-2012 3:28pm #1

I was watching the IGN daily fix thing, and they said, you have to buy DLC to see the final fantasy XIII - 2 ending(well one of them or whatever) erm.... are you ****ting me? I have to pay to see the ending of a game I've paid 45 euro for? That is such absolute bull crap. People bang on about PSN passes and all that, but stuff like, the area from Assassins creed 2 needing DLC, stuff like that.
But needing to pay, to see the end of a game? No. That is just bull****. Sure there's more examples.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 3:33pm

Bethesda like to pull that bull**** as well. I know Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 do the same.

It is a load of dick and I heard the ending is Halo 2 levels of terrible and will definitely require DLC. Imagine going to the cinema only to be told that you need to pay an extra fiver to find out what rosebud was. I hope this idiotiocy doesn't become a trend.

MitchKoobski · 07-02-2012 3:36pm

Not exactly. The game has multiple different endings that can be discovered through the story mode. Just cleared it yesterday myself and have a few of them unlocked.

SPOILERS GODDAMMIT

The normal ending of the game is left open so as to point you towards these different endings.

Heres the actual article, with spoilers: http://ie.ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1218042p1.html

Theres nothing about having to pay to see the ending. The DLC is to expand upon different characters.

If it ends up expanding on the ending they have then fair enough I'll grab my torch and pitchfork when it happens.

cloud493 · 07-02-2012 3:37pm

Just seems to be ridduclous. I'm not against DLC when its done well, like in GTA or red dead, but when its actually blocking off sections of the game that should be included in the asking price, its bull****.

MitchKoobski · 07-02-2012 4:11pm

Well they did it with Mass Effect 2, except everyone only found out it was important to ME3 when the 'Arrival' DLC was actually announced.

For whats its worth there is a hell of a lot of stuff in the game for the asking price. The main ending kinda annoyed me and confused me but then they throw in a bollock load of alternate endings too.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 4:16pm

MitchKoobski wrote: »

Well they did it with Mass Effect 2, except everyone only found out it was important to ME3 when the 'Arrival' DLC was actually announced.

For whats its worth there is a hell of a lot of stuff in the game for the asking price. The main ending kinda annoyed me and confused me but then they throw in a bollock load of alternate endings too.

If you played the Arrival you'd realise it was a worthless addition to the storyline so in that case the only negative was that I was duped into buying it.

super_furry · 07-02-2012 4:16pm

That's still not as bad as Gothan City Imposters

Before it even launches there are over 100 pieces of 'premium content' that you have to pay for, including an hour of Double XP for €1.80.

deathrider · 07-02-2012 5:48pm

Is this what happened with the Prince of Persia reboot a few years ago? The had DLC called "Epilogue". Was that the same kind craic? Paying for the ending?

Myrddin · 07-02-2012 6:31pm

Is this an example of one of the companies we're meant to be supporting buy not buying used games?

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 6:48pm

Bethesda is really famous for this sort of bull****. Fallout 3 and new Vegas.

I could bet skyrim has something similar, but I am really cba To play and find out.

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 6:49pm

This is why i had a problem with the online pass, cause i knew these companies wouldnt simply stop their .
We have had pre order dlc , dlc before games come out and now we have to deal with paying 50 quid isnt enough we have to pay more money to get a proper ending on games.
Ya give these companies an inch and they go a ****in mile ..
How anyone can defend this way of running a business shouldnt be playing games..
The industry will plummit itself to non exsistent. ( ok prob not ) but their needs to be a drastic changes cause so far i could quit gaming all together.

Somnus · 07-02-2012 7:13pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Bethesda is really famous for this sort of bull****. Fallout 3 and new Vegas.

I could bet skyrim has something similar, but I am really cba To play and find out.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Bethesda like to pull that bull**** as well. I know Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 do the same.

Bethesda obviouslt makes plans to release DLC, but there's nothing to do with the ending. I mean the games are vast as is. They have endings, the DLCs just give you optional extra areas. Surprised we haven't heard about any for Skyrim so far. The NV ones seemed to be out fairly quick after the main game.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 7:20pm

I'd take it over no preowned games tbh.

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 7:23pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Is this an example of one of the companies we're meant to be supporting buy not buying used games?

No, not at all! This is one of those companies we're not meant to be supporting while they continue to tarnish the once reliable name of Final Fantasy.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 7:25pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, not at all! This is one of those companies we're not meant to be supporting while they continue to tarnish the once reliable name of Final Fantasy.

If only that was as far as it went. Look at DQX

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 7:26pm

The World Ends With You was a long time ago.

Sigh

Myrddin · 07-02-2012 7:29pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'd take it over no preowned games tbh.

You'd happily pay additional money to unlock endings of a game you already bought? O...k?

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 7:34pm

EnterNow wrote: »

You'd happily pay additional money to unlock endings of a game you already bought? O...k?

Better than not being able to play the game if it goes out of print and you missed it or never being able to play it again when the authentication servers go down. That's the way I look at it.

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 7:37pm

Im now fearing for my beloved hitman series and tomb raider series , if they screw over eidos i go mad

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 7:46pm

The western side of Eidos is the only one that isn't losing money. They won't be touching them!

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 7:47pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The western side of Eidos is the only one that isn't losing money. They won't be touching them!

God retr0 i hope so

cloud493 · 07-02-2012 7:52pm

Yes, prince of persia :mad: If I bought a game pre owned, I don't know if its as bad as paying 50 euro, then having to pay another 10 or something, just to get the game you've bought.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 8:17pm

Okay so, with regard to the Final Fantasy XIII-2 situation have we realised that from MitchKoobski's post there is actually an ending, multiple ones in fact?

Mass Effect 2? If the game had ended with Arrival instead of

the aftermath of the attack on The Collector's ship

it would have been ****ing awful. That to me is perfect DLC material, part from it being incredibly poor and all that.

Prince Of Persia? If it had continued with

being separated with Elika *again* and having to fight Ahriman *again* only to end with both characters going their own way

then again, it would have been rubbish. Epilogue, as it happens, was just more of the same which was proved to be completely inconsequential to the rest of the game so no, you don't have to pay extra "just to get the game you've bought".

Gothan City Imposters? Yes there's a load of vanity items available in the Marketplace. None of which you have to buy to enjoy the game to its fullest nevermind the fact that it already comes with a slew of content. The XP Booster on the other hand is complete bollox and it and similar content like it should never be made available for purchase in a game like that.

richymcdermott wrote: »

This is why i had a problem with the online pass, cause i knew these companies wouldnt simply stop their .
We have had pre order dlc , dlc before games come out and now we have to deal with paying 50 quid isnt enough we have to pay more money to get a proper ending on games.
Ya give these companies an inch and they go a ****in mile ..
How anyone can defend this way of running a business shouldnt be playing games..
The industry will plummit itself to non exsistent. ( ok prob not ) but their needs to be a drastic changes cause so far i could quit gaming all together.

Yet in other threads you have loads of people saying they have no problems with Online Passes? So which is it? Are they a good idea or a bad one? Should they be kept and expanded into single player games to help combat used games sales or should they be ditched entirely?

As for defending how these companies run their business, how about you defend a consumer base who seem quite willing to tell CD Projekt Red to just deal with it and that "every download isn't a lost sale" when they develop an utterly amazing game which sees well over 4.5m downloads yet only 1m sales? Would you be saying the same thing if CD Projekt Red had to close down due to poor sales of their games? Or if GSC had closed over the Christmas?

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 8:27pm

I'd agree that Mass Effect 2 had a pretty excellent ending as is. It was sort of like what Bungie tried in Halo 2, but less ****.

cloud493 · 07-02-2012 8:29pm

Does the start of Mass effect 3 not pick up from the DLC pack mentioned though?

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 8:30pm

Well excpet for that awful boss.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 8:41pm

cloud493 wrote: »

Does the start of Mass effect 3 not pick up from the DLC pack mentioned though?

I'll spoiler what happens there's nothing big in it but just in case people don't want any spoilers at all:

Shepard finds out the Reapers are arriving earlier, she foils them and then finds out that they'll be arriving just a little delayed.

Basically the DLC ends with the same conclusion as Mass Effect 2. The Reapers are coming. If you hadn't played the DLC you're missing nothing.

cloud493 · 07-02-2012 9:02pm

Well the PS3 version comes with that anyway(hence why I didn't think of it) but DLC isn't my issue, per say. I mean, red dead DLC adds in a whole new game element, campaign of sorts(with undead nightmare) GTA 4 has 3 brand new experiences. Fallout DLC is another example of well done DLC, I can reach the end of the main fallout quest, but still have things to go back and do. Its when I'm deliberately cut off from bits of the game, that I have the issue with.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 9:35pm

cloud493 wrote: »

Well the PS3 version comes with that anyway(hence why I didn't think of it) but DLC isn't my issue, per say. I mean, red dead DLC adds in a whole new game element, campaign of sorts(with undead nightmare) GTA 4 has 3 brand new experiences. Fallout DLC is another example of well done DLC, I can reach the end of the main fallout quest, but still have things to go back and do. Its when I'm deliberately cut off from bits of the game, that I have the issue with.

DLC is rarely "cut" from a game. What typically happens is that during the planning and budgeting process for a new title any potential DLC will be factored in. Sometimes it's worked upon in tandem with the game, sometimes it's partly worked upon and finished up after the main game goes gold and sometimes it's not touched until after the project. In any case, if this content hadn't been budgeted for it simply wouldn't have been made, whether it ends up on the disc and is simply unlocked later is thus irrelevant. Case in point, some of those Templar missions in Assassins Creed 2 and Brotherhood, nice little bite sized chunks which can be inserted into the game whenever necessary and use existing systems so the process is painless.

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 9:57pm

The cheap thing about the Assassins Creed examples are that they actively draw your attention to the fact that the missions are 'missing'. I believe Deus Ex Human Revolution has a similar sort of thing (haven't played it so I could be wrong)? At least Prince of Persia actually has an ending of sorts - an unusually ambiguous and 'arty' one for a game, of course. But it is a bit cheap not to include the 'true' ending.

DLC should be entirely optional, and if you don't want to know about it then you shouldn't have to!

gizmo · 07-02-2012 10:53pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The cheap thing about the Assassins Creed examples are that they actively draw your attention to the fact that the missions are 'missing'.

They do? In what way? I've just finished Brotherhood and the only reason I knew there was additional content was because there were two unique Templar icons on my map which I assumed wouldn't be there if I didn't have said content.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

At least Prince of Persia actually has an ending of sorts - an unusually ambiguous and 'arty' one for a game, of course. But it is a bit cheap not to include the 'true' ending.

Totally disagree with this. In the context of the game I thought it was great, the whole Free Will versus Destiny element in practice. One could argue that they could have offered an alternate ending where

the Prince could have exercised his free will and not revived Elika

but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to finish the game the way it ended and then have to do the DLC only to come to nearly the exact same conclusion.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

DLC should be entirely optional, and if you don't want to know about it then you shouldn't have to!

Most certainly agree here. The worst culprit I've seen is Dragon Age with their absolutely horrible quest prompt in-game. *spits*

Are you joking me?

Comments