surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
House of Valor quest¿ Is that the Fae quest where you join them¿
The demo only gives you a hint about it while completing the mission with the injured Fae.
I'm waiting, a few more hours/days it will be fun.
The demo only gives you a hint about it while completing the mission with the injured Fae.
I'm waiting, a few more hours/days it will be fun.
That is a solid PR move, that's the first thing I thought of when I read it.
Naughty Dog and others should take note.
Naughty Dog and others should take note.
On the off chance this is true, then I applaud them, but I don't believe it for a second. If they had a significant piece of DLC like this available day 1 it is most likely content they withheld from the disk whether they were planning to charge for it, or hold it ransom. Either way, I can't really get my xbox online frequently, so I can't get it regardless.
It was developed with the time and money that was granted to the developer to create the product that would be put on store shelves for $60. The publisher diverted resources and content from the development cycle that your $60 subsidizes to be locked behind a one time use code in an attempt to stop people from legally loaning, trading, borrowing, or selling something they spent $60 on. Those are the facts.
It's no different than the Mass Effect 2 Cerberus Network, where characters and quests were clearly removed from the game and created with development time and money before the product went gold, or Resident Evil 5's online versus mode, which falls into the same category. The first was hidden behind an online pass, the second was hidden behind a premium download. Both are anti consumer. Your justification is irrelevant.
tl;dr i'm still not buying your fucking game
It's no different than the Mass Effect 2 Cerberus Network, where characters and quests were clearly removed from the game and created with development time and money before the product went gold, or Resident Evil 5's online versus mode, which falls into the same category. The first was hidden behind an online pass, the second was hidden behind a premium download. Both are anti consumer. Your justification is irrelevant.
tl;dr i'm still not buying your fucking game
That bag-O-grass wasn't 1 gram short, I was taking a small step in saving you from future addiction.
i dont see this as true. some other companies have given DLC codes in their games and NOT called them online passes.
also this still punishes the non online havers.
also this still punishes the non online havers.
When it comes to DLC there is a very fine line between selling / giving players extra content and selling them something that should be in the game.
To me this DLC seems fine though. I think the worst type of DLC is quests or storylines that are should be part of the main quest and deal with major aspects of the plot.
To me this DLC seems fine though. I think the worst type of DLC is quests or storylines that are should be part of the main quest and deal with major aspects of the plot.
A suggestion for a possibly better idea? Release the DLC free a couple weeks or a month later as a nice reward for people who bought early and something waiting for those who may pick up the game later...possibly used. But I guess this PR rationale may help you fucking sleep at night.
Although, people without an internet connection to their gaming device get screwed in... oh wait they pretty much get screwed anyway.
Although, people without an internet connection to their gaming device get screwed in... oh wait they pretty much get screwed anyway.
Wasn't planning to buy this new. Still not. This actively discourages new purchases for me personally. Online passes are bad enough for multiplayer. They are absolutely inexcusable for single-player.
I'll do without the "day one DLC." If I really have to know whatever happens during those quests, I'll watch it on YouTube or read a walkthrough.
I'll do without the "day one DLC." If I really have to know whatever happens during those quests, I'll watch it on YouTube or read a walkthrough.
Before this PR stunt, I really didn't know much about the developer. I didn't have much in the way of appreciation or disdain for 38 Studios. I am looking forward to Kingdoms of Amalur. I'm hopeful that it's at least decent and does well.
However, this news puts a bad taste in my mouth regarding the developer. That's exactly what a developer should do just before they launch a new IP. Sounds like a great idea.
However, this news puts a bad taste in my mouth regarding the developer. That's exactly what a developer should do just before they launch a new IP. Sounds like a great idea.
The issue here isn't the Online Pass but rather the marketing. If EA were a better publisher they would have marketed it as free DLC for new copies to reward those who support it at launch as you've said. Based on what I know about 38 Studios I think this is just them making the best out of a bad situation. Simply labeling it as "Free DLC" would have made everyone be like "Yeah!" instead of like "UGH." #marketing101
Somewhat similar to what HeSaNa mentioned, rather than an online pass, how about putting in a $10 coupon that can be used towards any FUTURE dlc? This way, content isn't withheld from the disc, which means that consumers won't feel like they're getting a gypped product when buying just the disc. Plus it's an incentive for people to buy the game new that doesn't really punish those who opt for the used route.
I'm just curious why it's blatantly called an "ONLINE PASS" when it...seems to have nothing to do with anything "online". Why not just say "FREE DLC PASS" or something? Why use such a loaded term, when it's totally unrelated to the concept you're using the title of?
I was going to comment but decided a C-blog would be more appropriate due to the large amount I had to say...
Why not simply say that all code-locked content on day one is DLC? I mean, it seems like the perfect PR spin.
Its also insane double speak. By the very nature of the beast, locking single player content creates DLC, in that you will have to purchase the content even if that content is attached to a pass if you are currently locked out of it. Saying "it was DLC that we decided to give out for free with new purchases" does not make any tangible difference in how the situation plays out, other than how it is perceived.
I am curious as to how many people will fall for such strange PR wizardry.
Its also insane double speak. By the very nature of the beast, locking single player content creates DLC, in that you will have to purchase the content even if that content is attached to a pass if you are currently locked out of it. Saying "it was DLC that we decided to give out for free with new purchases" does not make any tangible difference in how the situation plays out, other than how it is perceived.
I am curious as to how many people will fall for such strange PR wizardry.
@OneRed
That seems awfully vague. What the shit do you mean?
Well I'm glad you asked. I am saying that the act of moving what would have been DLC into the final retail release version creates locked single player content; creates the online pass. What it was is immaterial, what it is is what matters. You can use an online pass to create DLC, but you cannot use DLC to create an online pass when the game has not so much as seen its own release.
That seems awfully vague. What the shit do you mean?
Well I'm glad you asked. I am saying that the act of moving what would have been DLC into the final retail release version creates locked single player content; creates the online pass. What it was is immaterial, what it is is what matters. You can use an online pass to create DLC, but you cannot use DLC to create an online pass when the game has not so much as seen its own release.
Personally, I'd rather it be this way over getting locked out of a multiplayer component. I know that KoA has no multiplayer, but as I said in a previous comment, I saw this as day one DLC for free if you bought it new. I see it as a "Hey thanks for supporting our studio. Here's free stuff!"
My rule of thumb is basically the following: "If I can't get ALL the base 1000 gamerscore or base trophies unless I buy/activate the online pass then you are ripping me off." I could be wrong but I don't think any of this has to do with the base achievements/trophies. Can anyone confirm this?
My rule of thumb is basically the following: "If I can't get ALL the base 1000 gamerscore or base trophies unless I buy/activate the online pass then you are ripping me off." I could be wrong but I don't think any of this has to do with the base achievements/trophies. Can anyone confirm this?
Personally, I'd rather it be this way over getting locked out of a multiplayer component. I know that KoA has no multiplayer, but as I said in a previous comment, I saw this as day one DLC for free if you bought it new. I see it as a "Hey thanks for supporting our studio. Here's free stuff!"
My rule of thumb is basically the following: "If I can't get ALL the base 1000 gamerscore or base trophies unless I buy/activate the online pass then you are ripping me off." I could be wrong but I don't think any of this has to do with the base achievements/trophies. Can anyone confirm this?
My rule of thumb is basically the following: "If I can't get ALL the base 1000 gamerscore or base trophies unless I buy/activate the online pass then you are ripping me off." I could be wrong but I don't think any of this has to do with the base achievements/trophies. Can anyone confirm this?
I don't actually mind this concept... as long as they do eventually make the DLC available for purchase for those that bought the used game.
(because eventually many games aren't carried in stores as "new" and are hard to find except as used)
(because eventually many games aren't carried in stores as "new" and are hard to find except as used)
@D sane
yeah plenty of games have done this. DA:O, DA2, Rage, Bulletstorm, Arkham City, Mass Effect 2, and probably a few more.
I'm actually curious why it seemed like nobody cared about it until Arkham City.
yeah plenty of games have done this. DA:O, DA2, Rage, Bulletstorm, Arkham City, Mass Effect 2, and probably a few more.
I'm actually curious why it seemed like nobody cared about it until Arkham City.
Develop game for major publisher like EA, online pass and DLC content prior to game's release is suddenly justified...
Honestly, wouldn't be surprised if EA wrote, and passed it off to 38 Studios. Hope this is a move that ultimately benefits the developers, because I doubt they would of gotten away with this if another smaller publisher was handling this game.
Honestly, wouldn't be surprised if EA wrote, and passed it off to 38 Studios. Hope this is a move that ultimately benefits the developers, because I doubt they would of gotten away with this if another smaller publisher was handling this game.
Still not acceptable. Still not buying. They can go to hell for giving those of us without out consoles hooked up to the internet the finger.
Yeah it is a bit hard to really take a side, I mean it's cool to reward new buyers, but should content that should be in the game (considering it was made before release) be offered as a prize? I don't know, instead maybe they should give a code to new buyers in the promise of a free dlc, something akin to battlefield 3 and the maps.
You know it's also a bit odd because I remember reading somewhere that the devs themselves said the game had hundreds of hours of content, so is it not worth keeping? Or maybe this was done with best intentions, just not properly executed.
You know it's also a bit odd because I remember reading somewhere that the devs themselves said the game had hundreds of hours of content, so is it not worth keeping? Or maybe this was done with best intentions, just not properly executed.
This is not a good start. Even if it is free day 1 DLC, it is still withholding game content at its core. While not a deal breaker for me, they've just hoisted a red flag.
Yeah well maybe you should have put "FREE DLC" on the cover, or maybe on the little piece of paper, rather than "revealing" this amazing fact once called out on it.
Buy your games new. It's a privalaged hobby that cost money, it's not a birth right. When you buy things used you are giving up certain things. The sense of entitlement gamers have never ceases to amaze me. When that sense of entitlement comes from the people who paid to play games (and rarely pay their own money) it becomes obnoxious. I guess people seek the cheap applause for championing the so-called rights of the people.
@Jim Sterling, Why not boycott reviewing gated content? Insist on reviewing only what all customers get (used, new and offline) and refuse to review gated missions or even gated multiplayer, and dock points if valid and it makes it a lesser game! and start each review with a short statement on why. If a couple of reviewers did that it'd have more impact than any consumer boycott i'd guess..
@havok308
I've bought games with online passes new before. Without an internet connection I couldn't redeem the content. Also when I brought that game to a friend's house who has xbox live, we couldn't play unless we purchased an extra 10 dollars for the game I paid 60 dollars for. If a family member wanted to play on a different gamertag or if I wanted to lend the game to a friend, I'm being lumped in the same group as "used game buying scum." Years from now these games will gimped because their download servers will be down, and if other people want to buy that game but it is too old to find any used copies, then they have no options.
All of these problems I've been complaining about still happen even though I bought that game new. Sorry, but your advice didn't help, but thanks for the generalizations.
I've bought games with online passes new before. Without an internet connection I couldn't redeem the content. Also when I brought that game to a friend's house who has xbox live, we couldn't play unless we purchased an extra 10 dollars for the game I paid 60 dollars for. If a family member wanted to play on a different gamertag or if I wanted to lend the game to a friend, I'm being lumped in the same group as "used game buying scum." Years from now these games will gimped because their download servers will be down, and if other people want to buy that game but it is too old to find any used copies, then they have no options.
All of these problems I've been complaining about still happen even though I bought that game new. Sorry, but your advice didn't help, but thanks for the generalizations.
God you people are idiots, just because they used the wrong terminology you jump on this like they are the worst studio ever. The game is awesome, I will play it, if you don't you're just being a douchebag over semantics.
I don't understand how any consumer could possibly chastise people who buy things second hand. Do people not realize that strong second markets operate in tandem with strong new markets, or that second hand markets only come to prevalence out of necessity, and never in spite of new markets?
A strong used market is a sign of a strong new market, and a used market that is as large as the used games market only came about because of genuine market demand for it.
A strong used market is a sign of a strong new market, and a used market that is as large as the used games market only came about because of genuine market demand for it.
@Matt Welch
The semantics are exactly the issue. They didn't use the wrong terminology, they wrapped the same old thing in terminology that didn't seem so bad.
Remove the semantics from top to bottom, as you suggest we should do, and you end up with locked final version content. Why they did it, or what this stuff was originally planned as is immaterial, at the end of the day you have day 1 single player content being locked behind a pass, which others can purchase. In this case, this "DLC" became an online pass kind of scenario, and that is what we are left with.
They could have said "we were never going to release this stuff, but we decided to give it to people who buy new free of charge" and the situation would have been no different. The semantics are working in their favor, because it makes it seem reasonable. And I hope to never see the day that locked day 1 content in any form is seen as reasonable.
The semantics are exactly the issue. They didn't use the wrong terminology, they wrapped the same old thing in terminology that didn't seem so bad.
Remove the semantics from top to bottom, as you suggest we should do, and you end up with locked final version content. Why they did it, or what this stuff was originally planned as is immaterial, at the end of the day you have day 1 single player content being locked behind a pass, which others can purchase. In this case, this "DLC" became an online pass kind of scenario, and that is what we are left with.
They could have said "we were never going to release this stuff, but we decided to give it to people who buy new free of charge" and the situation would have been no different. The semantics are working in their favor, because it makes it seem reasonable. And I hope to never see the day that locked day 1 content in any form is seen as reasonable.
So the devs' official response in the Amalur community forum is: "The House of Valor was created as stand-alone content, and was always intended to be the first DLC."
This just sounds more like convenient PR damage control / spin to me. They've been teasing 6 factions for quite a while, and only now it's revealed one of them was never really intended to be on the disk? Even if that's true it paints a very bleak picture of DLC and how we've always suspected devs are just withholding content already planned well in advance of the game going gold.
Some quick timestamping:
The Reckoning forum community seemed to already know there was going to be 6 factions back in early July last year.
http://bit.ly/yhsKeg
posted 7/8/11: When community member flamechamp asks what else could the devs reveal, community member Ellyssi replies "the six factions in the game we can interact with"
Devs officially confirmed six factions in the forums 8/10/11.
http://bit.ly/z2M55o
posted 8/10/11: "The main quest and each of the six factions contains a mostly-linear narrative you can follow"
The House of Valor apparently can be found in the GamesCom 2011 demo (an event which ran Aug 17th - 21st)
http://bit.ly/AgCkzS
posted 9/24/11: speculating what the 6th unrevealed faction might be, community member flamechamp posts, "I recall though, in the Gamescom demo in the Deytre Region, there is a huge structure on the world map and its called 'House of Valor.' Maybe thats the 6th faction."
This just sounds more like convenient PR damage control / spin to me. They've been teasing 6 factions for quite a while, and only now it's revealed one of them was never really intended to be on the disk? Even if that's true it paints a very bleak picture of DLC and how we've always suspected devs are just withholding content already planned well in advance of the game going gold.
Some quick timestamping:
The Reckoning forum community seemed to already know there was going to be 6 factions back in early July last year.
http://bit.ly/yhsKeg
posted 7/8/11: When community member flamechamp asks what else could the devs reveal, community member Ellyssi replies "the six factions in the game we can interact with"
Devs officially confirmed six factions in the forums 8/10/11.
http://bit.ly/z2M55o
posted 8/10/11: "The main quest and each of the six factions contains a mostly-linear narrative you can follow"
The House of Valor apparently can be found in the GamesCom 2011 demo (an event which ran Aug 17th - 21st)
http://bit.ly/AgCkzS
posted 9/24/11: speculating what the 6th unrevealed faction might be, community member flamechamp posts, "I recall though, in the Gamescom demo in the Deytre Region, there is a huge structure on the world map and its called 'House of Valor.' Maybe thats the 6th faction."
@quixote
That pretty much seals it for me. There's no way this content was intended to be DLC all along. Although even without the awesome evidence you posted, it should be clear that this content was withheld from the disk by the fact that it is available day 1.
It's just like how some people are gullible enough to think that Arkham City's catwoman missions weren't left off of the disc, even though she was hyped and playable a long time before the game was even finished.
That pretty much seals it for me. There's no way this content was intended to be DLC all along. Although even without the awesome evidence you posted, it should be clear that this content was withheld from the disk by the fact that it is available day 1.
It's just like how some people are gullible enough to think that Arkham City's catwoman missions weren't left off of the disc, even though she was hyped and playable a long time before the game was even finished.
Depending on how good The Darkness 2 is, that was where my money was going anyways. I know nothing about this studio really and the only thing I seem to hear about them pisses me off lol.
"Instead of holding onto it for a month or more and charging everyone for it later, we opted to give it to those who purchase the game new for free."
So what they're basically saying is that they originally planned to charge customers extra for content that was already on the disc but now only those that buy used will have to pay to unlock content that is already on the disc............. man this gen sometimes.
So what they're basically saying is that they originally planned to charge customers extra for content that was already on the disc but now only those that buy used will have to pay to unlock content that is already on the disc............. man this gen sometimes.
They could always spin this into a positive for Kingdoms of Amalur:Reckoning.
After all, an online pass is something that Skyrim, Fallout 3/New Vegas or the Fable games didn't have, an obvious oversight on their developers/publishers' parts, possibly a result of rushing games out to market without enough testing, leaving it up to the consumers to demonstrate the need for online passes with their new copies of the game...somehow, and it now falls to EA to rectify this slight.
After all, an online pass is something that Skyrim, Fallout 3/New Vegas or the Fable games didn't have, an obvious oversight on their developers/publishers' parts, possibly a result of rushing games out to market without enough testing, leaving it up to the consumers to demonstrate the need for online passes with their new copies of the game...somehow, and it now falls to EA to rectify this slight.
I love online passes, I got the one on RAGE yeah that was awesome really made it worth my while to buy the game new.
im sorry, but why is there no sarcasm button on the net yet?
im sorry, but why is there no sarcasm button on the net yet?
okay developers, i want you to pay attention very, VERY closely. ono and bleszinski in particular, listen the fuck up: IT'S NOT DLC CONTENT IF YOU FINISH THE CONTENT BEFORE THE GAME GOES GOLD AND YOU PUT IT ON THE DISC. THE "WELL, WE JUST DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE TO DOWNLOAD IT" REASON IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. IT WAS PLANNED AND FINISHED ALONG WITH THE RELEASE OF THE GAME JOHNNY FUCKSHOES, KEEP IT THAT WAY AND DON'T TURN IT INTO SOME RIDICULOUS PRICE BARRIER TO FUN (WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH)
but idiots will continue to eat up this garbage as long as the pubs and devs feed it to them. have fun with overpriced map packs and on-disc/day 1 dlc suckers.
but idiots will continue to eat up this garbage as long as the pubs and devs feed it to them. have fun with overpriced map packs and on-disc/day 1 dlc suckers.
@HaVoK308,
I'm confused, are you a sheep or a shill? Either way, you're adorable. Is that a red tag on your ear... Yes it is. Get back in the barn bitch, before your master sees you.
I'm confused, are you a sheep or a shill? Either way, you're adorable. Is that a red tag on your ear... Yes it is. Get back in the barn bitch, before your master sees you.
Screw them and their game, they could of mentioned this months ago instead of holding back and waiting right before release, this is a poor costumer service move and I will pass on this game.
A little transparency, goes along way, and seeing how poorly some of the companies are treating their player base really bugs, me. Luckily there are so many games that come out that it's not really a big deal to miss one of them.
I simply hate the Online pass idea, it's a bad move and it's going to basically make every game you own obsolete 3 - 5 years. So many games are not even fun to rent, anymore that I find myself becoming really jaded and angry about this and flat out refuse to buy a single player game with an onlne pass.
Ofcourse this is my opinion, but I'm an adult and used to buy lots of games, mark my words this is going to kill the game market this year.
A little transparency, goes along way, and seeing how poorly some of the companies are treating their player base really bugs, me. Luckily there are so many games that come out that it's not really a big deal to miss one of them.
I simply hate the Online pass idea, it's a bad move and it's going to basically make every game you own obsolete 3 - 5 years. So many games are not even fun to rent, anymore that I find myself becoming really jaded and angry about this and flat out refuse to buy a single player game with an onlne pass.
Ofcourse this is my opinion, but I'm an adult and used to buy lots of games, mark my words this is going to kill the game market this year.
follow
