surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Surprised you didn't give bethesda a shout for their fallout DLC. It's great and so far has been at least 3-4 hours each of unique content.
Pre-order DLC is just timed exclusive, of course it will be released on online marketplaces at some point. The PS3 exclusive DLC is not timed though, that is exclusive. At least I am pretty sure it is exclusive. Especially since Rockstar is making the PS3 excluisve "Agent" and RDRedemption had PS3 exclusive content.
I LOVE DLC, that is if it is actually DLC. I hate DLC that is allready on the disk, or is all ready done months before the game even releases.
I guess I will fap, fap I will.
I LOVE DLC, that is if it is actually DLC. I hate DLC that is allready on the disk, or is all ready done months before the game even releases.
I guess I will fap, fap I will.
This sort of thing on a 5 hour game would usually bother me.
On a 30 to 50 hour game? One hour or two here and there doesn't make a big difference to me. I don't feel like I'm being cheated out of anything because it usually winds up coming out later anyway. I do feel it's somewhat unnecessary; people usually choose retailers based on convenience, not content in my experience.
Even "on disk" DLC doesn't bother me much, though it's more difficult to explain how and why it doesn't tick me off. It basically comes down to not expecting or demanding more or less than the experience I get out of the box from the game as presented. If I'm satisfied by that, I don't feel entitled to anything else that happens to be there. I realize in a grander sense, it represents content withheld from the player, but it just doesn't bother me.
The best way I can put it is likening it to a painting in a frame. The frame naturally covers up some of the painting, but I'd have to pay to get it removed and re-framed. If the painting itself is beautiful just the way it is, seeing that little bit extra doesn't seem quite so necessary.
On a 30 to 50 hour game? One hour or two here and there doesn't make a big difference to me. I don't feel like I'm being cheated out of anything because it usually winds up coming out later anyway. I do feel it's somewhat unnecessary; people usually choose retailers based on convenience, not content in my experience.
Even "on disk" DLC doesn't bother me much, though it's more difficult to explain how and why it doesn't tick me off. It basically comes down to not expecting or demanding more or less than the experience I get out of the box from the game as presented. If I'm satisfied by that, I don't feel entitled to anything else that happens to be there. I realize in a grander sense, it represents content withheld from the player, but it just doesn't bother me.
The best way I can put it is likening it to a painting in a frame. The frame naturally covers up some of the painting, but I'd have to pay to get it removed and re-framed. If the painting itself is beautiful just the way it is, seeing that little bit extra doesn't seem quite so necessary.
If the DLC adds something to the game, if it opens up to a new gameplay experience - I am all for it.
Whether it's exclusive, pre-order only, or outrageously expensive elitist stuff - I am all for it to.
Hell, re-skins that contribute nothing to gameplay, do nothing to the stats, and add nothing to the gameplay - I am all for those too.
When it's a market of choice, it's a good market.
Now, map packs specifically, I find them questionable because it singles people out. I see it as, when there are so many games now with online co-op, death match, and unique online modes such as the ghost play in Demon's Souls - every game is fighting for a user base. It's spread pretty thin and map packs, I find, spread that user base even thinner. Making a single titles user base divisible in itself.
Now, when a map pack does something different, adds something to the gameplay, then there is incredibly incentive for the existing user base to jump on it collectively. Especially if its a new game. If it's an older title, devoted player will probably purchase it just so there game ques remain as open as possible to potential lobbies or in-progress matches. Or in the case of Red Faction Guerrilla where buying a map pack does the exact opposite. With RFG if you purchase a map pack you will essentially only be able to play with others who have purchased that map pack.
Whether it's exclusive, pre-order only, or outrageously expensive elitist stuff - I am all for it to.
Hell, re-skins that contribute nothing to gameplay, do nothing to the stats, and add nothing to the gameplay - I am all for those too.
When it's a market of choice, it's a good market.
Now, map packs specifically, I find them questionable because it singles people out. I see it as, when there are so many games now with online co-op, death match, and unique online modes such as the ghost play in Demon's Souls - every game is fighting for a user base. It's spread pretty thin and map packs, I find, spread that user base even thinner. Making a single titles user base divisible in itself.
Now, when a map pack does something different, adds something to the gameplay, then there is incredibly incentive for the existing user base to jump on it collectively. Especially if its a new game. If it's an older title, devoted player will probably purchase it just so there game ques remain as open as possible to potential lobbies or in-progress matches. Or in the case of Red Faction Guerrilla where buying a map pack does the exact opposite. With RFG if you purchase a map pack you will essentially only be able to play with others who have purchased that map pack.
Personally I very much do not like retailer specific pre-order DLC at all but story DLC especially annoys me as almost all of the time it is already on the disc which is something else that really annoys me. But the DLC already on the disc is still not as bad as what Disgaea 3 did where all of the DLC data was added in patches with bug fixes and such which made the patches 300-600mb and you had to pay to unlock the DLC. This really rubbed me the wrong way, even more than DLC already on the disc.
Though there is some DLC that I really like, it usually adds something new or interesting to the game such as Undead Nightmare for Red Dead or the Borderlands DLC. Undead Nightmare is my favourite DLC by far for any game. It added a whole single player campaign which took me about 18 hours to finish and the story was pretty funny, it also contained a fun multiplayer horde mode.
On L.A. Noire I really do not like the exclusive cases and such as pre-order bonuses but on the PS3 side it will not really matter if PSN is still down.
Though there is some DLC that I really like, it usually adds something new or interesting to the game such as Undead Nightmare for Red Dead or the Borderlands DLC. Undead Nightmare is my favourite DLC by far for any game. It added a whole single player campaign which took me about 18 hours to finish and the story was pretty funny, it also contained a fun multiplayer horde mode.
On L.A. Noire I really do not like the exclusive cases and such as pre-order bonuses but on the PS3 side it will not really matter if PSN is still down.
Clockwork!! I've missed you!!
I like when DLC comes out several months after a game's release and can extend the game. I usually prefer this for single player games where it's entirely optional and I don't even mind the occasional map pack that really changes up the gameplay to make it almost a new game (like what Warhawk did). I'm not as keen on standard map packs because there's almost alway one person in our group that didn't buy it so we generally don't end up using the map packs (this happened with Killzone).
When DLC comes out pretty much the same day as the game (or is contained on the disc) yeah, it just rubs me the wrong way... but luckily it IS optional and I can exercise my option not to buy it.
I like when DLC comes out several months after a game's release and can extend the game. I usually prefer this for single player games where it's entirely optional and I don't even mind the occasional map pack that really changes up the gameplay to make it almost a new game (like what Warhawk did). I'm not as keen on standard map packs because there's almost alway one person in our group that didn't buy it so we generally don't end up using the map packs (this happened with Killzone).
When DLC comes out pretty much the same day as the game (or is contained on the disc) yeah, it just rubs me the wrong way... but luckily it IS optional and I can exercise my option not to buy it.
I agree that it can be a positive thing when done right.
I think that Mass Effect 2 is an interesting game to look at when it comes to DLC. The Cerberus Network encouraged people to buy the game new instead of second hand without punishing people who decided not to. It came with a bunch of free DLC, from new items to new missions and even a vehicle that blows the old Mako out of the water. Then, after lavishing free DLC on us we were offered premium DLC at a fairly competative price. It wasn't cheap, but it wasn't expensive either. And really I won't criticise EA or Bioware for the price because DLC is still fairly new and publishers are still experimenting.
However, I felt a little let down by Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival. While I found the Lair of the Shadow Broker to be an enjoyable DLC both the Shadow Broker and Liara were integral to the franchise (especially Liara) so I felt a bit cheated that I had to splash out. Without the DLC Liara played a fairly minor role in ME2 compared to the original and there was no real chance for us to see the character develop, all we got to see was that she had become quite cold since Shep's death. The added character development and the ability to continue the relationship with Liara felt like it should have been part of the main game, not an optional premium add on. With Arrival (which, to be fair, I haven't played yet, though I did buy it) my issue is that according to the reviews and the previews for ME3 it bridges the gap between the two games and we will start ME3 where we left off in Arrival. If it's so important why is it an optional add on? Overlord made much more sense as premium DLC, it didn't add anything important to the story, other than extending the game and giving us some more action packed missions. I'm glad I got it, but if I had refrained from doing so I wouldn't have missed out on anything important.
So I like DLC, but only when it's truly optional, not when it will be to the players detriment to not purchase it. That just seems like a cheap tactic.
I think that Mass Effect 2 is an interesting game to look at when it comes to DLC. The Cerberus Network encouraged people to buy the game new instead of second hand without punishing people who decided not to. It came with a bunch of free DLC, from new items to new missions and even a vehicle that blows the old Mako out of the water. Then, after lavishing free DLC on us we were offered premium DLC at a fairly competative price. It wasn't cheap, but it wasn't expensive either. And really I won't criticise EA or Bioware for the price because DLC is still fairly new and publishers are still experimenting.
However, I felt a little let down by Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival. While I found the Lair of the Shadow Broker to be an enjoyable DLC both the Shadow Broker and Liara were integral to the franchise (especially Liara) so I felt a bit cheated that I had to splash out. Without the DLC Liara played a fairly minor role in ME2 compared to the original and there was no real chance for us to see the character develop, all we got to see was that she had become quite cold since Shep's death. The added character development and the ability to continue the relationship with Liara felt like it should have been part of the main game, not an optional premium add on. With Arrival (which, to be fair, I haven't played yet, though I did buy it) my issue is that according to the reviews and the previews for ME3 it bridges the gap between the two games and we will start ME3 where we left off in Arrival. If it's so important why is it an optional add on? Overlord made much more sense as premium DLC, it didn't add anything important to the story, other than extending the game and giving us some more action packed missions. I'm glad I got it, but if I had refrained from doing so I wouldn't have missed out on anything important.
So I like DLC, but only when it's truly optional, not when it will be to the players detriment to not purchase it. That just seems like a cheap tactic.
