New York, NY - October 15, 2009 – 2K Games announced today that the first piece of downloadable content for Borderlands™, The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned, is planned for release later this year for all available platforms for $9.99 (800 Microsoft Points). The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned is in development at Gearbox Software and is the first in a series of downloadable expansions that will enhance the Borderlands mayhem in fun and exciting ways.
Tasked with keeping the workers of Jakobs Cove alive, Dr. Ned (who is not related to Dr. Zed from Fyrestone) does his job a little too well, creating zombies and other abominations that now run rampant in this region. Players will have to work alongside Dr. Ned as they embark on a quest to cure the inhabitants of Jakobs Cove in this full-fledged expansion filled with new enemies, new quests and rare loot drops.
Waiting and seeing how the launch goes and whether there are a lot of problems or not seems like the wise thing to do. I never pre-order games*. I like to wait and see how reality compares with the marketing that we've seen first. If all goes well, then the patching thing isn't an issue. If there are problems, then you can sit back and judge them on how well they handle those problems before deciding whether to buy or not. Jumping to conclusions at this early stage, as many here have done, is not warranted since they haven't actually done anything wrong. If they do cross a line, then I'll be here bashing them right alongside everyone else.
Personally I would rather go back to normal expansions... Shivering Isles was a lot more worthwhile than all the Fallout 3 DLC put together except for possibly Point Lookout. I'm just saying DLC is what we have now, for better or worse, and as long as the main game is quality and doesn't feel like it's missing anything, I'm good.
See that's interesting though. This is simply my theory but I think that companies have discovered DLC is much easier and more profitable than traditional expansion packs. Is it love or is it simply lack of choice? I guess time will tell. There's some great DLC out there that leads me one way on this argument and there's some terrible shit like game disc unlocks that scares me a bit as a consumer.
I simply do not trust a company to properly distinguish between them when they can more easily serve their own interests. There's nothing wrong or conspiratorial with that, that's their purpose - to make money. It doesn't however serve mine so I prefer to be cautious and weary as the gaming industry in general has had a rocky history with patching.
Thing is, a ton of customers have shown that DLC a month or two after release is a good thing as far as they are concerned. It is an exciting thing that extends the game past the week or so it takes to beat it.
Why? Because people love DLC, that's why...
If the game sucks or is buggy, then nobody's gonna hang around for the DLC anyway.
Many companies view DLC as their method of combating piracy and used games sales, guess who gets caught up in that battle? Yes, you and I. Big companies are talking about having DLC code unlocks just to see endings, how soon until they make the jump to charging us for bits and pieces of the game? Forced episodic gaming isn't something I would look forward to personally, especially with the incredibly disparate regional pricing issues.If they start pulling that kind of crap, then hell no I won't be buying those games. But that's a far cry from complaining about them announcing that DLC will be released within a couple months after the game hits the shelves. That seems like a good thing to me. It's completely optional stuff, so I really don't see how it could be a problem. It certainly doesn't excuse them from being quick to patch any problems from the game, but we haven't seen the game yet, so it's way too soon to hit them with that. Only if they blow it and don't fix things within a reasonable amount of time would there be any reason to bash them for it. What some "some companies" may or may not be doing with other games makes no difference here. I don't see anything wrong with them releasing DLC a month or two after the game, and I certainly don't see any problem with announcing it before the game ships. In fact, I'd prefer to know ahead of time. If the game sucks or is buggy, then nobody's gonna hang around for the DLC anyway.
I don't think people assume all DLC is nickle and diming. It's a perception issue as previously pointed out and also a trust issue. Some people trust companies. Other people view companies as existing solely to make money and to not always have the best intentions for their customers. Both views are technically correct in their own ways. We've seen many examples of businesses that operate by appealing to consumer's sense of fairness. We've seen plenty of companies who operate without giving the slightest care in the world about their customers. There's no right or wrong here, just differing views.
Right, you canceled your pre-order because you're not upset. Then you didn't bitch and moan about it? You're deluded.
Who cares if you have the game yet?
Someone below complained that they should have waited until after the release to announce that they intended to nickel and dime us. WTF?
How does that make any goddamn sense either? You'd rather they wait until you buy the game until they tell you there's going to be DLC? Isn't it better to know in advance so that you can get your panties in a bunch ahead of time and not buy the game to begin with?
The only one pissing and moaning here is you, the rest of us are discussing things quite civilly. The first thing I do as a consumer is vote with my wallet by the way, nothing unreasonable about that.Right, you canceled your pre-order because you're not upset. Then you didn't bitch and moan about it? You're deluded.
Some people have trouble getting worked up over "exciting new content" when they don't even have the original game in hand yet. It's not hard to understand, you just don't want to. Why are you even assuming the DLC is great and exciting? You haven't even played any of these games themselves. You dismiss it but perception is pretty important in the industry. I'd rather get my games released, play them and get fixes for the bugs before I start worrying about EXCITING NEW CONTENT.
So you're not upset Verno, yet your first reaction to the news post was to cancle your preorder and piss and moan about DLC.
Ok then don't get pissy when you're labeled and dumped into the "I expect addtional content for free" crowd because thats pretty much how you come off in any news item relating to DLC for a game.
It's a comment born of frustration, and there are very simple reasons why. If you are a gamer, why are you not excited about new, awesome game content? It's really that simple.
The tired old tale is the general assumption that all gamers are the same, whether it be console or PC gamers. This entire comment is a waste of time, why did you even make it other than to antagonize people? Is there a point somewhere hidden in it or did you just want to seem clever by calling people lazy cheapskates without actually using the words?