as long as its not a personal issue it shouldnt be a problem

StingingVelvet wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 20:51:
I wouldn't disagree with that. I just dislike the rants about cut content and incomplete games when most of them are complete and if the DLC never existed you wouldn't notice it's absence.

Subjective at best. I've named more than a few already and I'm sure a much larger list could be made. People have every reason to be cynical when the industry hasn't shown itself to be particularly responsible with regards to consumer value in the past five years. You increasingly pay more and get less for your dollar, even the price of games itself is rising. The number of games being released keeps increasing yet publishers complain when all of their titles are not multi-million sellers despite costing more money both before and after the sale thanks to things like DLC.

So people can be forgiven for painting the industry with a wide brush, there's been a handful of great DLC examples and a vast wasteland of shitty DLC, many of which were worked on, talked about and people were fully aware of -before- release.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I just dislike the rants about cut content and incomplete games when most of them are complete and if the DLC never existed you wouldn't notice it's absence.

That's a pretty slippery slope. You're basically saying that it's okay to cut out content for DLC as long as nobody notices. While it's true that most DLC is fairly insubstantial, I'm more concerned with the principle of the matter. I believe that if content is completed before a game goes gold, it should be included in the game at no extra cost to the consumer. I don't think any content should be held back for use as a pre-order bonus or post-release DLC.

Let's look at the RE5 DLC debacle, where consumers found out that the DLC mode code and data was already on disc and that the download only unlocked it. According to your argument, if the consumers hadn't found evidence of the mode's existence on the disc, it would have been okay.

Verno wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 19:32:

StingingVelvet wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 19:27:

Neither of those things prove the content was intended to be in the main game. The existence of content before the main game goes gold does not mean the content was originally intended to be IN the main game.

Uh alright, you're welcome to that "point" but its beyond silly. I'm not going to split hairs over intentions as its too easy and convenient to change and interpret them. Intentions aren't even important, anyone can say they intended one thing and do something else. I care about what was made during the games development window.

The vast majority of DLC is not developed post-product launch. There are some notable examples such as the Fallout 3 DLC that is actually developed afterward but speaking generally, most games get 1-2 DLC packs and often times the majority of that work, if not the entirety was done during release. As DLC has proven to make shitloads of money, this kind of holdback has become more common. Some of the larger publishers have finally started understanding that consumers don't like this and have created ongoing content teams but I certainly wouldn't say its common right now.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I just dislike the rants about cut content and incomplete games when most of them are complete and if the DLC never existed you wouldn't notice it's absence. The rare screw-ups like the salesman in Dragon Age and the locked Orrey door in Oblivion are the annoying exceptions.

StingingVelvet wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 19:27:

Neither of those things prove the content was intended to be in the main game. The existence of content before the main game goes gold does not mean the content was originally intended to be IN the main game.

Uh alright, you're welcome to that "point" but its beyond silly. I'm not going to split hairs over intentions as its too easy and convenient to change and interpret them. Intentions aren't even important, anyone can say they intended one thing and do something else. I care about what was made during the games development window.

The vast majority of DLC is not developed post-product launch. There are some notable examples such as the Fallout 3 DLC that is actually developed afterward but speaking generally, most games get 1-2 DLC packs and often times the majority of that work, if not the entirety was done during release. As DLC has proven to make shitloads of money, this kind of holdback has become more common. Some of the larger publishers have finally started understanding that consumers don't like this and have created ongoing content teams but I certainly wouldn't say its common right now.

Verno wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 19:24:
Sure I do, you've brought this up before and I've addressed it in similar threads. For example, the Kasumi character in the Mass Effect 2 DLC has full voice samples and some models but it was obviously incomplete at the time of certification because the final results differ greatly. The Hammerhead vehicle was in the game but pulled to be DLC later so it could be rebalanced as focus tests showed people didn't like the controls. So yes, DLC does get pulled and is consequently resold later sometimes or given away
as an incentive to new game buyers but it's not always a bad thing(balance/completeness) nor is it always about money.

Neither of those things prove the content was intended to be in the main game. The existence of content before the main game goes gold does not mean the content was originally intended to be IN the main game.

That's the point I have been making since this thread started and you're not even aware of it I guess.

StingingVelvet wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 16:30:

I respond to whatever I read, don't assume shit...

More to the point, you have no evidence of your claims because you do not work for these developers.

Sure I do, you've brought this up before and I've addressed it in similar threads. For example, the Kasumi character in the Mass Effect 2 DLC has full voice samples and some models but it was obviously incomplete at the time of certification because the final results differ greatly. The Hammerhead vehicle was in the game but pulled to be DLC later so it could be rebalanced as focus tests showed people didn't like the controls. Do I need to go into Shale? How about some console games? There's been one with DLC on the disc even. So yes, DLC does get pulled and is consequently resold later sometimes or given away as an incentive to new game buyers but it's not always a bad thing(balance/completeness) nor is it always about money.

I could go on with further examples and I have done so in previous threads but I think I've made my point.

I have a reason to assume that, because damn near every DLC feels like it was developed by a B-Team or is different enough from the main game to feel like separate content.

No, too vague. You don't get to demand specifics from me while being that vague yourself. I don't know what your point was here other than wanting to argue, you want to make assumptions but demand proof of others about something that can only be spoken about generally anyways as no one is God and can determine the minds of every single developer in the universe. We can however speak generally about released DLC, we can observe and repeat what developers themselves have said at times and some people can mention standard practices in the industry.

Verno wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 10:19:
Actually I've posted several responses over the past week debunking your claims regarding specific DLC, you just don't really respond to them because I suspect you have no rebuttal. You're the one who was using general terms here so don't get upset when people respond in kind, -that- is being Jerykk.

I respond to whatever I read, don't assume shit...

More to the point, you have no evidence of your claims because you do not work for these developers. You're just assuming, like I am assuming these things were not pulled from the game late in development. I have a reason to assume that, because damn near every DLC feels like it was developed by a B-Team or is different enough from the main game to feel like separate content.

What is your reasoning to say the opposite?

StingingVelvet wrote on Sep 9, 2010, 07:56:

You're pulling a Jerykk here, talking about it as a fact but not really having any proof or information to back that up.

Actually I've posted several responses over the past week debunking your claims regarding specific DLC, you just don't really respond to them because I suspect you have no rebuttal. You're the one who was using general terms here so don't get upset when people respond in kind, -that- is being Jerykk.

And I never said it hasn't happened, I made a point to say mostly in every comment. Mostly fictional... mostly hyperbole.

What is that, the lawyer defense? "Oh but I said 99%, not 100%!" It's not "mostly fictional", its common place. Its just not done in some insidious or evil manner that most people suspect.

Verno wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 16:26:

What I am saying is the idea of someone having a complete game, then shortly before gold master saying "wait, wait... cut out this mission string, we'll sell it as DLC," is mostly fictional.

Nah, it happens, it's just not done in necessarily some insidious manner with the intent to defraud gamers (although even that has happened). Often times they won't want to push back release or certification has already finished so they will chop out whats left and sell it later.

The flip side to this is that games used to have a lot of cut content that didn't make it into the game and never got sold or patched in. That's sometimes a good thing though, there is a lot of shitty DLC on the market and very few companies seem to get it right.

You're pulling a Jerykk here, talking about it as a fact but not really having any proof or information to back that up.

And I never said it hasn't happened, I made a point to say mostly in every comment. Mostly fictional... mostly hyperbole.

imho the _only_ DLC genuinely worth playing and that also had any game length to them were 2 for Fallout 3 and 2 for Borderlands.

What I am saying is the idea of someone having a complete game, then shortly before gold master saying "wait, wait... cut out this mission string, we'll sell it as DLC," is mostly fictional.

Nah, it happens, it's just not done in necessarily some insidious manner with the intent to defraud gamers (although even that has happened). Often times they won't want to push back release or certification has already finished so they will chop out whats left and sell it later.

The flip side to this is that games used to have a lot of cut content that didn't make it into the game and never got sold or patched in. That's sometimes a good thing though, there is a lot of shitty DLC on the market and very few companies seem to get it right.

justice7 wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 11:41:
Surely, it isn't that hard considering they released an editor with all its bells and whistles.

Well no, that's part of the problem. The editor isn't always updated to be in sync with the DLC. There's been several times where the editor has lagged for weeks while DLC was released, people continued to release content. And without knowing it, they're breaking the DLC because it's changed the resource trees.

Jerykk wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 05:02:
Aside from having first-hand experience with how DLC is "created," it seems fairly logical to assume that any DLC that is ready at a game's launch (like the pre-order DLC I mentioned) was in fact finished long before the game went gold. After all, DLC content has to be rated by the various rating boards AND tested by QA AND pass through MS & Sony certification before it can be sold.

What, do you really think that all those Mafia 2 pre-order outfits and vehicles were created at the last minute? You may like the concept of DLC but you'd have to be pretty blind not to see how publishers are exploiting it.

As I said, that doesn't mean it was cut from the game. Pre-order bonuses are usually over-powered items that are not in the main game at all and were certainly developed on the side to be pre-order items. Sure, they were done when the main game was, but that does not make them cut content as they were always intended to be on the side. Personally I ignore them, even when I get them legitimately, as they ruin the balance of the game.

What I am saying is the idea of someone having a complete game, then shortly before gold master saying "wait, wait... cut out this mission string, we'll sell it as DLC," is mostly fictional.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 08:00:

Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 06:42:
itt people don't understand cost nor time of development cycles. Some DLC is a blatant rip-off, some is blatantly done before release day, but the idea that something like this one (as much as it still may be overpriced, if not by nearly as much as the anti-DLC brigade likes to pretend) should've been "part of the original game" is absurd.

Yeah, uh well...
I like DLCs when they are like the BAF DLC from Bohemia.
All others Ive seen so far are blatant ripoffs and also instead of keeping me playing, they force me to buy the game about 1 year after release when they stopped releasing DLC, because it simply destroys the immersion in the game. I dont want to play the game once a month for 1 hour after I have played through already, neither do I want to play through it again every time a DLC is released. I want to enjoy it fully with all the content possible when I want. Not when the Publisher wants.
Thats where normal expansions were MUCH MUCH better. They offered a whole new story and lots of content in addition to the original game. DLC only adds small minor fragments to the original game, which arent even a whole expansion if you put em together, but cost up to twice as much.

Yeah, uh, well, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I could not possibly care less about your personal taste in DLC; if it's all unsatisfactory to you, don't buy it.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 08:00:

Yeah, uh well...
All others Ive seen so far are blatant ripoffs and also instead of keeping me playing, they force me to buy the game about 1 year after release when they stopped releasing DLC, because it simply destroys the immersion in the game. I dont want to play the game once a month for 1 hour after I have played through already, neither do I want to play through it again every time a DLC is released. I want to enjoy it fully with all the content possible when I want. Not when the Publisher wants.
Thats where normal expansions were MUCH MUCH better. They offered a whole new story and lots of content in addition to the original game. DLC only adds small minor fragments to the original game, which arent even a whole expansion if you put em together, but cost up to twice as much.

THIS!! Times a thousand. 1 Hour DLC in a game we've already completed is bs. Give us some 8-10 hour segments. Surely, it isn't that hard considering they released an editor with all its bells and whistles.

I couldn't even get the "free" DLC to work, Stone prisoner stops working part way through and my Blood Dragon Armor just never shows up despite both being installed and activated correctly.

Fat chance of my actually buying any DLC on the back of that experience.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 08:00:

Yeah, uh well...
All others Ive seen so far are blatant ripoffs and also instead of keeping me playing, they force me to buy the game about 1 year after release when they stopped releasing DLC, because it simply destroys the immersion in the game. I dont want to play the game once a month for 1 hour after I have played through already, neither do I want to play through it again every time a DLC is released. I want to enjoy it fully with all the content possible when I want. Not when the Publisher wants.
Thats where normal expansions were MUCH MUCH better. They offered a whole new story and lots of content in addition to the original game. DLC only adds small minor fragments to the original game, which arent even a whole expansion if you put em together, but cost up to twice as much.

Agreed. It makes no sense to me to have small, 1 hour DLC segments in a 40-80 hour game like Dragon Age for example.

Dragon Age DLC is a no brainer revenue generator: the game engine is already done and few new assets are needed to make a super short length DLC. I just wish the game was better: it was only alright.

Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Sep 8, 2010, 06:42:
itt people don't understand cost nor time of development cycles. Some DLC is a blatant rip-off, some is blatantly done before release day, but the idea that something like this one (as much as it still may be overpriced, if not by nearly as much as the anti-DLC brigade likes to pretend) should've been "part of the original game" is absurd.

Yeah, uh well...
I like DLCs when they are like the BAF DLC from Bohemia.
All others Ive seen so far are blatant ripoffs and also instead of keeping me playing, they force me to buy the game about 1 year after release when they stopped releasing DLC, because it simply destroys the immersion in the game. I dont want to play the game once a month for 1 hour after I have played through already, neither do I want to play through it again every time a DLC is released. I want to enjoy it fully with all the content possible when I want. Not when the Publisher wants.
Thats where normal expansions were MUCH MUCH better. They offered a whole new story and lots of content in addition to the original game. DLC only adds small minor fragments to the original game, which arent even a whole expansion if you put em together, but cost up to twice as much.