Jimquisition and Warner Brothers Publishing
Jimquisition Video
Okay, watch the video where the Jimquisition discusses the Warner Brothers as a publisher. Basically, it covers the concept, and the way Warner Brothers handles DLC. (warning: There is cursing) He goes on to point out things such as how DLC is often created during game production, as evidenced by Arkham: Origins, when it was revealed that there were so many bugs in the game because the devs were busy making DLC instead of fixing them. What are your opinions on DLC?

Frankly, according to his examples, i think of things such as skins, as DLC. Its stuff you don't need, but would be really neat to have, like playing as classic 60's batman as he breaks limbs and dnagles people from the ceiling. It would also be things like Harley Quinn's revenge, where its not a full expansion, but still builds upon the story for 2 or 3 hours. What Warner Brothers seems to be doing is screwing over the people who brought the game in the first place, vs those who would wait for the game of the Year edition.
When a publisher uses DLC to squeeze a bit more money out of their customers, then that's just plain wrong. It plays on some people's need to have a complete game because god forbid they're missing a character skin, or some special weapon. A lot of times these DLCs do absolutely nothing to improve on the game or extend its playability in any way. Other times, DLCs feel like content that should have already been in the game at release like a new campaign or what have you. I don't have a problem with extending the story of a good game, but use it in an expansion pack. Don't try and coax another $5, $10, $20 from me every time you want to patch your game.

On the other hand, I love DLC when it comes from users. There are some really talented gamers out there, and it's nice to be able to get additional content to add to a game you enjoy when the content is done well. For games I've really enjoyed in the past, being able to build maps or scenarios to share with the community extends the life of a game, and of course makes it more enjoyable. I also don't have a problem when a developer uses DLC as a way to encourage people to donate to a charity. Those are really the only instances where I will pay for DLC.
I could pay for any kind of extension only, whenever it really gives something new, fix or remake old, like WC3: Frozen Throne or HoMM: Shadow of Death, but for any kind of something that was in game, but was locked or just add some maps and campaign (like two DLCs for HoMM 6) I think price for a DLC that unlocks it should cost equally less to the time of making them in comparison to basic game version developing. It's easy to make maps and story, but not the game.
Spec: Win 10, ATI 7800 HD, res: 1280x1024x75. I support The Venus Project & Resource-Based Economy
Here the stupid thing... as big companies, you reputation is SO IMPORTANT for you customers. Yet they companies like EA, Warner Brothers and Ubisoft insist on frustrating their users with DLC that one may consider needed.

As a result the number of games i've bought off EA have dropped to almost zero. In fact the only reason I have Battlefield 3 is because it was free on origin for awhile.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)