EA: all our games will have micro-transactions

Real Racing 3 is a scam.

if this is how EA is going to do its microtransactions, we are in trouble.

Who said anything about what was right again? I agree, games shouldn't be rushed. But they are. It's inevitable. Your conviction not to buy into the corporate system is admirable, but also naive. Not every developer is willing to sacrifice their livelihood like that, and for now, most would prefer to have the degree of security offered by the corporate system even with the decrease in quality.

DLC offers the possibility that in the event a game like Sonic 2006 was rushed out the door, it can be fixed. Not that it will be, not that it deserves it, but that the possibility exists. No more, no less.

DLC has been used in ways that are less than admirable, I agree, and while I wouldn't agree games have been deliberately rushed to ensure DLC, the possibility is an unpleasant and not altogether unlikely one.

But I suppose, in my foolish optimism, I'm just hopeful that DLC will help safeguard me from ever having to play a game as bad as E.T. again.

edited 2nd Mar '13 2:30:12 PM by unnoun

"Real" Racing "3" MY BUTTOCKS

Yes, unnoun, DLC can be good.

It pretty much never is though. It's not the concept at fault, but rather the application of said concept, and the companies who use it.

the only good dlc was the dlc for Little Big Planet

And Rock Band. Really.

Fire Emblem: Awakening's DLC is pretty good, I think. At least in the sense that buying it is a choice, not something forced upon you.

Same goes for Sleeping Dogs. Yes, there's some nice extra campaign DLC as well as a bunch of skins, weapons, and races, but none of it is essential to the game and the game is easily enjoyable without any of them.

The Expansion Pack for New Super Mario Bros U should probably fall under this too, but it's way too early to tell right now.

Fire Emblem Awakening scars me by how much DLC there is...

Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2 is pretty good. It extends the story with a different protagonist, expands Rapture's story and explains what happened to a character who disappears in the main story.

I thought the last two DLC for the first Borderlands were superb, and were in some ways better than the main game, especially General Knoxx. They managed to set the tone for Borderlands 2 as well.

Also, Artorias of the Abyss for Dark Souls. Then again, that may have been because it was Dark Souls.

Bioshock 2, Borderlands and Dark Souls all have DLC that is more "Mini-Expansion Pack" and less "Standard feature ripped out and held ransom for your cash" or "Tacked on multiplayer mode" or "Ridiculously overpriced minor addition" or "Paid Game-Breaker"

As I said before, expansion and DLC is pretty much interchangable term now (but doesn't include all DLC types)... ...to say that all DLC suck just because of the so-called power buying and such and ignore the content-adding ones is being ignorant to the extreme...

Hardly. It's never interchangeable. Rip off and extra service are different things, and always will be.

Most forms of DLC are rip offs, not extra service where something genuinely adds to something which can be optional.

I may be in the minority that thinks the DLC for both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas were perfectly justified and completely worth paying for.

^^ That's just effin ignorant...ripoff? If the DLC is made after 2 years of the initial game and is totally new content you'll still consider it as ripoff? If the price is low so that its price vs base game price in terms of content is justified, are you gonna call it ripoff? And you call this not ignorant? And talk about effin generalization...

^ I don't get it...why did people consider it NOT justified?

edited 2nd Mar '13 11:11:19 PM by onyhow

Most people like the Fallout 3 DLC I thought.

The DLC people don't like is stuff you have to pay for for things that are on the disk or are really shady (Dragon Age 1's "Want to go on an adventure, swipe credit card here!" thing rings a bell)

And since when did I say expansions aren't ok? But you have to face the facts here. Most DLC are rip offs instead of expansions, and rip offs are a sign of intentionally rushed development, like my missing headline metaphor. Since this is EA we are talking about here, it's made official that ALL of their games WILL HAVE MISSING HEADLIGHTS

edited 3rd Mar '13 2:26:19 AM by Culminus

Yes, there's lots of it. But you don't have to buy it to complete or enjoy the main game.

^^ Right right right, and you generalize ALL DLC FROM EVERY COMPANIES EVER! And seriously, tell me difference between DLC and expansion pack?

Oh wait, let's consult Wikipedia, just because:

Oh, hmm...doesn't that sound like it include things that would normally be expansion pack? Oh right, it does...what is New Vegas / Fallout 3 DLC other than being expansion pack? It's the same thing! Other than the fact that "normal" expansion pack is normally sell on store, but consider the current digital age...how the hell do you think it's gonna be distributed?

In fact, it has basically nothing to do with the main game. Somewhere around micro-expansions, actually.

edited 3rd Mar '13 3:16:37 AM by Balmung

Pricing is key. Whilst you are right, consider: Warcraft III's stunning The Frozen Throne expansion pack cost me roughly £25 (which is the same as the cost of the actual game and, inflation adjusted, the price of a AAA game these days). For that, I got three whole new campaigns, plus the Orc mini-quest - so nearly as much content as the whole game. Nowadays, a lot of DLC is overpriced - all the Dead Space 3 DLC, like TFT, costs about as much as the game itself, but isn't nearly as content-heavy. Also, even without the expansion pack, Warcraft III was a wonderfully satisfying, lengthy, and rounded game - whilst a lot of DLC these days is practically mandatory if you want the "full" experience and plotline.

edited 3rd Mar '13 4:32:57 AM by Achaemenid

^ The thing is the two term right now is practically indistinguishable...but I agree with you, and yeah, if it's appropriately priced and not overpriced it's not too bad...

edited 3rd Mar '13 5:23:08 AM by onyhow

I'll gladly pay for expansion packs once I've beaten the main game. I just tend to ignore the cosmetic stuff unless it happens to be included in a deal bundled with the main game when I buy it.

And, I suppose, under certain circumstances I can go back on my dislike for buy-later factions in strategy games. If they're only cosmetically different to what's there, forget it, but if the gameplay is drastically different, it's another story. It's difficult to balance multiple ways to play something at first release, so if the new factions are different enough, I can accept their playability as an expansion pack, even if the game's a sandbox with sketchily defined goals.

Crusader Kings 2, I'm looking at you.

edited 3rd Mar '13 7:00:35 AM by Journeyman