DLC is ruining content of games

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Do you know maths? or footeball/soccer? what is better to score one goal or score none? 1 is better than 0? so if one user is pleased with the DLC its better than none being pleased because there is none DLC available.

As long as it is optional I dont see the big deal... It certainly didnt ruin the original game, especially if he doesnt buy them (DLCs

The fact is just because DLC changed your life does not show a complete consensus (once again) that DLC is a good thing. IT isn't as black and white as a soccer score if it was there wouldn't be an argument. Okay well if it isn't a big deal, then it shouldn't be a big deal for devs to put content in the game that was already made later down the road. Does this concept escape you?

The games arent getting worse IMO they are evolving... in past years if a game had a bug it would be with that bug forever, now they try to fix the bugs... the ideal would be for a game to be free of bugs but then again between 1 game with bugs and 0 games with no bugs Ill take the one especially if they patch it later.

Yes in your opinion (just clarifying so you don't use it as fact later), however once again it isn't that simple, bugs aren't easily fixed and many times when a bug is fixed a new ones occur due to it. This has been shown several times with GT5. It is a good hearted thing to try and fix the games, but it is a bit of diminishing return. In reality all consoles and game devs are doing is the same thing that has been done on PCs for years such as operating systems and free game updates as far as content and quality go.

Also are you a member of Iracing?

So he may have a point or may not... 5 years it took to release GT5 and if another 5 will take to release GT6 at least till then I will be driving in SPA and hopefully driving the honda hsv-010 gt if they decide to release it via DLC (Ill buy that one for sure)

Yes yes your hopes for GT5 the dogma shows itself. A game that takes five years shouldn't have an issue with getting such things, to the point that DLC isn't an option or needed.

The DLCs certainly didnt ruin the original release (neither did the patches) especially if you dont buy the DLCs or update the game... because it is optional. But if he is refering to DLC content already finished when the game is released to make a few bucks later (as they did with Dirt 3) then that is a diferent question but I dont think that was the case with GT5.

*facepalm* once again (this is sad really) he isn't talking about GT5 and the irony is you pointed that out a few post ago. Yet you go back to the argument as if the OP is talking exclusively about GT5. Stop feeling like your game is being tossed int he mud. The OP once agian is talking about all games in general, but making a point with GT5. I said it once and will say it again, this thread is in the wrong place and should be moved so non-researched remarks are no longer made. Also Kaz has said that the VWs, Scion, Jag XJR-9 Premium and others were made before GT5s release but yet they're sold as if they were made only a few weeks ago. The only cars that are patched freely and morally just are the GT86s.

It's like buying a car but every two months or so you need to go in and get a key part or minor part added to it that should have come with the car to begin with. A tire here a seat belt there and so on. That is the way games are being developed, we will make 75% of it and sell it then shelf the other 25% and sell it later on, then sell a new game with that 25% a few months further down. (numbers were hypothetical)

Is that a fact or your opinion?

Obvious opinion, no need to patronize people.

 

[evilserpentman]

Is that a fact or your opinion?

Nothing is fact on the internet.

Nero, the 90's developers were doing the same thing, Age of Empires is a prime example, both the original and Age of Kings released expansion packs around a year afterwards.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Nothing is fact on the internet.

Nero, the 90's developers were doing the same thing, Age of Empires is a prime example, both the original and Age of Kings released expansion packs around a year afterwards.

Exactly, which goes against what both are saying Tribolik is saying that games back then weren't patched. Essentially they were just not like they are now.

 

[peter_vod69]

Exactly, which goes against what both are saying Tribolik is saying that games back then weren't patched. Essentially they were just not like they are now.

Console games weren't.

 

[doctorrg]

Again for me I want to have all the options so I will continue buying DLC's

Sadly, I'm the same as far as GT5 is concerned. I say sadly, because I don't like the idea of DLC at all, and I would have loved to vote that way.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I'm going to make this perfectly clear - if this thread is going to be used to simply be abusive to others who don't share your views on DLC, it, and your membership at GTPlanet, will be short-lived. Argue the other person's points, don't resort to name-calling.

then out of the air there it was a "day 1" DLC.

Except it wasn't...?

1990s games > todays games

Statements like this are incredibly pointless, unless you're just simplifying a statement of opinion. Two unquantifiable things, and you can declare with the utmost certainty that one is apparently superior? No, it doesn't work like that.

DLC is optional, and an addition to the current game. I could see the complaint about getting an imcomplete game if, say, PD shipped GT5 with a single track, and had every other track as DLC. But a four-car pack, like the second Car Pack, hardly is a requirement to play the game, and doesn't take away anything from said game, either. The "quality dip" doesn't exist.

Yes, the DLC will (likely) end up in the next installment of the series, but much like other areas of consumer products, those who are willing to be early adopters pay the price. Many of us bought GT5 at the full retail price - now, GT5 XL Edition is available, with DLC, for less than that. Same model, slightly different situations.

Nevermind the fact that in some cases, the DLC is generally required to add cars that weren't available when the game first shipped. The Aventador, Black Edition GT-R, and Countryman couldn't have been included fifteen months ago. I know, personally, I'd much rather pay a few dollars to have them in the game I currently own, than wait whatever long amount of time is ahead for the next full installment of the game.

 

[evilserpentman]

Exactly, which goes against what both are saying Tribolik is saying that games back then weren't patched. Essentially they were just not like they are now.

Yeah, games were in-fact patched and we did get additional content.
The world didn't/couldn't facilitate charging people for it though, hence it was free, or came in expansions.

It isn't an entirely new concept, it's just much easier to employ and potentially abuse, due to the fact we can do it on consoles now...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Console games weren't.

Gee, I guess that's why I said they were patched but not like the standards we know today.

Perhaps bestowing wisdom (so-called) to others on how to read or format post, maybe you should do the same. I say essentially. Also expansion packs and PC updates of the 90s were early forms of a DLC. Kind of like how we have GT5 and then GT5XL. That's been around for some time. So yes certain console games were given expansion packs to fix bugs and add content.

Yeah, games were in-fact patched and we did get additional content.
The world didn't/couldn't facilitate charging people for it though, hence it was free, or came in expansions.

It isn't an entirely new concept, it's just much easier to employ and potentially abuse, due to the fact we can do it on consoles now...

Exactly, online exchange or internet payments have enabled people to charge for added content now as to where before (like you said) wasn't possible.

 

[peter_vod69]

certain console games were given expansion packs to fix bugs and add content.

But that's just it. They weren't.

PC games were, but console games weren't.

 

[xNeroZero]

But that's just it. They weren't.

PC games were, but console games weren't.

Hence is why console games of the 90' and the early 00's where better than anything that's out today.

 

[evilserpentman]

Hence is why console games of the 90' and the early 00's where better than anything that's out today.

So we got to live with all the bugs and holes...

GT2 for example had a fair amount of bugs, they released a newer version after the intial US release to rectify this.
Although they didn't make it obvious, it was a primitive console patch.

 

[tribolik]

The fact is just because DLC changed your life does not show a complete consensus (once again) that DLC is a good thing. IT isn't as black and white as a soccer score if it was there wouldn't be an argument. Okay well if it isn't a big deal, then it shouldn't be a big deal for devs to put content in the game that was already made later down the road. Does this concept escape you?

No and I rather prefer that (like it was in GT5 prologue) and the DLC didnt change my life it just changed the game disk I inserted on the PS3.

Also are you a member of Iracing?

No but I read and see alot about it and users seem to be always very pleased when a new update is released.

I only use my laptop for work purposes (mainly AutoCad Im an Architech) and internet... And I learned the hard way that I shouldnt mix gaming with work in the same PC (I had a few problems with previous PCs in wich I lost alot of my work because of game crashes)

So gaming for me is only on a console for the meantime at least.

It's like buying a car but every two months or so you need to go in and get a key part or minor part added to it that should have come with the car to begin with. A tire here a seat belt there and so on. That is the way games are being developed, we will make 75% of it and sell it then shelf the other 25% and sell it later on, then sell a new game with that 25% a few months further down. (numbers were hypothetical)

Well it has happened to me with my C2 VTR... two months after buying it I was called in by citroen to freely replace a part because of safety questions. My girl friend had one also a few months older and she was also called in at the same time as me. I wasnt happy about it but it was the best thing to do.

. I said it once and will say it again, this thread is in the wrong place and should be moved so non-researched remarks are no longer made.

Now you said it all and hit the nail in the head... Im done here, dont want to get insulted again for expressing my opinion regarding a misplaced thread that leads people to get the wrong conclusions.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

But that's just it. They weren't.

PC games were, but console games weren't.

Wrong. Many PC games back then and even now had them, Console games are going that way. However, certain console games had primitive expansion packs such as: Sonic & Knuckles for the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis was unusual in that it functioned as both a stand alone cartridge and as an expansion pack for both Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

I've been playing video games for a long time so yea.

No but I read and see alot about it and users seem to be always very pleased when a new update is released.

I only use my laptop for work purposes (mainly AutoCad Im an Architech) and internet... And I learned the hard way that I shouldnt mix gaming with work in the same PC (I had a few problems with previous PCs in wich I lost alot of my work because of game crashes)

So gaming for me is only on a console for the meantime at least.

Well obviously, Autocad is massive anyways and I too don't need my CAD work being lost due to my gaming affair. Back to topic though I ask because the way you present iRacing sounds like that of someone who isn't a member. The reality is in iracing one doesn't need to buy every car to be successful and the new content you buy has a return, you race on the game and your payment a month gets smaller (currently $7 dollars for me) also the cash prizes and other stuff you can win. The implemenation of iracing's DLC is one of mutual growth for both parties. Console DLC is more parasitic and runs the risk of less real content in the game down the road and nice chucks being parted off as DLC to just have a true complete game.

Well it has happened to me with my C2 VTR... two months after buying it I was called in by citroen to freely replace a part because of safety questions. My girl friend had one also a few months older and she was also called in at the same time as me. I wasnt happy about it but it was the best thing to do.

Yes, but they didn't charge you and that wasn't that point I made really. I was saying if you bought a car and the company purposely didn't give you the parts that you should have received with it but instead planned to make you pay for it down the road because the could.

Now you said it all and hit the nail in the head... Im done here, dont want to get insulted again for expressing my opinion regarding a misplaced thread that leads people to get the wrong conclusions.

Who is insulting you beside the OP?

 

[peter_vod69]

Hence is why console games of the 90' and the early 00's where better than anything that's out today.

Look mate, you are talking to one of the biggest nostalgia-nerds out there. I have a Sega Saturn with Daytona and Sega Rally. I still have GT1/2/3/4 and all of the other "Tokyo/Geneva/Idaho Car Show Editions". And even with my rosiest of rose-coloured supernerd space goggles on, you are wrong. We get so much more bang for our buck these days, way before DLC is taken in to consideration.

 

[snowgt]

To me it seems that these fears are all unfounded.

How does releasing cars and tracks that are also going to be in GT6 make GT5 a worse game?

Nobody is not doing some important work on the current game or the next, just because they are releasing some new content as they finish it. You can think of it as GT6-content released ahead of time. What's so bad about that? It doesn't have one iota of influence on how good a game GT6 will be. And it makes a lot of people happy and earns them money for developing the next game even before it's released. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[thelvynau]

Wrong. Many PC games back then and even now had them, Console games are going that way. However, certain console games had primitive expansion packs such as: Sonic & Knuckles for the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis was unusual in that it functioned as both a stand alone cartridge and as an expansion pack for both Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

I've been playing video games for a long time so yea.

Ha ha I was going to mention about the sonic and knuckles expansion beat me to it

 

[peter_vod69]

Wrong. Many PC games back then and even now had them, Console games are going that way. However, certain console games had primitive expansion packs such as: Sonic & Knuckles for the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis was unusual in that it functioned as both a stand alone cartridge and as an expansion pack for both Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Expansion pack? Kinda, it added an option join two games together, but it wasn't DLC. Nor was it a patch. So you are still wrong.

 

[grrlpurple]

I'm not quite certain that the original argument holds water but there is some mileage in the issue that games producers may hold back content from a game release in order to specifically charge for it later as DLC - feels to me that this is nothing more than a money grabbing tactic rather than providing additional content for the customers.

 

[thelvynau]

Expansion pack? Kinda, it added an option join two games together, but it wasn't DLC. Nor was it a patch. So you are still wrong.

Not sure he said it was dlc

 

[xNeroZero]

Look mate, you are talking to one of the biggest nostalgia-nerds out there. I have a Sega Saturn with Daytona and Sega Rally. I still have GT1/2/3/4 and all of the other "Tokyo/Geneva/Idaho Car Show Editions". And even with my rosiest of rose-coloured supernerd space goggles on, you are wrong. We get so much more bang for our buck these days, way before DLC is taken in to consideration.

This is way past GT5 and other racing games. I'm talking about story games like, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Deus Ex. I agree that racing games are better today then back in the day, I mean why wouldn't they. There's always new models of cars coming why wouldn't you want to drive them?

 

[peter_vod69]

This is way past GT5 and other racing games. I'm talking about story games like, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Deus Ex. I agree that racing games are better today then back in the day, I mean why wouldn't they. There's always new models of cars coming why wouldn't you want to drive them?

So DLC is improving GT5 then?

 

[Spike125]

Hence is why console games of the 90' and the early 00's where better than anything that's out today.

You just didn't feel "cheated" with the same content, as extra content was not available at that time.

I don't agree with the pricing of DLC's and the amount of content you get for that money.

But on the other hand, before there was no extra content at all !!!
So somehow we should be happy.

But I don't think that the quality of games suffered from DLC.

Sry, I had to come back, but the discussion got really interesting ^^

 

[thelvynau]

This is way past GT5 and other racing games. I'm talking about story games like, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Deus Ex. I agree that racing games are better today then back in the day, I mean why wouldn't they. There's always new models of cars coming why wouldn't you want to drive them?

If your talking general game dlc why is in the gt5 section

Edit: nevermind someone already posted about this threads location

 

[tribolik]

Expansion pack? Kinda, it added an option join two games together, but it wasn't DLC. Nor was it a patch. So you are still wrong.

An expansion pack may not be a DLC but a DLC is an expansion pack... so he might be right.

 

[peter_vod69]

An expansion pack may not be a DLC but a DLC is an expansion pack... so he might be right.

 

[xNeroZero]

So DLC is improving GT5 then?

Look mate, you are talking to one of the biggest nostalgia-nerds out there. I have a Sega Saturn with Daytona and Sega Rally. I still have GT1/2/3/4 and all of the other "Tokyo/Geneva/Idaho Car Show Editions". And even with my rosiest of rose-coloured supernerd space goggles on, you are wrong. We get so much more bang for our buck these days, way before DLC is taken in to consideration.

^

 

[tribolik]

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Expansion pack? Kinda, it added an option join two games together, but it wasn't DLC. Nor was it a patch. So you are still wrong.

It's an expansion pack, just like DLC is a more definitive expasion of today's era of games. How is this not the same. Also look at the N64 expansion pack, due to that games were reworked and patched and thus re-released with better depth and textures. Starcraft 64 was expanded to the level of it's PC counter part due to the expansion pack. So no it not wrong, there were games on the console in the 90s with a primitive DLC like feature or a least paved the road to what is now considered true expansion aka DLC.

No one is even saying DLC was around for 90s console games, we are saying that expansion packs are what could be called early forms of DLC or Patching. Thus adding content and fixing bugs, same thing updates do in Todays world. How can you not put two and two

 

[NJ72]

I'm gonna have to disagree with the OP and agree at the same time

With respect to games such as GT5 i disagree, i am happy paying for extra DLC as the game had over 200 'premium' cars and over 800 standard cars. how many cars did GT3 have? also take in to account the polygon count of the cars, each one takes more work than cars in previous iterations of GT5.

I do, however, agree with the OP about most games in the respect that any racing game by codemasters has an obscene amount of DLC on the PSN before the game is released, which to me seems wrong. DLC should be released at a later date to further enhance a game IMO. Not at release day when you go to select a car in DiRT and it says 'Sorry, you're cheap and only bought the stand-alone game. Earn some more cash and play the game properly'... that just seems wrong to me.

Each to their own, but I think the concept of DLC the way PD are implementing it is fine. Others maybe not...

 

[peter_vod69]

It's an expansion pack, just like DLC is a more definitive expasion of today's era of games. How is this not the same. Also look at the N64 expansion pack, due to that games were reworked and patched and thus re-released with better depth and textures. Starcraft 64 was expanded to the level of it's PC counter part due to the expansion pack. So no it not wrong, there were games on the console in the 90s with a primitive DLC like feature or a least paved the road to what is now considered true expansion aka DLC.

No one is even saying DLC was around for 90s console games, we are saying that expansion packs are what could be called early forms of DLC or Patching. Thus adding content and fixing bugs, same thing updates do in Todays world. How can you not put two and two

You just did. And you insinuated it earlier in the thread. While we're on the subject, could you download the patched/upgraded Starcraft 64? Or did you have to buy the game again?