-= Gametoast.com =-

Teancum wrote:

ANDEWEGET wrote:Exclusive rights to Star Wars games for EA is bad.

Not really. EA may be evil in the eyes of gamers, but they put out great games. I see nothing but positive things coming from this. We'll get games that we actually care about, unlike Kinect Star Wars. (which was actually better than what the critics said)

I don't have a problem with the EA part, I have a problem with the "exclusive" part.

Teancum wrote:

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:3.) DLC Train (chugga chugga chugga chugga chu chu).

Yeah, additional content sucks

Yet this additional content might very likely mean that there won't be a strong modding community. Funny how games as old as JJ2 still get fan love and custom content, not quite possible with DLC games.

Teancum wrote:

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:3.) DLC Train (chugga chugga chugga chugga chu chu).

Yeah, additional content sucks

Why can't people get what they pay for when they buy the game anymore!?

Cleb wrote:

Teancum wrote:

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:3.) DLC Train (chugga chugga chugga chugga chu chu).

Yeah, additional content sucks

Why can't people get what they pay for when they buy the game anymore!?

Because EA and other large large companies can suck even more money from our wallets! I remember when i used to be able to get new games for less then 50 dollars, and now its 60 dollars plus even more money for "extra content" which should be in games anyway. The perfect example of a customer-friendly company is Spiral Game Studios, they made Orion: Dino Beatdown, which wasnt good at all. But they turned it around and made a FREE dlc that added 200% more content then it had originally! and guess what? they r continuing to make free dlcs because they actually care about their customers. So even though the game didnt do great originally, the company still earns my respect for sticking with it and fixing what they did wrong. And thats why i will be continuing to buy their games, even if they arent great. I'll buy them just because they care what they put forth to the world. That is what big companies like EA and Activision should do, think about their customers. (I'd still buy battlefront 3 from EA though)

Not only that is what they should do, its what they did do until they realized they could charge people more if they removed half the game and resold it for a few extra bucks. [/rant]

Yep ranting may be the only way to get our point across to EA....lots and lots of ranting

Because EA and other large large companies can suck even more money from our wallets! I remember when i used to be able to get new games for less then 50 dollars, and now its 60 dollars plus even more money for "extra content" which should be in games anyway. The perfect example of a customer-friendly company is Spiral Game Studios, they made Orion: Dino Beatdown, which wasnt good at all. But they turned it around and made a FREE dlc that added 200% more content then it had originally! and guess what? they r continuing to make free dlcs because they actually care about their customers. So even though the game didnt do great originally, the company still earns my respect for sticking with it and fixing what they did wrong. And thats why i will be continuing to buy their games, even if they arent great. I'll buy them just because they care what they put forth to the world. That is what big companies like EA and Activision should do, think about their customers. (I'd still buy battlefront 3 from EA though)

So you're saying EA should lose profit on the game just because you want free DLC content? Lame. Spiral did it because if they didn't their game would have tanked.

Cleb wrote:

Teancum wrote:

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:3.) DLC Train (chugga chugga chugga chugga chu chu).

Yeah, additional content sucks

Why can't people get what they pay for when they buy the game anymore!?

You DO get what you pay for. DLC typically isn't started until after the game has been submitted for certification. That ignorant view is one of the biggest complaints I hear from developers. The community thinks they're somehow "wronged", but the fact is the game is given a strict budget and time frame. If during development things look promising, or if they know people will want it, they'll plan to build DLC during the down time the developer has once the game is pushed out and before the next game comes along.

People need to stop assuming they "don't get the whole game" if DLC comes out. It's such a childish view.

I kindly disagree with you Teancum (Especially since it isn't childish to question the product your buying). From a consumer stand point we have every right to judge the fullness of a game(Or for any product for that matter) because we are the ones spending that money. We do have a right to judge its quality, I certainly wouldn't spend my money on something that doesn't do what it promises to deliver.

You DO get what you pay for. DLC typically isn't started until after the game has been submitted for certification.

When mass effect 3 came out, the prothian DLC found on the disk was on it during launch. I am no game developer, but from from a consumer stand point they had planned or rather held back content with these plans before the game was launched.

source:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... ct-3-Discs


The same goes for capcom, whom has too many examples for me to list fully, such as characters/costumes for their fighting games on disk as well. A very clear indication that these were not made after the game launched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyeEFY9Rw3E

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/arch ... ekken.aspx


People need to stop assuming they "don't get the whole game" if DLC comes out.

If a game has content on its disk, something you paid for, everything on it should already belong to you. So essentially some games would be considered not a full game or incomplete because your not getting the full content with in it. Its some companies (And I know very well not every company holds back) way of saying, "you want the full experience? Oh well you have to pay this much more for it." It would be arrogant to take everything a company gives you with out doing research first I would think. I am not a DLC Racist, some companys like valve and nintendo really do take time after a game is made to produce extra content that they couldn't have put on due to limits on a disk. However there are companies like NeatherRelam Studios, bethesda and EA that will have one version of a game one year and re-release a more complete version the next year (and in some cases it isn't even a year).

well that's my two cents on the matter. Is it childish to assume your not getting a full game? If you assume yes, but if you know or get information a few days later that confirms your pretty much not then it most certainly is not childish. Your actually a more mature person if you chose not to buy a game with these business practices being implemented because your choosing to speak with your wallet.

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:You DO get what you pay for. DLC typically isn't started until after the game has been submitted for certification.

When mass effect 3 came out, the prothian DLC found on the disk was on it during launch. I am no game developer, but from from a consumer stand point they had planned or rather held back content with these plans before the game was launched.

On-disc DLC is a little more grey, but you're still thinking in a limited fashion. Here's how game development works, regardless of what ends up on the disc at development (and it's worth mentioning that there's a timelapse between "submitted for certification" and gone gold) - games are basically contract work, drawn up as an agreement between a publisher and a developer. Once the developer's done making what the publisher has paid them to make, there's no incentive for:

a) The developer to make more without being paid for it (do you just work extra hours for giggles?) or
b) The publisher to give away more than what they've paid for (their projections are tied into having the amount of content they planned for)

And while on-disc DLC is a little shady, don't pretend like every game that ever existed hasn't had some kind of cut content on its disc. And don't, please don't, at risk of sounding like an entitled brat, act like games aren't "complete" because there's on-disc DLC (or any other kind of DLC). Listen, buddy, I played ME3. I played it without the Prothean DLC. I didn't notice any glaring, Prothean-shaped holes in the game as I played it. There's a vast difference between "full game" and "everything that's ever been made for a game." If the difference between "complete" and "incomplete" is 1 hour of trivial content in a 50-hour game (and it's not, like, the last hour of the game), I'd recommend reassessing your definitions of the words.

However there are companies like NeatherRelam Studios, bethesda and EA that will have one version of a game one year and re-release a more complete version the next year (and in some cases it isn't even a year).

Yes. Because who ever gets anything done in the span of one full year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_pack

I don't mean to single you out, and by all means, vote with your wallet. That's smart. But stay smart, and educate yourself on how the industry works. Games cost far more to create than they used to and they cost less (adjusted for inflation) to buy. They often have more hours of meaningful content - many older games are long only by virtue of repetition. Triple-A studios are looking for different ways to monetize games (F2P, DLC) because they have to - AAA games get less and less sustainable as hardware requirements increase. As a consumer, of course I would prefer getting all that extra stuff for free, but I'm not going to pitch a fit because I don't. And listen - I'll be happy to decry a game that deceptively omits an important component to a game to sell it a la carte later on. But getting upset about content that I only miss because I heard it exists? Nope.

I think the Star Wars IP is in good hands with EA, they definitely like to invest in game sequels. I'd be surprised if we didn't see a SWBF3, RC2, KotOR3 etc come out soon. I also don't mind the micro transaction business model for games that I enjoy, it keeps servers online and development/support going.

I think it's great news. Dice and Frostbite 3 engine will at least be considerate for the PC gaming community. Ok they may not release mod tools but they will patch regular. I'm sure the PC gamer will still get a little more than the console gamer. I will definitely buy into it

I would just like to thank Tean and Mav for saying EVERYTHING I wanted to say; you two explained it perfectly.

I just pushed out a feature over at XBLA Fans on this. Give it a quick read and comment there, would you? THX.

http://www.xblafans.com/ea-acquires-rig ... 67023.html

Maveritchell wrote:Listen, buddy, I played ME3. I played it without the Prothean DLC. I didn't notice any glaring, Prothean-shaped holes in the game as I played it. There's a vast difference between "full game" and "everything that's ever been made for a game."

THANK YOU. And for the record in regards to the Prothean DLC, only the character was included. I used a PC-based tool to get him in my game, and you couldn't talk to him, you couldn't do the Eden Prime mission, and he had no dialogue aside from battle chatter. That to me says his files that couldn't be integrated into the DLC or the patch were placed in the main game for simplicity or any other reason.

Besides, you don't go to a restaurant and demand your free dessert, do you? No, you ordered a spaghetti. If you want cheesecake it'll cost you extra. Those are the restaurant's terms of service. It's the same way with games. They're obligated to give you only what they're contracted to do. If you want DLC, you pay for it. Just like the restaurant they are very unlikely to ever just cough it up for nothing. This "not enough game" is BS. Take a trip back to 1987 and buy a NES game for $50, then buy a $60 game today. Tell me which one has more production and replay value. Frankly $60 for any good game today is an extremely good value. Games like Mass Effect 3 really should charge close to $90-100 if we're viewing them solely on value.

AceMastermind wrote:I think the Star Wars IP is in good hands with EA, they definitely like to invest in game sequels. I'd be surprised if we didn't see a SWBF3, RC2, KotOR3 etc come out soon. I also don't mind the micro transaction business model for games that I enjoy, it keeps servers online and development/support going.

Agreed on all counts. I'd totally go for some sequels, and I'm actually okay with microtransactions. I've never felt like I needed every little bit of the game, so I'm willing to spend a dollar on the 1-2 things I need for my specific character. If in return I get better long-term support for the game then that's all the more reason to have them.

Maveritchell wrote:a) The developer to make more without being paid for it (do you just work extra hours for giggles?)

Yes, actually, I do. I never just give my clients what they ask for. I do my best to go above and beyond for all of my clients because that's what brings people back to hire me again. I realize it's different industries as well as different figures we're talking about here, but these companies are not on the edge of bankruptcy.

I definitely see what you're saying. It's dumb to complain, and I would never expect someone to go above and beyond for me. I think people are just disappointed because it seems like EA would never do that. That being said, maybe they do go above and beyond, and we just don't notice because we take it for granted?

Being a graphic designer, I've learned quite a bit about branding, and the real problem I have with EA is that their brand attitude is so corporate and even their attempts at being user-friendly and just friendly in general are pretty poor.

I'd like to throw in my two cents. Dohnutt mentioned that companies like EA are not on the edge of bankruptcy. I'd beg to differ.

The blue line are EA's stocks. The red is the NASDAQ.
EA has not recovered since the stock market crash of 2008(their low was right after Mass Effect 3 was released). Most video game related companies haven't, actually. Nintendo hasn't recovered. Microsoft bounced back, but it's freaking Microsoft. Bill Gates is not the richest man in America for nothing. Sony's stocks are doing horrifically right now, like, REALLY bad.

My point is, we can look at their unethical greed and say they're evil people. I don't think that. I'm not saying the things EA has done are right (people who know me well know I kinda hate EA). I'm saying they do the things they do for a reason.

Am I happy that EA will be publishing all Star Wars games now? HAHA LOL NO

I am however, hopeful, EA is starting to learn their lessons and will change. By and large my issue with them is how they rush developers to get their product out so fast that it ends up being of lesser quality than it should be. Big case in point, Mass Effect 3, Sim City 5, and now Battlefield 4 being rushed out only two years after Battlefield 3.

Teancum wrote:

Because EA and other large large companies can suck even more money from our wallets! I remember when i used to be able to get new games for less then 50 dollars, and now its 60 dollars plus even more money for "extra content" which should be in games anyway. The perfect example of a customer-friendly company is Spiral Game Studios, they made Orion: Dino Beatdown, which wasnt good at all. But they turned it around and made a FREE dlc that added 200% more content then it had originally! and guess what? they r continuing to make free dlcs because they actually care about their customers. So even though the game didnt do great originally, the company still earns my respect for sticking with it and fixing what they did wrong. And thats why i will be continuing to buy their games, even if they arent great. I'll buy them just because they care what they put forth to the world. That is what big companies like EA and Activision should do, think about their customers. (I'd still buy battlefront 3 from EA though)

So you're saying EA should lose profit on the game just because you want free DLC content? Lame. Spiral did it because if they didn't their game would have tanked.

Cleb wrote:

Teancum wrote:

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:3.) DLC Train (chugga chugga chugga chugga chu chu).

Yeah, additional content sucks

Why can't people get what they pay for when they buy the game anymore!?

You DO get what you pay for. DLC typically isn't started until after the game has been submitted for certification. That ignorant view is one of the biggest complaints I hear from developers. The community thinks they're somehow "wronged", but the fact is the game is given a strict budget and time frame. If during development things look promising, or if they know people will want it, they'll plan to build DLC during the down time the developer has once the game is pushed out and before the next game comes along.

People need to stop assuming they "don't get the whole game" if DLC comes out. It's such a childish view.

I don't want to say I'm COMPLETELY against dlc, but on several occasions I've seen things such as "first day" dlcs......that's just not right. I mean is it really to much to ask just for game companies to have a little integrity?

Zapattack1234 wrote:I don't want to say I'm COMPLETELY against dlc, but on several occasions I've seen things such as "first day" dlcs......that's just not right. I mean is it really to much to ask just for game companies to have a little integrity?

No offense, but you're speaking out of ignorance here. While it's true on occasion that DLC was planned to be out Day 1, you must also remember that games go for certification at month (bare minimum) before they hit store shelves. In that time companies need to keep their artists and programmers busy, and most of the time due to the smaller size of the content (less to certify) that DLC gets released the day the game comes out, and is often ready prior to that. Now there are exceptions to that rule where Day 1 DLC is based on preorders, but you're overgeneralizing.

Teancum wrote:

Zapattack1234 wrote:I don't want to say I'm COMPLETELY against dlc, but on several occasions I've seen things such as "first day" dlcs......that's just not right. I mean is it really to much to ask just for game companies to have a little integrity?

No offense, but you're speaking out of ignorance here. While it's true on occasion that DLC was planned to be out Day 1, you must also remember that games go for certification at month (bare minimum) before they hit store shelves. In that time companies need to keep their artists and programmers busy, and most of the time due to the smaller size of the content (less to certify) that DLC gets released the day the game comes out, and is often ready prior to that. Now there are exceptions to that rule where Day 1 DLC is based on preorders, but you're overgeneralizing.

true, im sorry but in my opinion DLCs are a cash grab. Im not saying my opinion is right, its just my opinion

Dohnutt wrote:

Maveritchell wrote:a) The developer to make more without being paid for it (do you just work extra hours for giggles?)

Yes, actually, I do. I never just give my clients what they ask for. I do my best to go above and beyond for all of my clients because that's what brings people back to hire me again.

The "expectation" point is really the one I was trying to drive home there. I think a lot of individual people take pride in their work and do the best job they can for their stakeholders, but companies aren't people. They're built around (like you mention) a brand identity. If a company does what you mention you do above (on a company level), then that's leveraging consumer goodwill for customer retention. It's just another form of advertising. Investing in that kind of goodwill means that you take away from your bottom line (just like investing in anything else), and companies that forego the return they may see on the product they're giving away don't have that money to invest in other things (like more content or newer games). It's also worth mentioning that it's much more difficult for larger companies to maintain the kind of personal relationship with the consumer that many wish they could.

There's more to say here, but this topic probably isn't the place to say it. I'm not jazzed about EA getting exclusive rights to Star Wars, but I don't want to derail the whole thread into a treatise on DLC.

A lot of the time, DLC is content that the developers didn't have time to do or complete within the game's timeframe. So it's not really a money-grab at all (usually). :p

Again, I voice my concerns not against EA, but against the fact, that they are getting exclusive rights. The risks are too high.

An, EA may be greedy capitalists, but so am I. I see nothing wrong with being greedy.