🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:15:50 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
>> you old farts are getting rusty :)
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QK_yEgsV0
>> 
>> Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.  I kind of liked
>> the gritty color palette of those games, shouldn't feel like
>> Disneyland IMO.  But this looks like fun too.
>
>I'd heard about it, haven't bothered looking into it yet though, I'd rather just wait until it's out.  Preferably until after all the DLCs and I can buy them on sale all at once.
>
>I re-bought Fallout 3 awhile ago with all the DLCs as it was cheaper than buying just the DLCs... go figure.  I then got tired of the game before even getting to any of the DLCs.  Might have something to do with some of the mods I'd installed though, one added a ton areas to explore in the city, and a ton of crap to pick up.
>
>I also did the same with Borderlands 2, though I got slightly into the first DLC, but found it way too hard, and technically did get more use out of it as I played the Psycho up to about 55.
>
>I'm getting really tired of all the DLC business, I just want to buy a game that's got everything in it already.

I have no real use for DLC in single player titles, which is why I
pretty much never buy it unless it is included in an on-sale late
purchase.

A good example is Dying Light.  I enjoyed the SP game thoroughly, but
when I finished the campaign I was finished.  No desire to spend more
for add-on missions.  I needed a break from the long campaign by the
time I was done, was not looking for encore performances.  Even if
they release an all-inclusive version with all DLC for a fraction of
the cost of the DLC itself, I'll still probably never play it again.

I see single-player DLC as mostly the waste product of the gaming
process.  Someone has taken all the content that didn't seem good
enough to be judged in release ratings, or the crap that seemed oddly
disconnected from the main game, and found a way to repackage it.  

Kind of like these mystery-meat spam-like food products.  It's like
"ok, here's all the shit that came flying off the animal while the
prime cuts were being butchered, so lets grind it up and shape it into
something that looks fit for human consumption and sell it at a higher
profit margin than the primary product".

The exception for me is in multiplayer games where DLC equates to more
maps to play.  Number of quality maps is everything.  DICE is one
example where the DLC model has replaced what was previously
"expansion packs", and done so successfully.  They are one of the few
companies that live up to the promises they make by extending the life
of their games through expansion pack updates (although admittedly
their premium editions which include all DLC are pricey by most folk's
standards).

One of those "in-between" cases that comes to mind is FarCry4.  I
bought the season pass mostly for the promised multiplayer additions,
most of which turned out to not be worth the extra cost.  Most of the
single player DLC I haven't even loaded up.  On the other hand, the
fact that this franchise has mechanisms that allow users to create
their own levels (co-op only unfortunately) and easily publish them
for others to play makes me want to support them with my dollars.  I
really wish they would open the user created maps to competitive play,
but the fact that they basically offer "infinite DLC" with the
community-maps model is something to be commended in this day of
gaming.  Reminds me of the old days of community mods.

Yes, sometimes DLC multiplayer content is actually worth the asking
price.  Sometimes the maps themselves are well designed, and while I
doubt many in these 2 newsgroups will be able to relate, the
multiplayer community knows that sometimes there is actually a benefit
to not releasing too many maps at once.  If you release a game with 20
maps, the folks that buy it on release tend to focus on the 4 or 5
best ones and ignore the rest and the game kind of carves out it's
niche around them.  The other 15 get ignored and just fall out of the
loop.  However, if you release them incrementally, like four at a time
right around the time the community has tired of the first four, you
can provide an experience that results in hundreds of hours of
playtime, ongoing friends made, and so forth.  Only problem is, all
maps must be of decent quality of course level design and testing is
different with today's detailed environments.  This incremental map
release cycle is what DICE really shines at.  Valve has also been
great with their ongoing success of Team Fortress 2.  That game is now
8 years old, free to play, yet has an un-ending supply of people
playing it.  You can't get much more bang for your buck than that in
gaming.