Bethesda and Namco Partner to Distribute Fallout:New Vegas

[Sander]

Namco is bad news.

They're the worst when it comes to sucking fans' wallets dry.

They're also just a co-publisher, not the developer in this case. So what they do in other cases is probably completely irrelevant here.

I mostly linked it for that DLC crap. Charging to unlock stuff that's already on the disc is not only extremely shitty, it should be illegal.

Why? They're not advertising that you're getting that content, are they? It's not like they're saying on the box "Here's what you get!" and then simply don't give you that stuff unless you pay more. It's *extra content*.
Would you feel better if they simply didn't include the stuff on the disc, but instead made you download it? Do you realise that that makes no real difference?

I really, really don't get all this principled raging against a product. It's a product. If you don't like it, then don't buy it!

 

[SuAside]

maybe Beth is downsizing their interests in the EU. hey, all the cool kids are doing it, so why let a nice opportunity to fire some people and make some extra cash slip away?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Why? They're not advertising that you're getting that content, are they? It's not like they're saying on the box "Here's what you get!" and then simply don't give you that stuff unless you pay more. It's *extra content*.

The point is that they are removing finished content in order to charge customers extra for it, usually at unreasonable (compared to the rest of the product and similar products on the market) prices. It would be like if a car dealer sold cars without fuel and charged $300 for a tank of gas so that you could drive it off of the lot. It's the embodiment of a lot of gamers' greatest fear about DLC, that companies will removed finish content from a game in order to make the player pay twice as much as the sticker price for the full product. I agree that people shouldn't buy such products because it encourages practices which are bad for the end user, but people are idiots. I'm somewhat surprised that people haven't complained to consumer services over that crap, it's bloody ridiculous.

It's almost like charging people full price for a demo of a game and then that much again in order to play the full game as it was made to be played.

 

[Zumbs]

Why? They're not advertising that you're getting that content, are they? It's not like they're saying on the box "Here's what you get!" and then simply don't give you that stuff unless you pay more. It's *extra content*.
Would you feel better if they simply didn't include the stuff on the disc, but instead made you download it? Do you realise that that makes no real difference?

I really, really don't get all this principled raging against a product. It's a product. If you don't like it, then don't buy it!

When I purchase a disk, I expect to be able to use *everything* on that disk, without extra downloads, registrations, activations, payments etc.

I also do not like hooks to dlc quest or content be in the game I purchased. "Here is this extremely cool and fancy quest ... please transfer $20 to this account to be able to play it" will make me not buy a product. At least not until it hits the bargain bin. In my view it is a slimy business habit.

 

[TheWesDude]

day 1 DLC that the box has codes for already, im fine with.


day 1 DLC that you have to pay for? i dont care if its downloaded or on the CD, thats unacceptable.


but i do have to agree, day 1 DLC that you have to pay for and is already on the disc is just the ultimate insult.

 

[Brother None]

Day 1 DLC being paid for is no different than any DLC being paid for: the principle of DLC is that consumers pay more for what costs the developer less to produce and publish.

There is no difference between day 1 or day 100, there is no difference between it being on the disc or not. This is just a matter of perspective, of it "feeling wrong", you're just as badly getting ripped off by other DLCs, and focusing the anger just on this specific instance shows a hilarious lack of perception.

 

[BR4ZIL]

Namco is bad news.

They're the worst when it comes to sucking fans' wallets dry.

Oh god........i can only imagine DLC's for new vegas.... "buy your new super mutant NPC now!!"

Seriously, Namco charge up for a new dificulty level and skins in Ace Combat 6, i have no more hopes in New Vegas after this.

 

[Brother None]

i have no more hopes in New Vegas after this.

Distributors don't decide shit on the scheduling or form of release of DLCs.

You guys are fucking morons.

 

[Verevoof]

Re: Bethesda and Namco Partner to Distribute Fallout:New Veg

Apparently you guys don't know what "distribute" means. I just don't see what the big deal is.
Sure, this news is unexpected, but does it automatically make New Vegas now horrible? No.

This, this is the worrying statement in that post:

Fallout: New Vegas builds upon the immersive gaming experience that made Fallout 3 the 2008 Game of the Year.

 

[Khan FurSainty]

Fallout: New Vegas builds upon the immersive gaming experience that made Fallout 3 the 2008 Game of the Year.

So... Even more exploding cars and drinking from the toilet? Even more pre-war eatable food and empty cans? Even more rouge robots and canon rape? Yep, i have no expectations.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Fallout: New Vegas builds upon the immersive gaming experience that made Fallout 3 the 2008 Game of the Year.

Perhaps that should also mention the lack of any mainstream competition to compete for the reward (most mainstream gamers do not know about the smaller indie hard RPG developers) in that year.

And of course the careful manipulation of the journalists, hyping to the core audience which is a very different crowd than the Fallout gamers before that (and who would probably have ignored Fallout 3 if it had been a serious RPG instead of a shooter with stat elements)

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Re: Bethesda and Namco Partner to Distribute Fallout:New Veg

Day 1 DLC being paid for is no different than any DLC being paid for: the principle of DLC is that consumers pay more for what costs the developer less to produce and publish.

There is no difference between day 1 or day 100, there is no difference between it being on the disc or not. This is just a matter of perspective, of it "feeling wrong", you're just as badly getting ripped off by other DLCs, and focusing the anger just on this specific instance shows a hilarious lack of perception.

The difference is in when the DLC was developed and why. If content is cut from a game to be put into DLC for reasons other than time restraints, it's a legitimate thing to complain about separately. The issue is creating a trend of increasing amounts of DLC with decreasing amounts of off-the-shelf gameplay due to using DLC to break up the original product and sell it piecemeal. That said, I (and I think most others) agree with your underlying argument that DLC in general overcharges for content.

This, this is the worrying statement in that post:

Fallout: New Vegas builds upon the immersive gaming experience that made Fallout 3 the 2008 Game of the Year.

Not really, it's playing to the Fallout 3 consumer base and it's absolutely true because it uses the Fallout 3 version of Gamebryo.

 

[Sander]

The difference is in when the DLC was developed and why.

That's not a big difference at all. That's only a difference in how you feel about it, it does nothing for or against the quality of the game or the DLC.

 

[BR4ZIL]

They're also just a co-publisher, not the developer in this case. So what they do in other cases is probably completely irrelevant here.

Ok , just ignore what i said in my previous post

 

[UncannyGarlic]

The difference is in when the DLC was developed and why.

That's not a big difference at all. That's only a difference in how you feel about it, it does nothing for or against the quality of the game or the DLC.

I think the difference comes in the trend that it could create, which is what I was trying to get at. If, for example, one had to buy every world in World of Goo for $10, it offers a much different experience for your money than buying the whole game for $20.

 

[Ausir]

Distributors don't decide shit on the scheduling or form of release of DLCs.

Tell that to Cenega who still haven't released any of the Fallout 3 DLC in Poland.

 

[Lexx]

Poland doesn't deserve high quality DLCs!

 

[Tagaziel]

Fallout: New Vegas builds upon the immersive gaming experience that made Fallout 3 the 2008 Game of the Year.

So... Even more exploding cars and drinking from the toilet? Even more pre-war eatable food and empty cans? Even more rouge robots and canon rape? Yep, i have no expectations.

New Vegas is being done by Obsidian Entertainment.

You guys are fucking morons.

 

[maximaz]

They're also just a co-publisher, not the developer in this case. So what they do in other cases is probably completely irrelevant here.

How do you know what they affect as a publisher? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't developers only work on the actual game within preset guidelines? Don't publishers control everything that has to do with selling the game, including what's on the disc and what's sold separately?

If they decide that it's more profitable to sell it as a series of DLC, developers are not deciding shit, are they? Again, I may be wrong here but this is my understanding of their relationship.

Why? They're not advertising that you're getting that content, are they? It's not like they're saying on the box "Here's what you get!" and then simply don't give you that stuff unless you pay more. It's *extra content*.
Would you feel better if they simply didn't include the stuff on the disc, but instead made you download it? Do you realise that that makes no real difference?

Yes, actually there is a difference. If I paid $60 for a disc, I have bought its' contents. I should not have to pay for it twice.

How would you like it if you bought a DVD and you could not watch a few scenes unless you paid extra money?

Also, unless they spend extra time and resources on that extra content, I should not be charged for it. If it's on the disc, they obviously didn't do that.

Distributors don't decide shit on the scheduling or form of release of DLCs.

You guys are fucking morons.

Well, if you're so smart then maybe you can enlighten us on what game distributors actually do. In my personal non-gaming experience (and not to brag but it is a decent experience), a contractual distributor DOES in fact decide things like form of release and everything else that has to do with distribution.

That's why they often buy the rights to distribute a product, because it gives them control over certain things. They would not do that if they did not get the right to affect product's development to make it as profitable as possible.

They are the ones doing market research and if they figure that that a product would sell better painted gold and split into several components then the manufacturers (developers in this case) will have to make some changes.

If gaming industry is different, which it may be, then please explain but there is no reason for calling anyone a moron here.

 

[draeke]

They're also just a co-publisher, not the developer in this case. So what they do in other cases is probably completely irrelevant here.

How do you know what they affect as a publisher? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't developers only work on the actual game within preset guidelines? Don't publishers control everything that has to do with selling the game, including what's on the disc and what's sold separately?

If they decide that it's more profitable to sell it as a series of DLC, developers are not deciding shit, are they? Again, I may be wrong here but this is my understanding of their relationship.

Agreed, hella quote btw. It seems like what a lot of newbs are missing here is DLC used to be free, just like patches. So, let's add this up FO3 @ $60 + all the DLC? Well, what does that add up to and how much of that was cut from the original or tweaked into something you would have to pay extra for? Try taking a hard look at that
Why? They're not advertising that you're getting that content, are they? It's not like they're saying on the box "Here's what you get!" and then simply don't give you that stuff unless you pay more. It's *extra content*.
Would you feel better if they simply didn't include the stuff on the disc, but instead made you download it? Do you realise that that makes no real difference?

Yes, actually there is a difference. If I paid $60 for a disc, I have bought its' contents. I should not have to pay for it twice.

How would you like it if you bought a DVD and you could not watch a few scenes unless you paid extra money?

Also, unless they spend extra time and resources on that extra content, I should not be charged for it. If it's on the disc, they obviously didn't do that.

Distributors don't decide shit on the scheduling or form of release of DLCs.

You guys are fucking morons.

Well, if you're so smart then maybe you can enlighten us on what game distributors actually do. In my personal non-gaming experience (and not to brag but it is a decent experience), a contractual distributor DOES in fact decide things like form of release and everything else that has to do with distribution.

That's why they often buy the rights to distribute a product, because it gives them control over certain things. They would not do that if they did not get the right to affect product's development to make it as profitable as possible.

They are the ones doing market research and if they figure that that a product would sell better painted gold and split into several components then the manufacturers (developers in this case) will have to make some changes.

If gaming industry is different, which it may be, then please explain but there is no reason for calling anyone a moron here.

Ok, I'm not sure how I quoted myself in that but here's the correction.

Agreed, hella quote btw. It seems like what a lot of newbs are missing here is DLC used to be free, just like patches. So, let's add this up FO3 @ $60 + all the DLC? Well, what does that add up to and how much of that was cut from the original or tweaked into something you would have to pay extra for? Try taking a hard look at that