Haha, Molyneux.
It just doesn't work that way. This is all following a set schedule.
FEV Bunny said:
It just doesn't work that way. This is all following a set schedule.
Fallout: New Vegas DLC announced - Dead Money
- Thread starter Sam Ecorners
- Start date
Kindo
Still Mildly Glowing
Indeed. Fixing bugs won't make the players buy the game again, while churning out DLC's will at least net some more profit for the publishers.Brother None said:
hagren
First time out of the vault
Given that I lost interest in New Vegas around 31 hours in, I don't care either way about this DLC.
I could be wrong about this being a game development strategy, but I really dislike the idea of a game design team having the full intent of making DLC's along side their core game to simply make more money after their core game is released. I don't like the goal of "making a complete and good game" being clouded by "how can we make a decent game and then later make $10-$15 a pop with other stuff?"
That's one of the things that pissed me off about every one of the Sims games, there are glaring elements missing from the game that would otherwise just make sense to have included. Then a few months later an expansion pack comes out filling that missing area. These aren't "Oh, I forgot to include that, here it is but it's going to cost you a little bit." it's "Lets remove this from the game and include it later so we can make more money."
I'd much rather wait another year to have a more complete game but that isn't going to make the game makers any more money, is it? There could be more resources being used to finish a game faster and make it better than to develop something to be released later along side the project you're working on.
I think this is a major problem in the game industry, game companies are trying to see if their players will let them take advantage of them. Game companies are changing the standard of what we find acceptable and the market is not just taking it, but they're also throwing money at it!
That's like if car companies started removing car stereos from cars and then for some reason people buy the cars anyway but have a feeling something is missing. Then, a car company reveals this cool new thing: a car stereo! And consumers are like "Omg! That would be perfect!" and spend more money for the two separate than it would have cost together in the past. Game companies used to make full games and release an equally full expansion pack later on. Those are two full pies, two full tasty pies. I don't want to spend the same amount for 3/4 of a pie and have to buy the other 1/4 for $10 later.
Basically, with all these DLC's going on, it doesn't tell me as a player that the game company is looking out for my experience and enjoyment, but that they're looking for what's in my wallet. Just because we play for enjoyment doesn't mean we should be taken advantage of.
That's one of the things that pissed me off about every one of the Sims games, there are glaring elements missing from the game that would otherwise just make sense to have included. Then a few months later an expansion pack comes out filling that missing area. These aren't "Oh, I forgot to include that, here it is but it's going to cost you a little bit." it's "Lets remove this from the game and include it later so we can make more money."
I'd much rather wait another year to have a more complete game but that isn't going to make the game makers any more money, is it? There could be more resources being used to finish a game faster and make it better than to develop something to be released later along side the project you're working on.
I think this is a major problem in the game industry, game companies are trying to see if their players will let them take advantage of them. Game companies are changing the standard of what we find acceptable and the market is not just taking it, but they're also throwing money at it!
That's like if car companies started removing car stereos from cars and then for some reason people buy the cars anyway but have a feeling something is missing. Then, a car company reveals this cool new thing: a car stereo! And consumers are like "Omg! That would be perfect!" and spend more money for the two separate than it would have cost together in the past. Game companies used to make full games and release an equally full expansion pack later on. Those are two full pies, two full tasty pies. I don't want to spend the same amount for 3/4 of a pie and have to buy the other 1/4 for $10 later.
Basically, with all these DLC's going on, it doesn't tell me as a player that the game company is looking out for my experience and enjoyment, but that they're looking for what's in my wallet. Just because we play for enjoyment doesn't mean we should be taken advantage of.
hagren
First time out of the vault
One has to consider though how development costs rose since 3D became more sophisticated (Well, not a much with Bethesda's rendition of the Gamebryo engine 
), whilst video game prices remained virtually the same. They have to take that cash from somewhere.
As for me, I'd rather pay a tad more for each game than to be nickel-and-dimed with DLC. Only exception so far were the ME2 DLCs which, though overpriced, were worth the MS points I've thrown at BioWare.
), whilst video game prices remained virtually the same. They have to take that cash from somewhere.As for me, I'd rather pay a tad more for each game than to be nickel-and-dimed with DLC. Only exception so far were the ME2 DLCs which, though overpriced, were worth the MS points I've thrown at BioWare.
hagren said:
As much as I hate spending more money, I mostly agree with this. In terms of immersion, DLC's are also a bit of an interupt. They won't be near as exciting as, say, the next mission in a game's story. If I bought DLCs then I would play it after I completed and put away the original game. (Unless if you end up buying the GOTY edition like warsaw mentioned, then you might play them back to back.)
I like episodic games more than DLCs, if I could play New Vegas in chapters released every 3-6 months (kinda like what Half-Life 2 does) then I'd like that much more, and would be more inclined to spend a bit more money. Though, an open ended RPG in chapters wouldn't work as well as a linear game...
Jet and Cookies
First time out of the vault
I just love how they said it really "illustrates our commitment" to please the fans and such, it's the most hypocritical statement of the year for me. I mean, first you go about calling it a 360 exclusive, then you're charging money for it, and I'm sure glad we've got the DLC to show your commitment, because if it wasn't for Obsidian, FO:NV wouldn't have been worth picking up considering it would have been using the same engine and writing/aesthetic as Fallout 3.
frosty_theaussie said:
TBoGT is by far the best DLC for a game i've ever played. it serves as it's own story while fleshing out the existing story. it really feels wrong to call it DLC because it's almost like a new game.
also, does anyone know if obsidian will be developing all the DLC for fnv? i have no idea how that contract works, but it sort of frightens me to think that todd howard and co could go and add shit to fnv. i mean, there is a crashed alien ship in the wastes with an alien blaster. you know what happened last time there was one of those...
I can alleviate at least that fear from you junkevil, Obsidian is developing the DLCs.
Avellone for example is handling 'Dead Money'.
Avellone for example is handling 'Dead Money'.