Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.
DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.
Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
Touche! I think that the MMOs released on console, in the past, haven't done as well. However, I think that FFARR did ok (didn't it?). So maybe that could have been the right way to go with Destiny. I would still question whether or not customers would let them off the hook for the way they left the story, but if it was a subscription, maybe they could have just left all the content they had available to them and then just cut the story up into logical releases. Honestly, if I'm looking at it from the perspective of an episodic adventure, I don't think it was a horrible place to end it. However, for someone expecting a nicely-wrapped conclusion to the story, it can understand how they would have been disappointed. I guess we'll just have to see how the expacks go.
if I was a lead game designer in a meeting about a game where the subject of story telling and episodes came up here is what I would say.
'when you make a product you have to ask yourself, why would I buy this product instead of another product? That is called the differentiating factors. If product X is exactly the same as product Y then this needs to be exploded. Its also a sliding scale. Thus the closer you are to one product group the more you compete directly with that product group on its own turf.
When you start to go all balls to the walls with story in a game you are DIRECTLY competing with every story ever written, movies, TV, books, comic books. Your story has to be at least as good if not better than those products. I venture to say better BECAUSE the player is in a different state of mind then they are when they are ready to absorb a narritive.
Additionally, games are using a technology that allows the creators to make entertainment content in ways the competition (TV etc) can not make. So why wouldnt we focus on that instead of trying to be like them.
How about creating a world in which the interaction of the players IS the story.....
a lot of wasted money is going into cut scenes, writers and voice acting.
Originally posted by CrazKanuk Originally posted by Grakulen Originally posted by FelixMajor Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.
DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.
Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
Originally posted by Battlerock Originally posted by WillowFuxxy Originally posted by CrazKanuk Originally posted by Grakulen Originally posted by FelixMajor Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.
Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.
DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.
Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.
1. what culture is a fan of money schemes?
2. you think console gamers are more open to DLC but less open to subscription? you contradicted yourself.
defining something as cultural needs a bit more explain than....reasons....
I always wonder what Microsoft thinks bout this whole debacle. Cause I know if I was in Microsoft's position, I'd be thinking something like, "See, that's what you get for leaving me, Bungie, and going with Activision." Regardless of how true such a thought would be lol
Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.
DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.
Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.
1. what culture is a fan of money schemes?
2. you think console gamers are more open to DLC but less open to subscription? you contradicted yourself.
defining something as cultural needs a bit more explain than....reasons....
It's not necessarily wrong. In general, the DLC is trivial, right? The story is done up with nice paper, ribbon, and a bow on top, but the story had a definitive end. DLC is an extension of the story, it's not a living story. Enter Destiny. Now I'm being entirely tongue-in-cheek here saying Destiny is a massive world with deep lore that simply cannot be explained end-to-end in a single gaming experience. So it's a "living world". However, with this Living World, how do you define where the "Ends" are. If we're creating a TV mini-series, how can we decide where to end one episode and begin another. Look at things like Walking Dead. You could quite easily play a season end-to-end seamlessly, but they need to split it up into 1-hour chunks.
So, what I feel Bungie maybe didn't do (and maybe this is explanation in the OP is the reason for that) is defining their episodes. There is definitely an "End" in the game, but whether or not that's the RIGHT end is another story. It's an End built for the fan, not the person who wants to play through and move on.
Originally posted by Blaedus I always wonder what Microsoft thinks bout this whole debacle. Cause I know if I was in Microsof's position, I'd be thinking something like, "See, that's what you get for leaving me, Bungie, and going with Activision." Regardless of how true such a thought would be lol
If this story "IS" true, then what has it to do with ActiVision?
This has more to do with inflated ego's clashing with eachother inside Bungie. Hence, the lead writer and lead composer leaving the company within a 6 month timespan from eachother.
As result, someone else takes over the lead writer position (the ego that won in the end) and starts messing with the story to how he/she wants it.
Then you have a serious copyright issue when it comes to music scores, when your lead composer (who was co-founder) leaves the company due to a financial dispute, forcing Bungie to cut out content that contains copyrighted music. As all this just happened mere months before release and not something that you can quickly fix!
I personally think the lead composer leaving had the largest impact on what content had to be cut before release. As the lawsuit between him and Bungie is still ongoing.
All ActiVision does as publisher, is put a hard deadline on a release date. Which is nothing new in the game industry or any other (Software) industry! Hard deadlines and lots of overtime, stress and tension are commonplace within any industry. Or companies would go bankrupt left and right.
Which actually still happens. How many companies are going bankrupt all the time, due to blowing through budgets, etc. /shrug
It was the same with SW:TOR! Everyone immediately jumped on the EA hate train and blamed solely EA! Poor poor Bioware!
While all EA did, was put a hard deadline on a release date after what? 5-6 years and a 200 million budget?
What people should have been asking at that time, is what Bioware themselves did all those years with all that money! Instead of just bashing EA and give them all the blame! /shrug
Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.
DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.
Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.
1. what culture is a fan of money schemes?
2. you think console gamers are more open to DLC but less open to subscription? you contradicted yourself.
defining something as cultural needs a bit more explain than....reasons....
It's not necessarily wrong. In general, the DLC is trivial, right? The story is done up with nice paper, ribbon, and a bow on top, but the story had a definitive end. DLC is an extension of the story, it's not a living story. Enter Destiny. Now I'm being entirely tongue-in-cheek here saying Destiny is a massive world with deep lore that simply cannot be explained end-to-end in a single gaming experience. So it's a "living world". However, with this Living World, how do you define where the "Ends" are. If we're creating a TV mini-series, how can we decide where to end one episode and begin another. Look at things like Walking Dead. You could quite easily play a season end-to-end seamlessly, but they need to split it up into 1-hour chunks.
So, what I feel Bungie maybe didn't do (and maybe this is explanation in the OP is the reason for that) is defining their episodes. There is definitely an "End" in the game, but whether or not that's the RIGHT end is another story. It's an End built for the fan, not the person who wants to play through and move on.
wait what are we talking about?
I thought we were talking about console gamers not liking subscriptions and then you turn and said console gamers wouldnt like DLC. I am extreemly confused.
so...I completely hate the idea of games moving in a story telling direction for reasons I have already given in this thread
Originally posted by Battlerock Originally posted by WillowFuxxy Originally posted by Battlerock Originally posted by WillowFuxxy Originally posted by CrazKanuk Originally posted by Grakulen Originally posted by FelixMajor Getting sick and tired of seeing 'DLC' packs being released/announced for games that have either JUST released or have not even released yet.DLC, is great - when it is used to compliment an already finished, well rounded game.Purposely cutting content from a game to re-release it at a later date with an extra cost is a load of horseshit.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.
PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.
1. what culture is a fan of money schemes?
2. you think console gamers are more open to DLC but less open to subscription? you contradicted yourself.
defining something as cultural needs a bit more explain than....reasons....
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
It is true that console gamers are not generally accepting of subscriptions. However, they are very accepting of direct purchases, and microtransactions (direct purchases made with virtual currency). The best 'fit' for console gamers is a season pass, which combines DLC and the monthly sub concept. This allows them to pay the equivelant of a monthly sub, for fixed content over time.
The key difference to DLC/Microtransactions/Season pass vs the monthly sub is that the content is compartmentalized. You dont get it if you dont buy it. This is unlike the content updates that are part of the game, where if you didnt play for a month, would be available when you come back.
I do agree that it is bad form to start selling DLC (of any sort) soon after a launch. There needs to be a clear 3-6 month break where the game stabilizes, and the existing content is used. This makes it clear whether the game sold at launch, was worth the money spent, before more money is asked for.
It is true that console gamers are not generally accepting of subscriptions. However, they are very accepting of direct purchases, and microtransactions (direct purchases made with virtual currency). The best 'fit' for console gamers is a season pass, which combines DLC and the monthly sub concept. This allows them to pay the equivelant of a monthly sub, for fixed content over time.
The key difference to DLC/Microtransactions/Season pass vs the monthly sub is that the content is compartmentalized. You dont get it if you dont buy it. This is unlike the content updates that are part of the game, where if you didnt play for a month, would be available when you come back.
I do agree that it is bad form to start selling DLC (of any sort) soon after a launch. There needs to be a clear 3-6 month break where the game stabilizes, and the existing content is used. This makes it clear whether the game sold at launch, was worth the money spent, before more money is asked for.
Pretty much all games sell DLC Season Passes before launch these days. This has been going on for what? 2 years or so now. /shrug
For a game with a $500 million budget, making major last minute changes to cut content and release as DLC later on seems suspicious, unfortunately I bought this game, but I don't play it anymore. I think I'll trade it in ASAP.
When all is said and done, more is always said than done.
Hopefully all the issues and unsavoury aspects will be straightened out by the time the PC version releases. If history shows us anything, I thinks it's pretty much a given that the first couple DLC's will be included.
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
This whole ordeal and a number of past games as well is telling me that I should never preorder games regardless who made it or what is included, wait for reviews, and only after really loving the game should I continue support it by buying DLC.
Originally posted by i_own_u "Info inside confirmed false by Bungie employees." This phrase now displays before the Reddit thread. Interesting...
It is interesting how quick they deny the info but in the game forum none of them has bothered to answer the 2 main topics each one with way over 400 posts, not a single answer there.
Originally posted by i_own_u "Info inside confirmed false by Bungie employees." This phrase now displays before the Reddit thread. Interesting...
It is interesting how quick they deny the info but in the game forum none of them has bothered to answer the 2 main topics each one with way over 400 posts, not a single answer there.
What's interesting? The fact that the Internet was wrong? Or the fact that the Internet went way overboard on the whole topic? Or that the Internet still believes there's a conspiracy BEHIND the conspiracy? You'll have to be more clear because none of this ever happens on the Internet, so it's all new and interesting.
Originally posted by Battlerock Originally posted by WillowFuxxy Originally posted by Battlerock
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
Originally posted by i_own_u "Info inside confirmed false by Bungie employees." This phrase now displays before the Reddit thread. Interesting...
It is interesting how quick they deny the info but in the game forum none of them has bothered to answer the 2 main topics each one with way over 400 posts, not a single answer there.
1. Its completely true, but they don't want the bad press that will come of it.
2. Its partially true, and they still don't want the bad press.
3. It isn't true at all. Which I think is highly unlikely giving the current state of the game.
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC?
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is)
Comments
if I was a lead game designer in a meeting about a game where the subject of story telling and episodes came up here is what I would say.
'when you make a product you have to ask yourself, why would I buy this product instead of another product? That is called the differentiating factors. If product X is exactly the same as product Y then this needs to be exploded. Its also a sliding scale. Thus the closer you are to one product group the more you compete directly with that product group on its own turf.
When you start to go all balls to the walls with story in a game you are DIRECTLY competing with every story ever written, movies, TV, books, comic books. Your story has to be at least as good if not better than those products. I venture to say better BECAUSE the player is in a different state of mind then they are when they are ready to absorb a narritive.
Additionally, games are using a technology that allows the creators to make entertainment content in ways the competition (TV etc) can not make. So why wouldnt we focus on that instead of trying to be like them.
How about creating a world in which the interaction of the players IS the story.....
a lot of wasted money is going into cut scenes, writers and voice acting.
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.1. what culture is a fan of money schemes?
2. you think console gamers are more open to DLC but less open to subscription? you contradicted yourself.
defining something as cultural needs a bit more explain than....reasons....
It's not necessarily wrong. In general, the DLC is trivial, right? The story is done up with nice paper, ribbon, and a bow on top, but the story had a definitive end. DLC is an extension of the story, it's not a living story. Enter Destiny. Now I'm being entirely tongue-in-cheek here saying Destiny is a massive world with deep lore that simply cannot be explained end-to-end in a single gaming experience. So it's a "living world". However, with this Living World, how do you define where the "Ends" are. If we're creating a TV mini-series, how can we decide where to end one episode and begin another. Look at things like Walking Dead. You could quite easily play a season end-to-end seamlessly, but they need to split it up into 1-hour chunks.
So, what I feel Bungie maybe didn't do (and maybe this is explanation in the OP is the reason for that) is defining their episodes. There is definitely an "End" in the game, but whether or not that's the RIGHT end is another story. It's an End built for the fan, not the person who wants to play through and move on.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
If this story "IS" true, then what has it to do with ActiVision?
This has more to do with inflated ego's clashing with eachother inside Bungie. Hence, the lead writer and lead composer leaving the company within a 6 month timespan from eachother.
As result, someone else takes over the lead writer position (the ego that won in the end) and starts messing with the story to how he/she wants it.
Then you have a serious copyright issue when it comes to music scores, when your lead composer (who was co-founder) leaves the company due to a financial dispute, forcing Bungie to cut out content that contains copyrighted music. As all this just happened mere months before release and not something that you can quickly fix!
I personally think the lead composer leaving had the largest impact on what content had to be cut before release. As the lawsuit between him and Bungie is still ongoing.
All ActiVision does as publisher, is put a hard deadline on a release date. Which is nothing new in the game industry or any other (Software) industry! Hard deadlines and lots of overtime, stress and tension are commonplace within any industry. Or companies would go bankrupt left and right.
Which actually still happens. How many companies are going bankrupt all the time, due to blowing through budgets, etc. /shrug
It was the same with SW:TOR! Everyone immediately jumped on the EA hate train and blamed solely EA! Poor poor Bioware!
While all EA did, was put a hard deadline on a release date after what? 5-6 years and a 200 million budget?
What people should have been asking at that time, is what Bioware themselves did all those years with all that money! Instead of just bashing EA and give them all the blame! /shrug
wait what are we talking about?
I thought we were talking about console gamers not liking subscriptions and then you turn and said console gamers wouldnt like DLC. I am extreemly confused.
so...I completely hate the idea of games moving in a story telling direction for reasons I have already given in this thread
AMEN
Sure, true. How do you do an MMO on a console, then? Console players aren't going to pay a monthly subscription, so DLC SEEMS like the best way to push out episodic content.
why would console players not be open to monthly fee?
people seem to think console players and PC gamers literally have different DNA.
well the culture is different, not the dna. The console crowd is not used to micro transaction and definitely not a sub fee, and they don't buy alpha, and they give up on games the very instant something is wrong, like to much lag, to many bugs, broken ui, boring ai, no replay ability. PC culture is more tolerable of shortcomings, and they will buy anything and pay anything for it.PC gamers had to get used to it, I really dont think its any different.
Its not like console gamers are from mars or something, for the most part they are just like us, they understand what a subscription fee is, they understand what micro-transactions are just like we did when it was first introduced to us. I personally think console gamers are less intelligent than PC gamers and less innovative but not THAT much
again it's a cultural difference. Personally ny ideals are more inline with the console culture, as a consumer I am more in favor of less bugs, less money schemes (dlc is a scheme, but at least one gets a decent depiction of what they are buying in due time), no paying for alpha, more reliable servers, and just overall a better experience for the consumer. I still like my pc for more choices, but the culture has far lower expectations and are more willing to open thier wallets for e goods that I am not.1. what culture is a fan of money schemes?
2. you think console gamers are more open to DLC but less open to subscription? you contradicted yourself.
defining something as cultural needs a bit more explain than....reasons....
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.It is true that console gamers are not generally accepting of subscriptions. However, they are very accepting of direct purchases, and microtransactions (direct purchases made with virtual currency). The best 'fit' for console gamers is a season pass, which combines DLC and the monthly sub concept. This allows them to pay the equivelant of a monthly sub, for fixed content over time.
The key difference to DLC/Microtransactions/Season pass vs the monthly sub is that the content is compartmentalized. You dont get it if you dont buy it. This is unlike the content updates that are part of the game, where if you didnt play for a month, would be available when you come back.
I do agree that it is bad form to start selling DLC (of any sort) soon after a launch. There needs to be a clear 3-6 month break where the game stabilizes, and the existing content is used. This makes it clear whether the game sold at launch, was worth the money spent, before more money is asked for.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
Pretty much all games sell DLC Season Passes before launch these days. This has been going on for what? 2 years or so now. /shrug
For a game with a $500 million budget, making major last minute changes to cut content and release as DLC later on seems suspicious, unfortunately I bought this game, but I don't play it anymore. I think I'll trade it in ASAP.
Well...
Hopefully all the issues and unsavoury aspects will be straightened out by the time the PC version releases. If history shows us anything, I thinks it's pretty much a given that the first couple DLC's will be included.
If not?
I guess it's... selavi
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
This calls for...
...watching the Angry Joe review
This whole ordeal and a number of past games as well is telling me that I should never preorder games regardless who made it or what is included, wait for reviews, and only after really loving the game should I continue support it by buying DLC.
It is interesting how quick they deny the info but in the game forum none of them has bothered to answer the 2 main topics each one with way over 400 posts, not a single answer there.
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
What's interesting? The fact that the Internet was wrong? Or the fact that the Internet went way overboard on the whole topic? Or that the Internet still believes there's a conspiracy BEHIND the conspiracy? You'll have to be more clear because none of this ever happens on the Internet, so it's all new and interesting.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.1. Its completely true, but they don't want the bad press that will come of it.
2. Its partially true, and they still don't want the bad press.
3. It isn't true at all. Which I think is highly unlikely giving the current state of the game.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC?
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is)