WiiAssasin
The ride never ends
Unless I'm playing an mmo with a subscription fee, paying for DLC is never acceptable.
Xbox one
- Thread starter DBloke
- Start date
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
Foolishness, Assasin. Foolishness.
WiiAssasin
The ride never ends
Explain.
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
Go find one'a the many posts in which I've done so.
WiiAssasin
The ride never ends
Nonexistent.
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
Your memory, yes.
The_Mitch
UNACCEPTABLE
I don't mind paying for DLC if it actually adds to the game and it was thought of and developed AFTER the game was released. Just like an expansion pack but smaller. It took time, money, and energy to make so why not pay for it? Now **** like horse armor or dumb **** like that should not be pay DLC but game like boarderlands 2 that has good DLC, I don't mind paying for. As for paying to play online, with XBL, I havent paid over $30 for a year of XBL in about 4 or 5 years and I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find year cards of PS+ for just as cheap. Also, PS+ gives you free games. I have about 20 games in my PS3 library that I got for FREE. LBP2, Infamous 2, Uncharted 1+3, Payday, DuesEx, just to name a few. That, alone, makes it worth it IMO. Something good about the XBone and PS4 is as long as one person on the system has a pay membership, any account on the console can use the benefits. So if you and your siblings/parents/roommates want it, you can just split the cost of one membership.
WiiAssasin
The ride never ends
Probably because you already paid for the game. Players buy the game, they maintain it. Unless things like paying for glitches and patches is your thing. No, even then it's not okay. Games should not be released half-done.
Curse TF2 and it's purely cosmetic DLC at ridiculously high prices!The_Mitch said:
The_Mitch said:
Borderlands 2 is the worst game I've purchased in years. Whether it be the game breaking glitches or the worst examples available of the DLC practice. You do not pay for classes that should be available out of the box.
The_Mitch said:
Sony removed ****ed over gamers slightly less with online multiplayer. If you leave that alone, you are missing the entire point. It's taking the same damn road that led to Microsoft's asinine policies in the first place. Complete relinquishing of any and all consumer rights. And you are defending these choices?
Last edited:
The_Mitch
UNACCEPTABLE
You're acting like DLC is just content that was meant to be in the game. By your logic, expansion packs should be free as should any future peripherals for consoles that were thought of after the initial release. Day one DLC IS bad. That **** SHOULD have been included with the game or made free. Stuff made AFTER the game that was thought up AFTER the release that adds to the game in a substantial way (like additional story lines) is okay to cost money. It adds to the game. DLC that players can buy to give them an advantage online is BS as well. If it is online and gives an advantage, it should be free.
cosmetic DLC that you have to pay for is asinine
Borderlands 2 is the worst game I've purchased in years. Whether it be the game breaking glitches or the worst examples available of the DLC practice. You do not pay for classes that should be available out of the box.
1. I think map packs should be free or dirt cheap since maps are easy to make. I dabbed in it a bit about 10 years ago around when I was 15 and it was not that hard thus why it should be free.
2. The game was amazing. You may not have liked it but I did as did a ton of other people. Everyone has different taste in games. I will admit that the Mechromancer class should have been free and I was pissed at that but the rest of the DLC adds content to the game that is worth paying for. It extends the game and was put into development AFTER the release of the game. Just like an expansion pack.
Consumer rights? PSN online multiplayer sucks right now. The servers are buggy and it lags. I pay the subscription right now for the free games and cloud storage and auto updates. XBL servers are solid. PC online gaming doesn't use centralized servers like console online gaming does. All XBL games have to go through the XBL servers and all PSN games have to go through the PSN servers. Just like with an MMO, the subscription is for the upkeep of the servers. PC gaming goes through the players computer and acts as a server (or using a dedicated server that you either own or rent (just like a subscription...)). It's a service and services should be paid for. Free is good, yes, but if I am provided a service, I have no issues paying as long as it is reasonable. The price of one game a year is VERY reasonable. Hell, my monthly bills excluding food, gas, and entertainment is [strike]$1100[/strike] $1400 (forgot to add in college tuition). Add PSN, XBL, Netflix, Usenet, and WoW, that goes up only an extra $40 per month. The cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the bills life throws at you.
Microsofts XBone DRM policy was due to piracy. The 360 is a joke to hack. Its security was abysmal. A TON of 360s were hacked and what they were trying to do was avoid piracy using the online DRM. Just like what EA did with The Sims. It ultimately ****s over legit users as pirates WILL find a way around it. Not everything is black and white. The DRM that MS put in place was for piracy but they decided to try and take it a step further with the whole selling system to make money off used game sales. Part of it is to avoid theft. The game sale issue is shitty and I do not support that but I understand WHY they wanted to have the online DRM and I do not blame them. It's just the wrong way to go about it.
Last edited:
WiiAssasin
The ride never ends
The_Mitch said:
Day One DLC is bad, DLC that gives advantages is bad. But DLC is still good. Gotta tell ya, I don't follow at all.
The_Mitch said:
Except you don't have to pay at all. Simply trade for it with whatever item drops you get. Or if it don't follow that system, it's cosmetic. See, in your previous post above, you complain about DLC that gives advantages as being unfair, unless it's free. But, paying for DLC that does absolutely nothing? No, that's crossing the line to you. Perhaps it'd help if you actually thought more in depth over these matters.
The_Mitch said:
Good that you noticed the necromancer exclusion. It was removed simply as an excuse for getting more cash outta players.
The_Mitch said:
I never knew the Playstation online service is that bad. Which makes it MORE surprising that one would agree to pay for MORE of this bad service, and with the PS4, it's necessary to play multiplayer at all. How one is okay with this will continue to baffle me.
The_Mitch said:
Well yes, I don't blame Microsoft for wanting money. It's just the way the beast communicates.
The_Mitch
UNACCEPTABLE
Day one DLC should have been released with the game. It should be free since it very well could have been included in the game but wasn't for the pure fact to gain more money. DLC that gives you an advantage against other players is HORRIBLE. It means all you have to do to win is pay. If they are going to release DLC of something that is a superweapon or gives an advantage, IT SHOULD BE FREE. DLC that ADDS to the game is GOOD like adding a whole new story. How the hell is that hard to follow?
What? you got all that out of me saying cosmetic DLC (like Oblivions horse armor) that you need to pay for is asinine? Anything cosmetic that you have to spend money on is stupid. If it actually adds to the game then it worth it as long as the price is right. If it will give you an unfair multiplayer advantage simply because you paid, it is stupid. I can't get any more clear than that.
WiiAssasin
The ride never ends
It's not a bad game, but it's still the worst game I've had to deal with in about 2 years.
If they're adding a whole new story, it's called a sequel. If it's a akin to a sidequest, it's more of an expansion.
The_Mitch said:
Ah, cosmetic changes that do nothing should be demanded by the gaming community to be free. Of course. But we should gladly pay for anything that would've been better off implemented in the game on purchase.
For a better understanding, just what are some examples of DLC that add to a game without being a cop out for more profit?
Last edited:
x = 6.28?
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
It's no use Mitch, I've already explained oh-so many times that the infrastructure of DLC is not evil, it's businesses like Crapcom who abuse said infrastructure to create evil. Assasin can't be reasoned with. Can't ya tell that just by the fact he misspelled his username?! That, and his strange fetish for hats. Never trust someone who has an obsession with headgear, they're generally like tinfoil hat wearin' people.
In regards t' the PS4, PS+ bein' mandatory for online play means there're gonna be a shitton more of users. That means more money, which means Sony can implement Serperior servers t' what they have now. Which is t' say, they damn-well better.
In regards t' the PS4, PS+ bein' mandatory for online play means there're gonna be a shitton more of users. That means more money, which means Sony can implement Serperior servers t' what they have now. Which is t' say, they damn-well better.
