741
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
741 points (98.4% liked)
Games
16830 readers
945 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah but concerned ape added about half a game's content with that new island. Nobody would've blinked if they charged for it.
This. It all boils down to value for money. 5 dollars for a skin cosmetic is bullshit. 5 dollars or more for DLC with meaningful content is okay.
If you're going to sell a DLC that is only a skin and people buy it, I don't have an issue. A skin adds nothing outside of "looks" and it's purely optional. If you the player want to pay for it, be my guest.
It's when games release a game that is unfinished, has bugs, and what should be a patch is sold as a DLC, I have problems with that.
Or when DLC adds a competitive advantage, that is just wrong. Like for $5 a month, you get extra "stability" in your scope, or the whole "pride and accomplishment" crates.
Those DLCs can go fuck themselves.
My issue with skins is that it is completely immersion breaking. You have Homelander and Gaia running around Call of Duty now. It's comical and just destroys my enjoyment of the game.
The skins get worse and worse because to continue the money machine they have to make more and more unique skins that just destroy the cohesion of the world they've built.
This is all there is to be said on the matter
Studio size has nothing to do with it, the only important matter here is whether the DLC is "required" or not. I'm fine with BS cosmetic DLC, that really doesn't matter, but when you promise features X, Y, and Z, and deliver X and Y but gate Z behind a DLC, that's unacceptable. I don't care if you're have 1000 employees or 1, that's wrong.
DLC should be for:
Elden Ring's DLC is pretty atypical though, even as far as DLCs are concerned. Comparing it to past FromSoftware DLCs for Dark Souls, Shadow of the Erd Tree is like the size of all of the Dark Souls DLCs combined.
Expecting every DLC to match Shadow of the Erd Tree is setting yourself up for disappointment. Would it be nice? Of course, but it would be unrealistic to expect every DLC to match it.
While I agree EA and Paradox are lazy in making DLC, studios should absolutely not be aiming to make every DLC like Shadow of the Erd Tree. That would only lead to studio closures and developer disappointment when they ultimately fail to meet that very high standard.
I would rather developers stick to making something that they realistically can, that way they can finish it and get the satisfaction of completing a DLC they wanted to make than get burned out making something with too big of a scope for their team.
Ah, I see. Then in that case, sure. As long as developers take the note that they should make the best product that they possibly can, then I agree.