Worst "feature" in games this generation, eg DLC or DRM etc

[Faldric]

I hate everything that stops me from just buying a disc with a complete game, install and play it.
I dont want to first create an account, install plattform software(which is most of the time error prone), see that the activation server is down so I have to wait. After hours or days rinse repeat, finally be able to install, getting multiple GB of patches which takes forever since million other sheeps try the same thing, i finally get to the launcher which bombards me with advertisments of Day-One DLC or tries to talk me into adding my facebook credentials. And after hopping through all these loops I am finally on my always-online Singleplayer game I payed at least 60 Euro for and can enjoy it... WRONG almost certainly the gameservers will have to much traffic, be buggy or laggy as hell which either makes it a pain to play with constant disconnects, or not being able to play at all because I cant even log in.

So pretty much the whole list, hardly buyed any games recently and replay old classics.

[Kaosbringer]

Both to be honest.

DLC by its very nature is meant to gouge the consumer for more money. Yes i realize that they are a company and there to make money but, rarely is the cost wroth what you get.

DRM's are a terrible model as they only really hurt the consumer (people who actually bought the game) and at bests delays pirates.

[blake22tt]

After playing Dark Souls I think I will add bad PC ports to the list.

[Deleted]

1. Day 1 DLC wins this round. There's no justifying it even with extended certification processes. If I buy a product on release day, I want everything that was created until then to be included in the price. No ifs or buts.

2. Always on DRM: I get the need for DRM....but always online DRM is not acceptable.

[Zogarth]

Pay to win... i hate that

[Aoyi]

I hate DLC far more then DRM just because I don't like having to pay for things that should have been included on the $60 product I already bought. Coming out with DLC a year after your release because your still have a decent fan base is one thing. Coming out with DLC the day you release your game is wrong. That content was developed before release. It should be included on the release. Or worse, when the "DLC" is really on the disk you already own, but locked. WTF?

[Kisho]

1. Day 1 DLC wins this round. There's no justifying it even with extended certification processes. If I buy a product on release day, I want everything that was created until then to be included in the price. No ifs or buts.

Except everything pre-certification is what you're paying for with the base game purchase, either with day 1 DLC or without it. Post-certification is extra work undertaken by the developers, so needs extra payment for their salaries and other associated costs.

Yes, on paper day 1 DLC looks bad and seems like a money grabbing scheme. Certainly, some companies use it this way. If used correctly though it is only a benefit for everyone involved... but we do need to pay for it. It needs to be a separate thing: trying to include it on the disc means it'll need to go through certification again, which renders the entire thing pointless. It needs to be released separately, as DLC, and paid for because the developers have taken extra time that they normally would not have spent to make this content.

I think the community really needs to change its mindset. DLC is not a bad thing if used correctly. Demonise those that abuse DLC, not those who use it in a legitimate and effective manner.

[Deleted]

Except everything pre-certification is what you're paying for with the base game purchase, either with day 1 DLC or without it. Post-certification is extra work undertaken by the developers, so needs extra payment for their salaries and other associated costs.

I know their reasoning but it doesn't change the fact that it's still BULLSHIT and would be an absolutely unacceptable practice in any other sales environment.

1. It's not the consumers fault that certification processes take so long. Microsoft and Sony need to get their acts together. It's an extremely cumbersome and restricting process.

2. PC Games don't need certification. So why should they put up with such BS?

3. If you went to the movies and there were two versions of the film on offer, 5 dollars for the "extended cut" which was created during post-production you'd be pretty pissed too.

[obake1]

DRM by far for me. Most recently I was really set on buying the FF7 re-release on PC, but someone mentioned the absurd DRM associated with. Something along the lines of you have 30 days after purchase to download the game (ok, this is reasonable, if I’m buying the game, I’ll download it within a day) and then you have a limited amount of downloads before you can’t download it anymore (3 times?). That’s really dumb, if I’m paying for a game up front, I expect to keep it forever without install limitations or whatever, I’m not paying to rent the game.

[Ethas]

DRM, ok DRM is pretty much undefendable. F2P, well very few F2P MMOs are pay to win. I don't see the problem with DLC as long as it isn't day one or an exclusive offer from Gamestop of Best Buy.

Pretty much every f2p MMO is pay to win or making your gameplay so boring that you pushed to pay anyway which is the same as pay to win ideology. DLC, well, DLC is the same as monthy subscription but called DLC for advertising purposes.

[Kelimbror]

I will add to my original statements that having to install the equivalent of Video Game Facebook in order to even play a game is ridiculous. EA and Origin need to die.

Most things on Steam are ok, b/c they are presented at low value and a storage cloud, but a lot of those games are available off Steam as well. I think BF3 was my first terrible experience at this new trend...and this was me thinking I have this physical disc in my hand, why do I need to install something I don't want just to play it?

I think the most ridiculous use of this is playing the new Batman games on steam. Not only do you have to be on Steam, but Microsoft makes you sign up for their service GFWL to even play a game. So basically I have a gamer facebook inside my gamer facebook. If only Batman could log on to real Facebook inside the Batcave, then Cthulu would devour our world whole in one disgusting meta moment.

[Cinnamohn]

I'd say DLC.

[Dakara]

Free to Play has become the best and worst thing to happen to gaming (imo), combined with DLC.

Many Free to Play games end up more expensive if you actually want to play them to their potential, and others are horrible without the extra paid "DLC".

[Zoneseek]

Always-on DRM (must be online to play a game)
On-Disc DLC (paying to unlock parts of the game you bought)

These two are the clinchers for me, I won't pay money for them. I have D3 thanks to it being free since I stay subbed to wow on a 6month rotation anyway, but I have never actually paid money for a game with always-on-drm unless it was a mmo which obviously needs to be always-on anyway.

[Deleted]

Achievements.

[Segen92]

On disc DLC. I hate paying for extra content just to make the game feel finished for me. I don't mind the pay for extra experience thing, i'll get to max level eventually and i'll be better for it.

[Archaeon]

I don't mind always online, as long as the content itself isn't hosted server side and there isn't server maintenance or something every goddamn day. If the game needs to keep checking with me every so often to make sure I'm legit then so be it. If I keep getting booted out because of shitty servers or downtime then yeah that's a problem.

I have to go with DLC. Expansion packs released months/years later which add new stuff to the game? Sure why not. Content that is already ready on release and is integral to the game but sold separately? You can stick it where the sun don't shine.

[Arrashi]

Im gonna jump on DLC bandwagon. I prefer by far buying expansion for game i liked even if its expensive, over buying 5-6 DLC 1 hour of content each.