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

[Deleted]

DLCs, sometimes they are horrible too... for example FF XIII-2 Snow dlc sound have answered some questions about the "Snow" the character when it was just a boss fight -.-

[puppypizza]

DLC and DRM are my biggest peeves. I could go on all day about them, but suffice it to say that always-on DRM is a joke. It won't stop the people you're trying to stop, and will only serve to annoy or inconvenience your real customers. And on-disc DLC can just be bypassed and unlocked, but it will make you very unpopular once people find out about it (like Capcom did).

Best example of a good 'always online' game: Diablo 3. It's used to provide the players with a better gaming environment. Sure, there are downsides to always online, but the benefits outweigh the downsides.

A bad example would be any game that requires it for the sole reason of preventing piracy. Piracy is going to happen regardless, so requiring always online for an otherwise purely singleplayer game is utterly pointless and annoying (since pirates will still figure out a way to play the game, thus ensuring the 'always online' requirement only pisses off the legitimate gamers).

You say these two things like they're complete opposites, but they're not. Blizzard has admitted that their always-online requirement was to prevent piracy (the other reason, not admitted but easily inferred, is the auction house). And what benefits would this "better gaming environment" provide to the majority that play solo? I'd rather go without high pings, disconnects, rubber-banding, downtimes, version control, if it meant all I gave up was a chat system and the auction house. It's sure not helping to stop botters, hackers and cheaters.

They admitted that the majority of users play solo, so why did they create an always-online system just for the minority? I know a lot of people would have bought the game if they didn't do this.

[Deleted]

DLC.

there's DLC for BF3 every fucking month and it's pissing me off because every child/teenagers needs to fucking bug their parents every damn time.

I've should of listened to myself and stop purchasing EA garbage after they fucked westwood in the butt.

[skitzin]

The concept of DLC I am fine with, the idea of adding new content to the game to enhance the experience I feel is a great gain in this current generation of games. However, the reality is quite distant from this initial ideology of DLC.

Many companies (EA is a good example) see this a means of effectively "re-selling" you the content of the game after you have bought the original release. So instead of new content in addition to the original game you now buy say 60% of the game and must re-buy the other 40% of it. To me this would be fine if they dropped the cost of the initial purchase but they don't so I find it offensive to gamers across the world. And to me day one DLC is something that should have been included since it is likely to have been either: part of the game and got extracted (see Javik in ME3) or was developed side by side with the original game meaning is a deliberate attempt at another money grab.

I also have an issue of some games being made purely online, not all games benefit from a MMO styled need to communicate with a server in order to play the game. D3 is the latest of games to do this but its not the only title that has done this in recent memory. The reason is as an Australian gamer I am often subjected to connecting to a server in the US or in Europe and hence get a higher than average ping which I feel can impact my game play.

[Adam Jensen]

Lol. Love people who don't understand the point and purpose of day 1 DLC.

DLC, if used correctly, is a fantastic thing. Day 1 DLC is also a great thing, IF USED CORRECTLY. If abused, sure, it's crap: but day 1 DLC will mean more content for us, and more importantly more job stability for game developers. A brief overview of the lifespan of a game:

Before day 1 DLC: Develop game. Game goes 'gold' (no more development can be done to it). Developers sit around twiddling thumbs while game goes through the marketing/retail motions. Game is released to the public.

With day 1 DLC: Develop game. Game goes 'gold'. Developers can continue developing the game, making day 1 DLC whilst waiting for the game to get through all the marketing/retail stuff. Game is released to the public alongside day 1 DLC.

With this in mind, it's important to note that you are only gaining stuff with day 1 DLC: they haven't taken important stuff out of the game in a cheap money grabbing ploy (or at least, they shouldn't have: I know some game developers are that shady, alas). They have only developed new content that you would not have gotten at all before day 1 DLC was possible.

The other thing to take note of is that it is proven that gamers are far less likely to buy DLC the longer they have to wait for it. If the DLC isn't out the door in the first couple weeks, then the amount of people who buy it decreases drastically. What sane businessman wouldn't take advantage of day 1 DLC in that case? It's sound business strategy.

To clarify, the day 1 DLC that unlocks stuff already on the disc is fucking terrible. There should be some sort of law against that shit. If it is done in the method described above, however? It can only be a great thing, giving us more content that we would not have gotten otherwise.

At the end of the day though, put your money where your mouth is. Don't buy stuff you don't agree with. Boycott the companies who use shady DLC tactics (don't just mindlessly boycott all DLC, that's stupid: some DLC can be brilliant additions to the game).

Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins are grand examples of brilliant DLC. The DLC in those games expands on the story and the universe, but the DLC is not itself required to understand the central plot of the game. You can complete ME2's suicide mission with no deaths (No One Left Behind achievement) and kill DA:O's Archdemon without DLC. The DLC does not fill any significant plot gaps left in the game purposely for the DLC.

From the Ashes, ME3's controversial on disk DLC is no more important to the game or the lore than Stolen Memory was in ME2. Both DLC's give you a new character, but neither are so important that you can't finish the game or understand the story without it. The only difference is that FtA was on disk and Stolen Memory was available a few weeks later. Yes, having Javik helps you understand what happened to the Protheans and gives you a bit more insight on the Reaper harvest, but it's still not that vital to the game. I've played the game without Javik and with Javik and I didn't feel that there were major plotholes just because Javik wasn't there.

And as the video I posted, and as Kisho explained, the DLC keeps the programmers employed with a paycheck adding new content to the game while the game itself cannot be touched.

[Landin55]

Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins are grand examples of brilliant DLC. The DLC in those games expands on the story and the universe, but the DLC is not itself required to understand the central plot of the game. You can complete ME2's suicide mission with no deaths (No One Left Behind achievement) and kill DA:O's Archdemon without DLC. The DLC does not fill any significant plot gaps left in the game purposely for the DLC.

From the Ashes, ME3's controversial on disk DLC is no more important to the game or the lore than Stolen Memory was in ME2. Both DLC's give you a new character, but neither are so important that you can't finish the game or understand the story without it. The only difference is that FtA was on disk and Stolen Memory was available a few weeks later. Yes, having Javik helps you understand what happened to the Protheans and gives you a bit more insight on the Reaper harvest, but it's still not that vital to the game. I've played the game without Javik and with Javik and I didn't feel that there were major plotholes just because Javik wasn't there.

And as the video I posted, and as Kisho explained, the DLC keeps the programmers employed with a paycheck adding new content to the game while the game itself cannot be touched.

Javik is more like Zaheed. And both were on the disk.

[Crashdummy]

DRM by far.

---------- Post added 2012-08-22 at 12:19 PM ----------

Best example of a good 'always online' game: Diablo 3. It's used to provide the players with a better gaming environment. Sure, there are downsides to always online, but the benefits outweigh the downsides.

You must be kidding with this... i guess you dont play much the hardcore setting of Diablo 3.

DIablo 3 with hardcore setting being always online is the biggest crap they could have made. Lag spikes killing entire characters were common when a lot of people were playing the game.

[oplawlz]

DLC, hands down. Along with dlc is the ability to patch your game and players actually defending crappy launch day with the excuse that patches will fix it (server related issues excepted). What kind of douche dev studio thinks it's ok not to debug their software properly before launch? I couldn't imagine pushing out, say, a new mail system to 5000+ employees with a bug that makes it lock up 7/8 times you open your mailbox, or cc's everyone in the company. But for some reason with games that is now perfectly ok, cuz herp-derp THEY CAN PATCH.

[Deleted]

I'm fine with DLC as long as its made after the release of the game.....but day one DLC is really pulling the piss.

[Hraklea]

On Disk DLC, by far.

[Profyrion]

"Free to Play" games that sell hefty ($$$) "preorder" or "founders" packages during the closed beta phase, and offer beta access as an incentive.

Essentially it's selling closed beta access. You're paying to test an unfinished product. Tribes Ascend did this (and got away with it) and now Mechwarrior Online is pulling the same shit. It needs to stop NOW before it becomes the new industry norm, but typical gamers are too stupid and have too much disposable income so we're probably fucked.

[Zenotetsuken]

Day 1/On Disc DLC, and DLC that adds nothing to the game/too short.

[flarecde]

"Free to Play" games that sell hefty ($$$) "preorder" or "founders" packages during the closed beta phase, and offer beta access as an incentive.

Essentially it's selling closed beta access. You're paying to test an unfinished product. Tribes Ascend did this (and got away with it) and now Mechwarrior Online is pulling the same shit. It needs to stop NOW before it becomes the new industry norm, but typical gamers are too stupid and have too much disposable income so we're probably fucked.

What's wrong with supporting a game, and getting a little something back. Free to play games are not free to make games. This system is win-win. Game company gets interested players, who are more likely to test. Interested players get access to the game early. I know the packages (at least the lower two) for MWO gives you more than your money's worth excluding any beta access incentives. And it's not like they don't invite random people too.

[Profyrion]

Please stop apologizing for them. You're part of the problem.

[flarecde]

Please stop apologizing for them. You're part of the problem.

You're no fun. If you're gonna troll, at least string me along a bit! :P

[SirRobin]

Are not generations twenty-five years or so? So wouldn't that make this generation pretty much the only video game generation? Personally I find them all crocks where the video game industry is taking far too many queues from other industries on selling something one way but having it be something quite different in practice.

[Itisamuh]

DLC and PTP. Basically anything that involves shelling out more money than simply buying the game.

[Poppincaps]

Are not generations twenty-five years or so? So wouldn't that make this generation pretty much the only video game generation? Personally I find them all crocks where the video game industry is taking far too many queues from other industries on selling something one way but having it be something quite different in practice.

Video game generations go by console generations. So when the Wii U, new Playstation, and new Xbox come out, then the next generation will begin.

[bbr]

The original actually worked better.
1999: you got proper new content.
2005: expansion pack just gave more of the same.
now: the full game gets cut up and DLC gets sold as "new stuff", but it was already in the game from release, or they cut corners to release some partially finished junk early.

I could give you some perfect examples as well,.

The burning crusade, wotlk, cataclysm, Mass effect, diablo 3.

[Kelimbror]

or they cut corners to release some partially finished junk early.

I could give you some perfect examples as well,.

The burning crusade, wotlk

Uh...what? Please don't let me have what you are having.

OT: DLC that is vital to the game. I'm ok with side stories, aesthetics, etc. Arkham City introducing more characters to beat people up with didn't bother me, but things like ME3 is ridiculous.

I also am not a fan of games, especially franchises, that used to be single player offline games now having always online required. It's pretty shitty knowing if I'm in a tight spot and my internet doesn't get paid, or during a move, that I will have no access to games I have already paid in full for.