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

[Klingers]

DLC in all its forms. All rationalisation and justification for it is just false-economy bullshit. Developers today just hold over 20% of the game originating from the early planning stages to charge you extra for it.

Even the idea that they're working on "extra" content post-release is a load of crap. The only difference is that they only have to complete 80% of a game by the release date and then charge you 100% of the price.

I'd tie it with always-on DRM, but you can avoid that to a point... For instance I'll only ever buy (a very short list of) Ubisoft games on console.

[Leonard McCoy]

DLC I can deal with. Like I don't have to buy DLC if I don't want to. Online only drm bullshit basically means I'm not playing the game unless I swallow their bullshit. It's far more invasive and nasty than the others really.

[Mashpotaters]

I would normally say pre-order bonuses, but the root of pre-order bonuses getting out of hand has to do with disc locked content. Looking at all the scheduled games up ahead, and the ones recently in the past I have to say the worst thing is disc locked content/day 1 DLC. They have essentially raised the price of games from the standard 60 dollars by holding back content that should be unlocked. I understand that on some occasions the content was worked on after the game was done, but that's their problem, not ours. If the game is done, then release it asap so that you can have a legitimate reason for charging for that content. If the content is done before the game is released, then the content should be part of the game on release.

[inboundpaper]

Online passes, then taking 3 months to make the game bearable, *cough* BF3 *cough*.

[Kivana]

DLC for me and it is a shame that it has come down to it.

I really wanted to play Mass Effect 3 as it looked good and the prequels had alot of good reviews. However once i read on here about the DLC i passed it up with a 'fuck you no way'. Yes you DON'T have to get them, but when it SHOULD be a part of the game anyway it just smacks of greed.

Also i hate how alot of games now are all: flashy in your face graphics, detailed environments/ships/weapons/people etc but FUCKALL GAMEPLAY. That sweet game you have been waiting months/years for comes out and you have it beat on ultra hard in 2 days because it's too short or 3/4 is fucking cinematics.

Look back to Doom and Quake. Looks like shit now right, but back then it looked da bomb and tbh it was the gameplay that kept people going.

[Kathranis]

I actually like DLC, depending on the situation.

I've got a friend who works as a producer for a company that publishes fighting games, and one of those games they release last year had a few DLC characters. They were actually developed after the game's launch and released as DLC only after being completed. Additionally, between art assets, voice acting, and theme music, each of those characters cost tens of thousands of dollars to develop.

So that sort of DLC, I'm fine with.


I don't really mind DRM so long as it's unobtrusive, but I feel like it's poor way to combat piracy. It has a greater effect on legitimate players than pirates.


I haven't really played any games with in-game advertising, except those where product placement is actually viable.


Buy to Win models for F2P games are horrible. I generally don't like the F2P model anyway, because your play experience is limited unless you pay, anyway. I'd rather just pay a subscription fee, get good game support from the developer/publisher, and have access to all the game's content and features.

[lopk]

Subscription titles with a (cosmetic) cash shop.

I pay my $x a month, I want all the content you release. *middle finger*

[Flaks]

AAA companies solely catering to a mass audience forgetting themselves in the process.

[Mashpotaters]

I actually like DLC, depending on the situation.

I've got a friend who works as a producer for a company that publishes fighting games, and one of those games they release last year had a few DLC characters. They were actually developed after the game's launch and released as DLC only after being completed. Additionally, between art assets, voice acting, and theme music, each of those characters cost tens of thousands of dollars to develop.

The issue that people have with DLC is when those characters become DLC instead of part of the game at launch because it's more cost effective to withhold from making the content, and make it later so that they can charge separately for it. They make more money by releasing it as DLC than they would by including it as part of the game at launch. Basically, if those characters were there at launch the game would still cost 60 dollars, but because they are there after the game the company ends up getting more money out of the deal. DLC cost money to make, but If there wasn't money to be had you wouldn't have DLC getting out of hand like it is now with season passes that let you pre-purchase future DLC.

[evoco]

DLC for sure. I thought I already bought the game when I gave the guy at the counter my $60 (or whatever), apparently I was wrong.

[Tzalix]

To be honest, I'm fine with all those things. If there's one game feature that needs to go, it's overused quick-time events!

[Varyk]

DLC is perfectly fine imo, as long as it's actually "extra".

I dont like online only at all.

[Kisho]

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.

Yes, it's partly to prevent piracy. Never denied that. However it is also for the following purposes:

1. To prevent hacks, which were rampant in D2
2. To prevent and ban botters, again a serious problem in D2 (and yes, it actually does prevent these and the hacks, but no security is ever 100% effective: it's still a ton better than what D2 ever was, though)
3. To provide us with achievements, adding more content in for the consumer
4. To give us online tools such as the armory
5. To give us a safe and fair AH which really helps the community in gearing up, instead of relying on drops and/or trading with people who could potentially scam you

As for why we can't play solo offline? The game simply isn't made that way. We don't have the whole game on our computers: half of it is on Blizzard servers. All the important stuff is locked away, which is how the game prevents hacks and is able to provide auction houses and all that stuff. It's plain impossible to provide a solo offline experience.

Yeah, there are the downsides you state, but the benefits far outweigh the downsides IMO.

[Deleted]

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.

While there may be benefits, as soon as I cannot play a single player game by myself as servers are down/internet's down or not available, then the disadvantages seem a lot more prominent.

[Leonard McCoy]

2. To prevent and ban botters, again a serious problem in D2 (and yes, it actually does prevent these and the hacks, but no security is ever 100% effective: it's still a ton better than what D2 ever was, though)

It doesn't stop botters any more than D2 did though. Seriously, their rampant all over D3. Go ahead and look at profiles with over 5 million kills. BOTS are every where in D3 and online only hasn't reduced this one bit. In fact the situation has been exacerbated by the auction house systems. It has very little benefit for players.

[Wilian]

There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC if done right, as in having good amount of content with a sensible price (None of the 5 dorrars for skin paks lolololol) shit or unlockable DLC from the disc.

It is to be noted though that a lot of the features PC gaming once had (such as diverse modding scene for almoust everything) have been actively tried to kill off to sell DLC by some companies (other reasons being yearly updates, they don't want longevity but more purchaches.) The same companies pushing this usually has most draconian DLC schemes too.

One should take a look at Obsidian and how they dealt with DLC, each of them being basically a mini expansion pack on their own.

But the worst thing? Absolutely the DRM, specifically the always-online kind of it. It saddens me how gaming community is just bending in and preparing to take it in the fullest.

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.

I have yet to see any benefits of the always online of Diablo 3 for me. Thus far the only things it has brought to be has been server downtimes, rubberbanding and lagspikes every now and then some of them at the worst possible times.

[Larynx]

I miss playing video games without internet.

[Bebopin]

From a narrative standpoint, too much reliance on cinematics and expository storytelling.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

Release date and pre-order DLC only, other dlcs are not that bad except the ones that want you to pay for cosmetics in a single player game that really add nothing of value to the game. Give me more DLC like Bethesda and Bioware and other various companies that actually add more story to their games then it's alright, but release date and pre-order dlc, hurgh...

[GeordieMagpie]

On-disc DLC..pisses me off, and Online only