Borderlands [PC]

[pine]

Yes, because the motive is clearly different depending on whether you announce before or after release. It's a purely psychological thing.

But we don't even know if we like Borderlands yet, and already they're trying to sell us something to go with it? It has a mercenary feel to it that turns people off. Why tell us about this now? They're already creating hype for something that's based on something else which hasn't even been released yet.

I guess the promise of DLC is considered a selling point for games these days, or something. You know what sells me on a game? The game itself.

 

[Capt.Toilet]

How terrible! People want to get paid for their work. What a bunch of goddamned cry babies.

Depends if that work is worthy of the money it costs.

FEAR 2 had an expansion that was less than an hours worth of gameplay, with no replay value, and it cost ten bucks. It could have easily been added in to the main game. My point is, most developers out their are releasing **** for the money(looking at you Capcom and EA), and I hope Gearbox doesn't follow suit.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

How terrible! People want to get paid for their work. What a bunch of goddamned cry babies.

There's a line for fairness for everyone to decide themselves. If someone thinks Apple is overcharging their products, he is saying he won't pay the the amount they are asking for. Likewise, someone don't want paid updates, he won't pay for it.

Yes, because the motive is clearly different depending on whether you announce before or after release. It's a purely psychological thing.

Everyone's actions are open to interpretation. If they don't want that speculation, then they shouldn't have put themselves in that position.

 

[Sjosz]

Everyone's actions are open to interpretation. If they don't want that speculation, then they shouldn't have put themselves in that position.

People will speculate negatively regardless of what position developers put themselves into. Just because you interpret things differently doesn't mean that the people working on DLC that's announced before the game the DLC is for is released aren't creating something they find will support the game or please the fans, instead of just making more money.

You guys forget that there's actual human beings working on these games who care just as much (if not more) for the things they make. I know it's true where I work, and I'm pretty sure it's the same for TomWithTheWeather and the crew at Gearbox.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Never said it won't support or please that fans, jsut that this shows it is more about money-making. Since it is created by actual humans, it shouldn't be wrong to expect that a number of them do these action beacsue they are money-hungry.

When should it be consider unacceptable then? When the DLC is sold before the game is out? It would be too late by then.

 

[Sjosz]

I personally like the early announcement. This way I know I'm buying into a game that has some degree of post-release support. But hey, I'm biased, because I'm one of those people that makes games.

 

[ambershee]

How terrible! People want to get paid for their work. What a bunch of goddamned cry babies.

Yeah, but I don't really think Blizzard / Activision should be cashing in on it with a majority cut of the sales. There's something very not quite right with that.

 

[Mozi]

Simple fact... every business needs money to sustain itself, employees and costs. If any of you actually looked at the electricity bill for dev studio you'd understand why companies need money. And that's just a fraction of the many costs studios need to bear to stay afloat.

It can't be 100% of the time let's play games and do what the fans or forum people want us to do.

If some people are upset that Borderlands and the DLC which no one is forcing you to buy, is going give Gearbox money to support it's business, or any game studio out there that does this then I got nothing in response to that. Keep ranting...

Hopefully at some point, nerd rage will give way to common sense.

Yeah, but I don't really think Blizzard / Activision should be cashing in on it with a majority cut of the sales. There's something very not quite right with that.

Being an ex-Activision/Blizzard employee in the trenches making games I thought the same thing the company makes too much money. But again there is a lot to cover aside from just the costs of making a game.

And hell if developers make good cash on their product at any company around the world, more power to them, they deserve it. Making games is not easy by any means and getting a nice paycheck at the end of 2/3 year dev cycle is rewarding.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

If some people are upset that Borderlands and the DLC which no one is forcing you to buy, is going give Gearbox money to support it's business, or any game studio out there that does this then I got nothing in response to that.

No one said people shouldn't buy it. There are more ways for a studio to sell its DLC better. Having an expansion out the day the core game is out is questionable, and DLC is no different than that

Keep ranting...

Hopefully at some point, nerd rage will give way to common sense.

All the supposed anti-nerd ragers rages more than everyone else. This is the first post that resorts to name calling.

 

[Mozi]

Okay perhaps nerd rage was not the best choice of words but still all I am saying making games is a business and making money supports a business.

Now I have a question, can someone point me to the written rule where it states DLC on launch date for a game is bad?

 

[toniglandyl]

first of all, TWTW, thanks for the reply !

In Borderlands case, the PC version is actually graphically superior. It also controls as well as a decent PC shooter.

awesome then ! if only all multi-platform games could be like that...

Piracy on PC is rampant because it's easy. Piracy on consoles does happen but it's not nearly as bad because it's much harder to do. It easier to slow down piracy on a console through firmware updates and patches, as well as online checks for multiplayer. Often, console piracy requires hardware mods that the vast majority of console gamers will never attempt, if they even know about them at all. If console piracy were as easy as PC piracy, it would probably be just as bad.

was GTA4 was less pirated with all the things they put on against piracy ? I don't think so. people even used illegal methods to play the game correctly.
copy-protection seems to hinder mostly buyers.
I didn't hear of any DRM other than gamespy and steam for borderlands. could you say if that's the only things that are present ? (and if the steam integration is "perfect", by that I mean right-click on friend, join game works)

If we didn't want players to enjoy it we would have never made it. We want to support the game with added content after launch for those who want it. It's no different that paying a few bucks for additional Rock Band songs, CoD4 map-packs, or new areas in Fallout3.

well I don't purchase those.
but EPIC even with the first UT did some free packs. EPIC sold a lot of copies with UT3 black edition, and that was with just a free pack.
IMO, free packs bring a better opinion about the studio. the TF2 team brought a LOT while the L4D team worked on L4D2 instead of bringing additional stuff to L4D, and the latter got quite criticized at the announcement of L4D2.

it's not because of that that I'm not buying Borderlands. I'm going to get it for sure ! I'm just stating my opinion.
for the additional pack... must be really worth it ! I'll trust you on that

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

But we don't even know if we like Borderlands yet, and already they're trying to sell us something to go with it? It has a mercenary feel to it that turns people off. Why tell us about this now? They're already creating hype for something that's based on something else which hasn't even been released yet.

I guess the promise of DLC is considered a selling point for games these days, or something. You know what sells me on a game? The game itself.

quoted for making some great points :tup:

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

was GTA4 was less pirated with all the things they put on against piracy ? I don't think so. people even used illegal methods to play the game correctly.
copy-protection seems to hinder mostly buyers.
I didn't hear of any DRM other than gamespy and steam for borderlands. could you say if that's the only things that are present ? (and if the steam integration is "perfect", by that I mean right-click on friend, join game works)

Copy protection schemes don't hinder most legit buyers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DRM and such and it's unfortunate that a few legit buyers do have issues with it, but to say that DRM hurts more legit buyers than it stops pirates is statistically wrong.

well I don't purchase those.
but EPIC even with the first UT did some free packs. EPIC sold a lot of copies with UT3 black edition, and that was with just a free pack.
IMO, free packs bring a better opinion about the studio. the TF2 team brought a LOT while the L4D team worked on L4D2 instead of bringing additional stuff to L4D, and the latter got quite criticized at the announcement of L4D2.

Epic and Valve have deeper pockets than most. They can afford to release content for free. I love that they do it, but not every studio can do so.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Now I have a question, can someone point me to the written rule where it states DLC on launch date for a game is bad?

A person can still do something bad even if he is not breaking a law, or violate any written rule.

The point here is not just directed to Gearbox, so don't feel the need to defend them. It is towards the whole market in general, both to players and developers. Develpoers can't continue bad practices if players won't reward them. But if the players do, then it becomes a continuing cycle.

It has to be said that some people will genuinely feel that this is correct, while others don't. Unfortunately, the market will only go in one direction. If one side won't stand for themself, the other side won't.

 

[Capt.Toilet]

Unfortunately, the market will only go in one direction. If one side won't stand for themself, the other side won't.

Which basically means, if people keep buying DLC, then devs will continue to make it. And unfortunately for us, most of that DLC is going to be EA quality pay 5 bucks for a helmet type thing.

 

[Sjosz]

A person can still do something bad even if he is not breaking a law, or violate any written rule.

The point here is not just directed to Gearbox, so don't feel the need to defend them. It is towards the whole market in general, both to players and developers. Develpoers can't continue bad practices if players won't reward them. But if the players do, then it becomes a continuing cycle.

It has to be said that some people will genuinely feel that this is correct, while others don't. Unfortunately, the market will only go in one direction. If one side won't stand for themself, the other side won't.

Help me out here. The bad practice is not that there's DLC, but that companies announce DLC prior to the game's release?

 

[haarg]

... but to say that DRM hurts more legit buyers than it stops pirates is statistically wrong.

You have a source for that?

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Help me out here. The bad practice is not that there's DLC, but that companies announce DLC prior to the game's release?

Yes, the point was not against updates at all. Updates can be good and bad, depending on how it is deployed. Even then, that is not against the quality of the update itself, but rather the purpose and situation. Think of it as a tool; the tool can be either good or bad, depending on how the user wields it.

 

[ilkman]

I can't speak for others but I can say for myself a large part of why I didn't by GTA4 was because of all the ridiculous stuff you needed to do to get to play it.

 

[Sjosz]

Yes, the point was not against updates at all. Updates can be good and bad, depending on how it is deployed. Even then, that is not against the quality of the update itself, but rather the purpose and situation. Think of it as a tool; the tool can be either good or bad, depending on how the user wields it.

So, if Borderlands went and came out, or Dragon Age, or any other game, and they didn't announce their DLC (which is the very same DLC being worked on regardless of when it's announced) until say... 2 weeks to a month AFTER the release, everything would just be dandy? Even though you're getting the same thing for the same price? (if there's a price)