Would you buy DLC for Simcity in its current state?

#21NoOneReallyCaresPosted 4/18/2013 7:42:19 PM
iscareu13 posted...
I Like Toast, you are still arguing with people (440+ active messages), and your post structure (mostly quoting) still looks like complete crap? Come on.

As for this topic:
Bossdog421 posted...
I don't buy DLC, ever. It's the worst thing that has ever happened to gaming.

This.

Game companies are really milking their earnings on every possible opportunity. I refuse to support any company that does this.

Give us the modding tools / dev kits / etc... Seriously, the modding communities make content that is much better than what companies are pushing out as paid DLC.


I have always felt that the online only thing was mostly about preventing mods more than anything else. That, I believe, is the most disappointing thing about the DLC push in the last few years; It is squashing the potential of user generated content to get a few more bucks out of the customer at the expense of their satisfaction from making the game more "their way."

Sadly, I do not know what we could do to change the trend since boycotts do not work as long as there are customers around who are willing to pay for it and they already have the money of all of us suckers who pre ordered.
#22xoxide124Posted 4/18/2013 8:00:44 PM
ertfert posted...
xoxide124 posted...
if this is about the crest / oral-b.. i already buy those products for my home.. so if the next one i buy has the dlc great.. if not no biggie..

so i don't really care in this case


all right, but lets say the ad was for colgate, would you buy the toothpaste to get the DLC?

I Like Toast posted...
From: ertfert | Posted: 4/18/2013 12:59:40 PM | #010
really? So I had a different point I was trying to get across?

your 'point' has no basis on reality only on your astounding level of ignorance.


EA is announcing DLC and the game is rife with bugs, that point isnt based on reality?


no.. because i don't use the product in this case.. .. so for the type of items the PLOP team are creating.. if it is something i will use anyways.. then i'm not loosing anything.. but if i have to buy something i would never use then no .. not in that case..
#23thebeaslePosted 4/19/2013 12:19:49 AM
Laylow12 posted...
ertfert posted...

I Like Toast posted...
From: ertfert | Posted: 4/18/2013 12:59:40 PM | #010
really? So I had a different point I was trying to get across?

your 'point' has no basis on reality only on your astounding level of ignorance.


EA is announcing DLC and the game is rife with bugs, that point isnt based on reality?


Its a sad joke how someone defending EAs destruction of this once beloved franchise accuses someone else of grappling with reality.

Some people would do anything for money, including selling their souls. Paid Internet shills/hucksters come to mind.

.


+1
#24LordPonchoPosted 4/19/2013 12:34:26 PM
NoOneReallyCares posted...
iscareu13 posted...
I Like Toast, you are still arguing with people (440+ active messages), and your post structure (mostly quoting) still looks like complete crap? Come on.

As for this topic:
Bossdog421 posted...
I don't buy DLC, ever. It's the worst thing that has ever happened to gaming.

This.

Game companies are really milking their earnings on every possible opportunity. I refuse to support any company that does this.

Give us the modding tools / dev kits / etc... Seriously, the modding communities make content that is much better than what companies are pushing out as paid DLC.


I have always felt that the online only thing was mostly about preventing mods more than anything else. That, I believe, is the most disappointing thing about the DLC push in the last few years; It is squashing the potential of user generated content to get a few more bucks out of the customer at the expense of their satisfaction from making the game more "their way."

Sadly, I do not know what we could do to change the trend since boycotts do not work as long as there are customers around who are willing to pay for it and they already have the money of all of us suckers who pre ordered.


It definitely wasn't to prevent mods if mod tools have been planned to be released ever since the online only was announced. Use some common sense.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#25sabon25Posted 4/19/2013 2:51:58 PM
Hell no. It would just get rolled back anyway.
#26rikvanoostendePosted 4/20/2013 1:33:59 AM
LordPoncho posted...
NoOneReallyCares posted...
iscareu13 posted...
I Like Toast, you are still arguing with people (440+ active messages), and your post structure (mostly quoting) still looks like complete crap? Come on.

As for this topic:
Bossdog421 posted...
I don't buy DLC, ever. It's the worst thing that has ever happened to gaming.

This.

Game companies are really milking their earnings on every possible opportunity. I refuse to support any company that does this.

Give us the modding tools / dev kits / etc... Seriously, the modding communities make content that is much better than what companies are pushing out as paid DLC.


I have always felt that the online only thing was mostly about preventing mods more than anything else. That, I believe, is the most disappointing thing about the DLC push in the last few years; It is squashing the potential of user generated content to get a few more bucks out of the customer at the expense of their satisfaction from making the game more "their way."

Sadly, I do not know what we could do to change the trend since boycotts do not work as long as there are customers around who are willing to pay for it and they already have the money of all of us suckers who pre ordered.


It definitely wasn't to prevent mods if mod tools have been planned to be released ever since the online only was announced. Use some common sense.


There were a lot of things planned to be released ever since the online only was announced. I use common sense but I don't sense any of them.
---
Let's agree to disagree.
#27LordPonchoPosted 4/20/2013 2:44:14 PM
rikvanoostende posted...
LordPoncho posted...
NoOneReallyCares posted...
iscareu13 posted...
I Like Toast, you are still arguing with people (440+ active messages), and your post structure (mostly quoting) still looks like complete crap? Come on.

As for this topic:
Bossdog421 posted...
I don't buy DLC, ever. It's the worst thing that has ever happened to gaming.

This.

Game companies are really milking their earnings on every possible opportunity. I refuse to support any company that does this.

Give us the modding tools / dev kits / etc... Seriously, the modding communities make content that is much better than what companies are pushing out as paid DLC.


I have always felt that the online only thing was mostly about preventing mods more than anything else. That, I believe, is the most disappointing thing about the DLC push in the last few years; It is squashing the potential of user generated content to get a few more bucks out of the customer at the expense of their satisfaction from making the game more "their way."

Sadly, I do not know what we could do to change the trend since boycotts do not work as long as there are customers around who are willing to pay for it and they already have the money of all of us suckers who pre ordered.


It definitely wasn't to prevent mods if mod tools have been planned to be released ever since the online only was announced. Use some common sense.


There were a lot of things planned to be released ever since the online only was announced. I use common sense but I don't sense any of them.


If they had said "mod tools at launch," your statement would be valid.

But they didn't. They said after launch.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#28DraconisRexPosted 4/22/2013 7:21:39 AM
ertfert posted...
topic
I mean, theyre releasing things like that Nissan ad DLC and announcing that stupid toothpaste promotion while the game is essentially broken
Are EA really trying to blatantly look like theyre trying to make a quick cash grab from companies willing to pay them for the advertisement and then just check out when thats done?


Yes.


Because I reckon any sensible company would put that on hold, fix the game, THEN employ a marketing campaign so as not to get even MORE negative press about the game


When has EA been sensible? DAY1 DLC for ME3? Charging for bullets? Putting cash-shops INSIDE single-player games? Lying about the importance and necessity of their always on-line requirement? Implying people were homophobes because they're pissed off at EAs destroying what should be one of the bright-spots of their entertainment hobby?

Hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but the only way that makes sense to me is that if theyre not willing to spend any more money on the game, so theyre just trying to squeeze out as much money out of it as they can before the ad companies stop returning their calls.


EA has lost billions and billions of dollars over the past six, seven years. Over half the book-equity of the Company has been wiped out. Things keep getting worse and worse and worse and they're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel -- and they're very clear it's the head-lights of a train coming at them.

I mean, who would really buy crest toothpaste for the DLC if the game is broken?
I dont think their sales would increase AT ALL unless EA fixes the game
If i used Crest id probably stop using it out of pure spite


One of the concepts that business school has stopped teaching is the stakeholder concept. It's the CUSTOMERS, the COMPANY and the SHAREHOLDERS.

Now they teach 'profit maximization' (which is always short-term) and 'fiduciary duty' to the owners without understanding that 'fiduciary duty' to the owners must be a long-term position and not short-run profit maximization. And the best way to have long-term success is quality products sold at a fair price with reasonable customer service. All of which EA fails to deliver. In short, you make a little less (per unit) today. But you sell a LOT more units over-time as people like (and recommend) your stuff.

Look at Bethesda. Skyrim has sold over 12-million copies. Look at BioWare (who follows the EA model) -- DA2 (a shameless money grab) hasn't sold more than 1.2 million copies even though DA:O sold close to 4 million.

A complete sales flop, all because it was made in EA's way -- push out the junk with minimal development. Sell it with big marketing campaigns! Churn that Developer name. Churn the franchise. Over-price the game (which was, at best, an xpac). Make money by burning bridges through pissing-off your formerly loyal fans with your crap, recycled-asset-XPAC, full-priced games!

After all, gamers are too stupid to know they're being ripped off, right?
---
Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead
#29DraconisRexPosted 4/22/2013 7:31:22 AM
LordPoncho posted...

It definitely wasn't to prevent mods if mod tools have been planned to be released ever since the online only was announced. Use some common sense.


lol. You've never modded obviously. One of the things we did in the modding community was to build mod tools.

Eventually SOME developers included them. But mostly we built our own tools or found other ways. Heck, I remember when we used to ASCII text-editors to mod games... Of course, that was in the DOS 3.1 days...


Like here:

Hackers open up offline play, modding tools for SimCity


EA and Maxis' claim that it would take "significant engineering work" to make a workable offline version of SimCity took another hit today. Hackers have released modding tools that disable the game's periodic server checks without breaking the simulation. The tools also unlock other features not in the final game.

reddit is abuzz with news and guides for installing the SimCityPak, a downloadable package of files that lets players edit many elements of the UI and underlying game logic. The tools aren't incredibly user-friendly for the time being, but those with some Javascript experience and patience to learn can do things like disable the online connectivity requirement, fix the "fudged" population display, and even affect how the basic simulation works in some ways.



And, of course, it was pretty easy because the game was promised to be moddable on release:

Last year, SimCity Creative and Art Director Ocean Quigley said the game was being "built to be moddable" at a GDC panel. He reaffirmed that stance in a tweet just last month, indicating modded package files would be allowed (but maybe not directly supported) once the game was released. Given the potential for menace on public servers being quickly unlocked by players, however, this stance may not last.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/hackers-open-up-offline-play-modding-tools-for-simcity/


But even games not designed to be moddable, or come with handy mod tools, have been modded. Because, like said, we built our own tools.

So, with SimCity so far... Crappy DLC full of advertising. And no 'official' way to mod the game or a toolset useful for modding the game. DESPITE the promises.
---
Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead
#30whitelytningPosted 4/22/2013 10:17:35 AM
It depends on what the DLC is and how much it costs.
---
************************************************
http://i.imgur.com/iZdWIKJ.jpg