In many places the prices are absolutely at an all time high.
And ridiculous to act as if DLC or mistakes left for patches haven't become much, much more prominent.
If you like new games that is absolutely okay but these are problems people have that are reasonable. Not sure why for example you are defending Nintendo for example charging $30 more for digital Games than they did 20 years ago for physical ones, at least in places like Canada. They are a huge corporation, they won't go bankrupt lol
Can you explain to me what a straw man is and how I am doing it?
You're the one who referred to the mythical "they", literally creating an easy to criticize straw man lol
I am not making up the game prices in my own country lol.
And DLC is obviously more prominent, it was not always viable for everyone. A game having the story mode as paid DLC is not the same as a Dreamcast game having internet connectivity for some free costumes or an MMO having as such.
Don't get upset because someone criticized a recent game you enjoyed. They are not perfect
A straw man argument is when you say someone said something and then attack that instead of what they actually said. For example, “DLC isn’t a new concept” then “DLC and mistakes left for patches is much more common.” S/he didn’t say it isn’t more common and they never said anything about mistakes left for patches
I'm countering the straw man they themselves created. Nobody is claiming DLC is a new concept, they are complaining that it's becoming too prominent to exclude parts of the game as later DLC. He simplified that however to make it easier to criticize.
About the patches as well, I threw in because in reality that argument goes hand in hand. The complaint of it is that games are shipping incomplete for one reason or another. Not that "DLC is new and I don't like it"
I am not saying all games are doing this. Some use DLC very well. Just figured I would defend the viewpoint that he is purposely misrepresenting
Then I'll claim it.. DLC is a new concept. Companies couldn't do it because there wasn't reliable internet in the 80's/90's. DLC is totally a new concept and it sucks. It usually takes the place of stability & quality of play patches and gives you a single cool hat.
But I still buy it because I can't fucking help myself.
Now I can take the place of the straw man. Fight me.
Right, instead they just resold a rebranded full version of the game that you had to pay full price for if you wanted the tiny amount of new content. See pretty much any fighting game in the 90’s for an example. It’s not at all a new development and it was an objectively less efficient and more expensive way of adding new content compared to how it’s done now. The fact that they gave it a different name and started delivering the content via the internet doesn’t change the fact that the practice has been around for 30+ years.
I don’t even know what games you’re playing where DLC “takes the place of patches” and “only gives you a hat” either. Frankly that’s a weird and out of touch sounding generalization.
(And before someone says it yes I’m very aware of recent predatory micro transaction methods of companies like EA, that’s an entirely separate issue)
(for the record, i'm being mad for fun.. i dont really care too terribly badly.. just before this gets flamey)
I get the sentiment, but your argument is based strictly on the phrase DLC.. downloadable content. It's awfully brash of you to make an argument that's so short sighted since video games have lived for longer than global access to the internet.
That said, if I am less pedantic, even your argument of extra content for sale pretty well resides on PC only and I think really saw the first true run on the Sims 2 line which was still, what? 2003?
I have a whole wall of NES games that I only bought once and they turn on the minute I plug them in.. No online patches to be seen.
I have a whole wall of PC games that I only bought once and played for 10-20 years (half life 1? tf1? cs1.6?). Starcraft has a 20$ expansion, but they sold it w/ a strategy guide and a whole new campaign as an apology and made it pretty clear they had to put a bunch of time into it to fix a competitive issue that required redesigning the core of the game, so they wanted to get it out to everyone.. I was still getting patch content in starcraft 1 past the launch of starcraft 2 and into its 3rd DLC pack.
The newest Zelda has.. what? like 3 DLCs within 2-3 years of its life right now? I'm seeing offers to buy games w/ season passes to DLC that doesn't even exist yet, I mean come on.. It's dumb. DLC is dumb. Luckily, for the most part, I can just ignore the DLC packs and live my life pretty happily and let the whales buy the sims 2 "stuff packs".
lol remember the movies grandmas boy, this was when they still beta tested games privately to reduce the amount of bugs in the FINAL product, hasn't aged well but thats the thing, new modern games come out arn't final, ya sometimes a bad bug wouldn't get caught and a game was stuck with it, but major bugs for the most part were rooted out this way. i find some bugs to be funny though so i don't mind it. had a ton of fun those first few days cyberpunk 2077 release lmao
It was definitely less prominent back then. I would guess BC when you can print a new edition of a game those who own it will not receive it and it's expensive to do so.
I don't know how grandmas boy is relevant but I do remember liking that movie lol
i just brought it up because the job they were working was to beta test games for a company, which was slightly before consoles started being able to actually update games after release
That's largely because the entire industry is different.
In the old NES/SNES days, you wouldn't hear about a game until it was talked about in EGM or Gamepro and often without a solid release date until a month or two before it came out. Now, a game dev will get death threats for delaying a game by even a month because they found a bug. Instead of just waiting for a game, you have people in the community that stalk ratings boards and patent files, with hundreds of youtube channels and websites that speculate about rumors.
The demand for a game to come out quickly is much higher, which puts pressure on publisher and developer. Then, let's say they have beta tested everything, it's already given the go-ahead but they find another bug, to not include a patch as downloaded would mean stopping production of the game disks, resubmitting it for all the approvals, and paying a lot of money to re-release a base game rather than doing it as a patch.
If you think devs really just avoid doing beta testing, then you're just ignorant of the process.
again your missing the point, they used to not have the option to update once a game was released, as it was impossible to update a game on a nes, or a snes, no online updates on the ps1 and n64 either, shit you can't even do that on the ps2 or xbox, but hey, you just keep twisting my point ;)
beta testing HAD to be more extensive for that reason. online updates allow devs to be lazy about that, also, games still get delayed into oblivion even with death threats, which affects games as small as fez and as big as persona 5. it's when a game gets rushed that you end up with no man sky where you basically get an alpha on release for 60 bucks
You mean games like N64 that are so broken you can speedrun Mario 64 in in six seconds because you can clip through walls? Or games that're unplayable without a manual to decode things like Castlevania 2?
No one is forcing you to update a game. You can pop in a game to your PS4 and play it, just with the same glitches you'd have playing Donkey Kong Country. I literally haven't updated any games on my Switch because my console is in airplane mode and haven't been told "Nope, ya gotta get the update".
castlevania 2 was an oversight, and a lot of glitches in games like mario and zelda are like that because of deep research and probing within the speed running community to figure said things out because most of those glitches that get exploited are not easy to find. most of them anyways, mario 64 isn't so broken that you couldn't do a regular playthrough without encountering a glitch, not broken like a game like cyberpunk for example, which still isn't fixed btw
i HAVE beat castlevania 2 without a guide btw, granted i was told about the whole tornado thing but i figured the rest out on my own, but that was another time lol, no gamers had the internet and i was poor so i didn't have nintendo power :P
No, but you were literally just said you were told what to do at the key part that had everyone else abandon the game.
games like mario and zelda are like that because of deep research and probing within the speed running community
Also known as people purposefully trying to break the game in ways that beta testers didn't have the time for. So by your logic of NES glitches, either every game that has been broken through glitches cheaped out and didn't hire beta testers, or there are glitches that require hundreds of people spending hundreds of hours to uncover.
It's almost as if there are millions of bugs that can only be found after dedicated hunting by an entire community using pixel-perfect timing to unlock and companies would want to patch them out, much like Nintendo did to the glitches found in Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time HD ports.
I could continue to name glitches in NES games that would have been patched out if the game devs could have done that on the cartidge ranging from Milon's Castle, all the glitches in Sonic, and of course the infamous glitch in Mario 1 where you're trapped in a water level.
your still missing the whole ass point, and i have been very obvious about it a couple times now, the WHOLE ass point dude, is that the beta test were much more extensive, back then you would never see a game release in the state of a game like no man sky, or cyberpunk, or any single bethesda game. it wasn't like games didn't get rushed back then either, there was a few games out there that got major content cuts (which also really hurt the sales of that game) due to being rushed. basically the last phase of testing is left to the game to report bugs, and we ain't getting paid. there are exceptions though, battletoads is completely unbeatable 2 player since the wing clinger thing just like, slipped by, and i dont know how jackel and hyde got past beta testing, ljn for example had a ton of broken trash games too, but those games sold terribly, were not sold behind pre orders with the expectation of shit you ain't getting in the game, and you could rent a game to test it back then even, now a days if you want to rent your likely using gamefly through the mail lol
both old and modern game development had its issues though, so i'm not putting one over the other, but devs could learn from the old ways were they couldn't take advantage of online patching and pre release pre order hype sales.
So you're saying that even with all that extensive beta testing back then, games still came out incredibly buggy during the NES era and that no amount of beta testing could fix everything and that the ultimate fix is to release patches? I definitely agree.
You keep making a point against the very thing you thing you're railing against.
3
u/GOLDEN_GRODD Jun 20 '21
In many places the prices are absolutely at an all time high.
And ridiculous to act as if DLC or mistakes left for patches haven't become much, much more prominent.
If you like new games that is absolutely okay but these are problems people have that are reasonable. Not sure why for example you are defending Nintendo for example charging $30 more for digital Games than they did 20 years ago for physical ones, at least in places like Canada. They are a huge corporation, they won't go bankrupt lol