ev77

What gets me is how gaming sites will publish this kind of thing KNOWING, knowing it will cause an influx of votes to EAs side and then turn around and talk about how dumb it is for EA to win. Yea, real smart moves you got there.

@jerry420ificate

For some reason joystiq didn't post my previous reply to you. It was kinda long and I don't want to rewrite it in full so I'll give you the cliff notes version.

1) Re-read my post, then please slap yourself for not knowing what YOU'RE talking about, because:

A) I'm in agreement with you. Disc-locked DLC (or rather, most DLC) is utter crap and I don't agree with it (and thus don't buy it). I specifically mention I'm playing "devil's advocate". Here, look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate.

B) You completely miss the whole point of the post (ie. you look like you didn't know what you were talking about; or rather you posted kinda on topic but on a totally different tanget unrelated the the topic brought up in my post). My point was:

Whether it's on-disc or not, Capcom will do whatever sells. If people decide tomorrow they won't buy any DLC that is found to be "on-disc" and they stick to their guns (they being the consumers and "sticking to their guns" being not buying the DLC) they will simply physically cut content from the disc just to appease the consumers (but still not cause them any real extra trouble or production time) and release it as an actual full download. People need to stop complaining about the specifics and case-by-case problems (whether it's on-disc or off-disc, whether it was made pre or post production, etc) and rather deal with the issue as a whole.

@sohcahtoa

Not sure why you got downvoted, you make a perfectly logical assessment that I agree 100% with (and even commented on farther down the comment line).

At the exact moment in time companies find out that they aren't selling day 1 DLC (either on or off the disc) like they want to because of the perception of "cutting out part of the game" they will simply release it a week or two down the road; or however long it needs to be to pull the wool over the eyes of their consumers and make them feel fine with purchasing it (and not feel that the content was "cut out" from the game).

Sadly, that is just how the business world works; and more and more game companies are becoming just that, big business. Some keep their customer 1st attitude, but more and more they are switching to "stock and holders are #1".

Playing devil's advocate here, but Capcom is right. In truth, there is no distinction between on and off disc DLC; the distinction has been made by you, the consumers.

If you, the consumer, had decided you wouldn't buy DLC you thought was "on the disc" (aka released Day 1) they, the producers, would simply wait to put out the DLC to give the illusion that it wasn't "on the disc". The fact is, whether it's on there or not, they will go with whatever method works. They know people will still buy it day 1, so they don't bother trying to use any smoke and mirrors. If it hurt their sales to sell the DLC day 1 and under the assumption of being "on the disc" they would simply move back the release date and/or cut content from the disc to ship at a later date (or send filler data if they were stupid).

DLC is DLC, it's content the developers feel they can sell for extra $ and get away with. Whether it's day 0, day 100, on-disc, off-disc, a 20Mb download or a 2000Mb download it's all the same to developers. Sometimes it's something they've done during production, sometimes it's something that is done between finish and release, and sometimes it's something that is done after release. They will tell you whatever lie makes you feel good about buying it to get you to buy it, so i don't see why everyone gets up in arms over the specifics. I don't usually buy DLC for this exact reason, unless I think it's worth the extra money (regardless of what category of DLC it falls into).

More rushed games, why am I not surprised? As much as people like to argue "cutting content", they specifically state they have finished, final voice overs for a number of the characters. Why bother wasting time and money getting those finished and completed and then not adding them in? Easy, because the were rushed to finish and got cut short of how long they were expecting to have.

Though i'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, if this was EA they'd just lazily hack together some stories for the finished voice overs and sell them as "DLC".

Ouch, I can feel that burn from over here.

Sounds like the TW and Creative Assembly are going in a direction I'm not to interested in. What's the point of TW if I get everything "streamlined" and "clevered" to pigeon-hole itself for the console if I don't even get to control all my troops and make proper strategy.

As much as I love my console, I'm tired of good series getting ruined by console dumbing down. For the love of PCs let the freakin next gen consoles use M/K as a natural input if you guys are going to try and force every game onto it. I can avoid the "dumb-as-rocks" difficulty they add to it for consoles, but I can't avoid a terrible UI and crappy troop/ability management from not having enough buttons.

@Punkrawk Bbob

Or heaven forbid having to port a game to two other different platforms is a drain on time, resources, and money and can hinder the potential and quality of a game. Especially when the game at hand has a setup that is very specific to the use of a keyboard (lots of shortcut keys) and a mouse.

I'm tired of this defense people like to use about letting "as many people as possible" play the game. Know what, this isn't even a AAA game with AAA graphics, anybody with a computer will be able to play it (and even then you can play it on iOS if you'd rather) so I don't think forcing a port to consoles i's going to do much to broaden your audience.

What forcing 2 ports WILL do is force essentially a whole new UI, a whole new set of QA, a whole new set of code to run off each of the platforms, and a whole new set of developers to develop for them. As well as having to deal with Microsoft and Sony's certification processes (granted he will have to deal with iOSes).

Don't try to feed me some BS about how "multiplatform" is just "broadening the pool" or "letting more people access" the game. Going multiplatform has downsides to it, quite a few downsides, and if you aren't in it just for the money the downsides can not be worth the trouble sometimes. Which is essentially what you are saying "Put it on consoles so you can make more money." As silly as it seems, not every developer is in it to make a ton of money and retire happily soon after.

Looks like what BF3 was supposed to be like. Well, now that BF3 has flopped I think I'll be checking this out to help fix that large-scale teamwork itch I've been looking to scratch.

Baldur's Gate doesn't belong on consoles. That is all.