Platform Exclusive DLC & Content - Your Thoughts

[Serebii]

So, in the wake of the revelation of Assassin's Creed 4, it has been revealed that once again, the game will have exclusive content on the PS3, like it has for the past few years.

 

This seems to be becoming a common practice rather than console-exclusives themselves and with Activision having a deal with Sony now and EA seemingly to have one with EA, it will become even more common.

 

I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts on this are. I personally find it a bit disrespectful to the consumer. Recently, I bought the Assassin's Creed III DLC about the parallel universe with evil King George Washington and it had a bit with Benedict Arnold in which was directly referencing the PS3 exclusive DLC which meant there's a gaping plothole. I purchased all the games on the Xbox 360 and it doesn't seem right that if I want to have the full experience, I need to shift to another console. It can be fine for me as I get all the consoles, but what about those who only have an Xbox 360 or a Wii U?

 

It's a practice that continues to irk me. If it's something that monopolises on the console's unique features i.e. Kinect compatibility or GamePad functionality, then it's understandable, but to have an entire bit of story exclusive to a console is just wrong to me.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited February 28, 2013 by Serebii

[Cube]

I absolutely hate it. With Assassin's Creed 3 and Far Cry 3 (which both got PS3 content) I just completely ignored it. Although the experience on either never felt any less.

 

Store specific pre-orer bonuses for silly costumes and weapons I don't mind at all, but any significant content is a bit ridiculous.

[Serebii]

I absolutely hate it. With Assassin's Creed 3 and Far Cry 3 (which both got PS3 content) I just completely ignored it. Although the experience on either never felt any less.

 

Store specific pre-orer bonuses for silly costumes and weapons I don't mind at all, but any significant content is a bit ridiculous.

It's even more irksome because the PS3 version is the one that plays the worst too.

 

If it was a timed exclusive DLC then sure, I'd accept that happily. However it being free and that console only, it's just wrong

[Agent Gibbs]

I don't like console exclusive DLC unless its feature specific (aka you can't replicate wiiu tablet features on ps3/360)

 

I don't mind Timed exclusives at all, and i'm not too bothered about edition exclusives (i.e ME collectors weapons)

 

but something that is glaringly obviously missing is irritating, i haven't got to that bit on ass creed 3 yet, so now i know i'll be confused

[Hero-of-Time]

It doesn't really bother me as I very rarely buy DLC.

 

The store specific preorders annoy me though. I had to hit ebay to get all the Gears 3 skins.

[Serebii]

It doesn't really bother me as I very rarely buy DLC.

 

The store specific preorders annoy me though. I had to hit ebay to get all the Gears 3 skins.

Yeah, but the thing is that this stuff isn't DLC, it's on the disc, automatically there as if it's in-game content

[Hero-of-Time]

Yeah, but the thing is that this stuff isn't DLC, it's on the disc, automatically there as if it's in-game content

 

Again, doesn't bother me. It's just the way most of the industry is headed. Is it wrong? Sure. Best thing to do is vote with your wallet.

[Daft]

It's stupid. It should be stopped. It doesn't annoy me enough to switch console version, though.

 

One extreme case is Call of Duty which I find absolutely unacceptable. PS3 owners and 360 owners paid the same amount for their Elite membership and the PS3 owners get shafted. If that happened in a game I didn't think was utter shit, there would be a riot.

 

It doesn't really bother me as I very rarely buy DLC.

 

The store specific preorders annoy me though. I had to hit ebay to get all the Gears 3 skins.

 

This shit is the worst. Especially when there is different pre-order DLC split across a whole range of shops.

[Jimbob]

Timed DLC/Content is fine, i don't mind that as i know i'll get the content at some point if it isn't out on my desired format for a short while.

 

But exclusive DLC, that's something i have an issue with. Concerning mainly with the Creed series, why does the PS3 version have this 60 minutes extra gameplay over the 360 and WiiU versions. It's stupid really, so it's no wonder Microsoft go out and make some DLC timed exclusive for them. Example shown, Skyrim.

[Magnus]

I used to find this annoying, but meh, I'm pretty much over DLC at this point. Let them do whatever they want... I just don't care anymore. I didn't even play the free Assassin's Creed III DLC despite playing the PS3 version.

[Grazza]

I don't like DLC at all, let alone console-exclusive DLC. A game should be fully-balanced as you buy it on the disc. Any extras (ie. DLC) should be completely unnecessary and therefore pointless.

[Dcubed]

It's scummy, but it's the only realistic way of securing any sort of exclusive content when it comes to major titles these days.

 

In a multiplatform world, real exclusives basically don't exist anymore. You can't get games like GTA or Devil May Cry as exclusives anymore, because the cost of development is just too high - but netting exclusive content is perfectly plausible.

 

It helps subsidise development across both platforms and is usually made from cutting out content from what would normally be in the main game. It's a win for both parties in this case at very little cost to the developer.

 

It sucks, but the publishers don't give a fuck about us - so long as it doesn't stop Joe Dudebro from buying their game, they don't care.

[Hero-of-Time]

Cliffy B has his say on things.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-01-amid-growing-anger-at-micro-transactions-cliffyb-calls-on-gamers-to-vote-with-their-wallets

[M_rock]

I hate DLC, and I hate console-exclusive DLC even more.

If the developer's philosophy is that the game is multiplatform, and therefore available for as many people as possible, the DLC should also follow that philosophy.

[bob]

I don't mind DLC really. Sometimes if a game is good, and you want to get more content, you can buy more. If the game is craptacular, don't buy the extra content. Borderlands does this really well i think.

 

With regards to the AC DLC, as long as the version without it still functions as a game, then that should be fine. If Sony and Ubisoft want to agree a fee to give extra content on their version of a game to get more people to buy it on that platform, i say go for it. No-one complains that it's unfair that Halo isn't available on PS3 or that Uncharted isn't available on Xbox360. They are exclusives. That's how it works.

[Jonnas]

I don't think there's anything wrong with platform-exclusive content, as long as it's done right (see: Soul Calibur II). Give something exclusive for everyone, it's peachy.

 

Regarding DLC, it's the same thing. Make some content that was actually made post-development (like what Nintendo seems to be doing with Fire Emblem and NSMBU, or what MMORPGs and PC expansions have been doing for so long, now).

 

I pretty much have both opinions when it comes to console-exclusive DLC. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Cliffy B has his say on things.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-01-amid-growing-anger-at-micro-transactions-cliffyb-calls-on-gamers-to-vote-with-their-wallets

 

If he cares so much about the medium and wants to create a quality product, why does he feel the need to do things just for money's sake? Isn't that sacrificing integrity?

 

My problem with some types of DLC echoes @Grazza's point: A game should be a quality product on its own, well-balanced and refined. I'm not per definition against DLC or additional content, but that's strictly what it should be: additional. When games start to become construction kits that need to be assembled to get the full product, it's bad.

 

It's also funny that he brings up Valve, because with TF2, for instance, I've always applauded their style; the things you have to spend money on aren't central to the game, and the game-relevant things can be found or got through in-game means.

[Cube]

It's also funny that he brings up Valve, because with TF2, for instance, I've always applauded their style; the things you have to spend money on aren't central to the game, and the game-relevant things can be found or got through in-game means.

 

You can even sell the content you have and get real money from it.

[Kagato]

I honestly dont care about it to be fair, its almost always side missions or time waisting story content that dosent add or remove anything from the main story. If the game ships in a complete form and im getting everything without feeling im missing out on some huge chunk of story content, then let them have it. If they cut stuff out to later sell back to me, thats not cool at all. I dont even care abou the extra skins for multiplayer stuff because i dont even play online that often, even the store exclusive stuff is usually skins or an extra weapon etc. Bottom line for me, deliver me a compelling single player story mode and ill forgive almost anything else.