this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
737 points (98.3% liked)

Games

16378 readers
1174 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 32 points 1 month ago (14 children)

There is a difference between the DLC that is one and whatever the hell nowadays is practice. When its something like the eldenring DLC a dlc is absolutely fine.

[–] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This. It all boils down to value for money. 5 dollars for a skin cosmetic is bullshit. 5 dollars or more for DLC with meaningful content is okay.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you're going to sell a DLC that is only a skin and people buy it, I don't have an issue. A skin adds nothing outside of "looks" and it's purely optional. If you the player want to pay for it, be my guest.

It's when games release a game that is unfinished, has bugs, and what should be a patch is sold as a DLC, I have problems with that.

Or when DLC adds a competitive advantage, that is just wrong. Like for $5 a month, you get extra "stability" in your scope, or the whole "pride and accomplishment" crates.

Those DLCs can go fuck themselves.

[–] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

My issue with skins is that it is completely immersion breaking. You have Homelander and Gaia running around Call of Duty now. It's comical and just destroys my enjoyment of the game.

The skins get worse and worse because to continue the money machine they have to make more and more unique skins that just destroy the cohesion of the world they've built.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 0 points 1 month ago

This is all there is to be said on the matter

[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even if its 5(money) for a supporter item or skin it would be fine. Its different depending on the studio size.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Studio size has nothing to do with it, the only important matter here is whether the DLC is "required" or not. I'm fine with BS cosmetic DLC, that really doesn't matter, but when you promise features X, Y, and Z, and deliver X and Y but gate Z behind a DLC, that's unacceptable. I don't care if you're have 1000 employees or 1, that's wrong.

DLC should be for:

  • optional items, like skins, soundtracks, etc
  • additional story content not promised in the original release
[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 2 points 1 month ago

Oh it does, if a small Studio releases a DLC wich just does a little (still in the lines you gave 100% agree on that) more story or adds a minigame or a new game mode or maybe even new game+ its ok (for a non outrageous price) if a big studio makes a dlc, my expectations are also higher.

load more comments (11 replies)