Widespread gaming history myths

[alienjesus]

Myth - Game publishers have the developers remove about 10% of the game so they can sell it separately as DLC.

Yeah, I guess that is a myth. The content is actually on the disc but you need to spend real money to "unlock" it. If people would stop supporting DLC, this bullshit would stop.

This is why we can't have nice topics. They all boil down to arguments about DLC.

[o.pwuaioc]

MYTH: DRAGON'S LAIR FARED POORLY IN THE ARCADES

I have never in my life heard this. I in fact always heard the opposite, that despite the mediocre gameplay, it was so graphically different that it always was super popular.

[Zing]

this is not a thread about history not a thread about how DLC is the evilz

This is why we can't have nice topics. They all boil down to arguments about DLC.

Is there really an argument here? Is anyone avocating DLC? Are any gamers in favour of DLC? I am genuinely interested in reading comments from gamers honestly articulating how DLC is a good thing compared to the old method of buying "finished" games.

[MrPopo]

This is why we can't have nice topics. They all boil down to arguments about DLC.

Is there really an argument here? Is anyone avocating DLC? Are any gamers in favour of DLC? I am genuinely interested in reading comments from gamers honestly articulating how DLC is a good thing compared to the old method of buying "finished" games.

The problem is you're making a false assumption. Let's look at the expansion packs in days of yore. An expansion pack is disc-based DLC, effectively. Does that make the original Starcraft an unfinished game? How about major balance patches, such as the Diablo II 1.10 patch which added synergies and radically changed how the game played? Was Diablo II unfinished until that point?

Look, I get the anger people have over DLC unlock codes, where the game has all the necessary data on the disc and you're paying to unlock it. But to categorize all DLC as being the final pieces of a cut down game is ignorant.

[fastbilly1]

Damn it Popo, I was going to post that.

To give a perfect example, I would rather pay the $10 for Red Alert 3 Uprising, which was really just 30 maps and 4 mini campaigns. Then the $40 each I paid for CounterStrike and Aftermath which added about the same amount of content for Red Alert 1.

Paid DLC for new skins or stuff on the disc, I fully agree that is wrong, but DLC, when done right, is the new expansion pack. If Half Life 1 was released today, Blue Shift and Opposing Force would have been DLC and not retail releases. I just hope we get Episode 3 retail.

[sheath]

It's true, I would rather pay for Catwoman/Batman/Robin/Nightwing skins than pay even half retail for the same game with randomized building and enemy placements and a different main character.

What's another popular myth I like to beat up? Splitting your market is a fatally flawed management/marketing strategy. Right, that's why the Kinect failed and all cell phones are compatible.

It is also why the always innovative Sony released the PSP Go, Nintendo released the GBA, DS and now the 3DS, and will eventually release the Wii U. Because introducing new products with their own formats is always a bad idea.

Nothing to do there with marketing, timing, financial backing, or any other thing, making products that fragment an individual company's market share is always a bad idea.

/sarcasm

[BoringSupreez]

Myth: Gamecube was a failure
No, actually, GCNs were sold at profit, not at a loss like oXbox. Despite the small sales numbers, it made money.

Myth: Everything was better, fresher, and more original in the 8-bit/16-bit days
Nope. There was plenty of shovelware and ripoffs/clones back then too. Movie games still sucked, usually. 3rd party controllers were just as crap as the Madcatz ones found today.

Gamestop is nothing but evil
No. Take for example, Rolla, MO. Were it not for the Gamestop in town, the only place to buy games would be Walmart and K-Mart. I used to live around there, and it sucked. And before you say "if GS weren't there, a better game store would have stood a chance and sprung up," hear this: they didn't put in a GS in until 2007. For all the 20+ years of videogaming before that, there was nothing but Walmart and K-mart. And it's a college town with 16,000 residents even. Sometimes GS is the only way.

[o.pwuaioc]

Myth: Everything was better, fresher, and more original in the 8-bit/16-bit days
Nope. There was plenty of shovelware and ripoffs/clones back then too. Movie games still sucked, usually. 3rd party controllers were just as crap as the Madcatz ones found today.

These aren't "myths". They're your opinions. And they're not backed up very well at all.

[Erik_Twice]

MYTH: DRAGON'S LAIR FARED POORLY IN THE ARCADES

I have never in my life heard this. I in fact always heard the opposite, that despite the mediocre gameplay, it was so graphically different that it always was super popular.

Here's an example. In Twin Galaxies, no less!

http://forums.twingalaxies.com/viewtopi ... 13&start=0

I also find Dragon's Lair to be greatly misunderstood.

[Breetai]

The NES/Famicom was Nintendo's first console.
Not.Even.Close.


A little less common, but even more ignorant:
The Genesis was Sega's first console.


The Master System was Sega's first console.
In all fairness, it is understandable why people might think this (as it is that people might think the NES was Nintendo's first), but it is still annoying when people still argue this even when they have been told it is not true.

Nintendo does not made add-ons for its consoles./Sega failed because of console add-ons.