Bungie cuts off Destiny owners from existing content for DLC

[Jmustang1968]

I hope I'm confused here, but are you guys shitting down this guy's throat because he's mad that one of the game modes got locked because it has DLC maps? Admittedly I don't know anything about this game, but I don't see why it is that unreasonable that someone would be bothered by that.

Couldn't they just easily make it so the DLC maps only go in rotation for people that bought the DLC, but for everyone else they can only play the original maps? Outright locking a game mode under these circumstances makes it look like pretty obvious in-game advertizing. "If you just buy the DLC, you can have fun too!" Perhaps not something that should be punishable by death, but it is certainly under-handed.

The 'jumping down his throat' is more in response to how he is saying it than what. We can all discuss and disagree, but the way in which he makes his claims draws a harsher response.

[brunoafh]

I don't know how easy it is for them to support multiple weeklys or what that would do to the economics of the game. I also don't know how "easily" it could be programmed into the existing structure.

The thing is that since the DLC is already being released all of that stuff was taken into consideration a long time ago. It's not like DLC is hitting a year later and they are struggling to integrate it.

So, how does Destiny + DLC compare to that calculus?

From what I can tell Destiny is already halfway there and from what people in the thread are saying there is more DLC on the way. I'm willing to bet plenty of "DLC heavy" games have come close to or gone past the $140 mark already anyway. COD, Littlebigplanet, Street Fighter IV, Elder Scrolls, to name a random few. But I've never heard of those games going out of their way to implement a feature lock-out for a game that just launched.

Also the content that the person spent $140 for with Phantasy Star is never going anywhere. The content the person buys for Destiny is potentially time sensitive.

[MrPopo]

I don't know how easy it is for them to support multiple weeklys or what that would do to the economics of the game. I also don't know how "easily" it could be programmed into the existing structure.

The thing is that since the DLC is already being released all of that stuff was taken into consideration a long time ago. It's not like DLC is hitting a year later and they are struggling to integrate it.

It's still non-trivial. Having it premeditated from way back puts it in the realm of possible to do, whereas retrofitting probably is not. And even ignoring the technical challenges, you have the issue of splitting the player base. Having the lock out week helps encourage people to get the DLC and maintain the majority of your players running on the same set of available content and gear, which is important for the long-term health of the game.

[brunoafh]

Having the lock out week helps encourage people to get the DLC and maintain the majority of your players running on the same set of available content and gear, which is important for the long-term health of the game.

That's kind of what I was calling under-handed.

[emwearz]

Having the lock out week helps encourage people to get the DLC and maintain the majority of your players running on the same set of available content and gear, which is important for the long-term health of the game.

That's kind of what I was calling under-handed.

None of the content is actually locked out. Players just don't receive the perks for content being assigned weekly.

[MrPopo]

Having the lock out week helps encourage people to get the DLC and maintain the majority of your players running on the same set of available content and gear, which is important for the long-term health of the game.

That's kind of what I was calling under-handed.

Keeping the game healthy is underhanded?

[Tanooki]

Blocking non-DLC paying customers out of a feature some weeks while advertising 'if you had this you could play' notification on there is what I believe he's calling underhanded and it is.

And if some people take issue with how I write my posts I'd be surprised if this board didn't have an ignore feature. I'm not sunshine and rainbows, I hate politically correct behavior too, so I guess oink to that right?

I knew going into it it would be DLC heavy and i chose not to buy that as I thought all features present when I started would always be open, and when they chose to off and on block parts to peddle DLC I found it filthy. Bruno picked up on that pretty well. I'm right in what I said before, and I don't intend to back pedal off of any of it.

[Forlorn Drifter]

You obviously never played Gears of War 3.

[Tanooki]

Nope I've never had or ever will have a microsoft console. They don't make one unique game for it themselves I'd want anything to do with. I've never been into Halo other than the original on PC, no interest in Gears, Forza isn't for me either and there's little else unique to them that isn't also ported to the PC.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I'm just saying, every time new DLC was released, that meant more and more game-types couldn't be entered by those without. EPIC's reasoning was that letting players without the map packs play with those who bought them would leave those with the map packs unable to play on the maps they bought a decent amount of the time.

Also, this isn't the first time Bungie has pulled this. They did it with Halo 3, and I believe Reach did also.