Bungie cuts off Destiny owners from existing content for DLC

[dsheinem]

I'm right in what I said before, and I don't intend to back pedal off of any of it.

You were wrong about pretty much everything concerning DLC as a business model, about how it works in Destiny, and about stupid shit along the way like whether or not ME3's ending DLC was free. Your grasp of game history and economics is just dreadful. You might have "beliefs" or "opinions" about these things and feel strongly about them, but they are demonstrably wrong. I mean, for fuck's sake you wanted to have a discussion about the history of game prices and disregard any mention of inflation as a "bullshit cop out to justify the arguing in favor of things". That's not a position anyone with a modicum of interest in the topic can reasonably take.

Plus, you made your "point" using a rape joke. No one expects "sunshine and rainbows," but I do think most of the board expect people to not make jokes about sexual assault. Some of us are very close to people who have been raped...some of us may be victims. Comparing getting temporarily "locked out" of one small feature of cheap DLC to rape just underscores your poor ability to make your case in any kind of compelling or thoughtful way.

When I asked you to piss off, it was a full-throated suggestion.

[CRTGAMER]

@ Tanooki - I am glad you pointed this out. DLC has its good and bad points, but the idea to remove a level due to the "rotating weekly" or whatever you want to call it is wrong and deceiving. I would think a level open when I bought a game would at least remain there so I could finish the stupid level. The "encouragement" to purchase the DLC will not be a sure thing to stay non that rotation as new levels HAVE to be DLC purchased as not to get dropped out when the next revision DLC hits.

I laugh whenever I see someone trading in a 360 console for a lousy fifty bucks just to get the new Xbox One. An employee even suggested to the customer who was pissed at the low offer to sell it on Craigs List. I interjected suggesting a simple HDMI switch to enable both consoles; buy a collection of the 360 games, many at only five bucks!

[dsheinem]

@ Tanooki - I am glad you pointed this out. DLC has its good and bad points, but the idea to remove a level due to the "rotating weekly" or whatever you want to call it is wrong and deceiving.

INFORM YOURSELF FOOLS

NO LEVELS WERE REMOVED. YOU ARE STILL ABLE TO PLAY WHAT YOU PAID FOR.

that is all

[brunoafh]

Keeping the game healthy is underhanded?

Plenty of games have stood the test of time with healthy communities for far more than three months without the need for DLC life-support. If the game needs to roll out new content a few months after launch and do goofy shit like temporarily lock parts of the game to non-DLC players to advertize it, then it doesn't sound like it was very healthy in the first place. This is one of the core arguments against DLC, the games people are buying are fragmented products they will be additionally charged for at a later date if they wish to experience everything.

[MrPopo]

Keeping the game healthy is underhanded?

Plenty of games have stood the test of time with healthy communities for far more than three months without the need for DLC life-support. If the game needs to roll out new content a few months after launch and do goofy shit like temporarily lock parts of the game to non-DLC players to advertize it, then it doesn't sound like it was very healthy in the first place. This is one of the core arguments against DLC, the games people are buying are fragmented products they will be additionally charged for at a later date if they wish to experience everything.

No, the DLC isn't keeping the game healthy. DLC was coming. Keeping it healthy is encouraging people to get it if it's already there.

[Jmustang1968]

Keeping the game healthy is underhanded?

Plenty of games have stood the test of time with healthy communities for far more than three months without the need for DLC life-support. If the game needs to roll out new content a few months after launch and do goofy shit like temporarily lock parts of the game to non-DLC players to advertize it, then it doesn't sound like it was very healthy in the first place. This is one of the core arguments against DLC, the games people are buying are fragmented products they will be additionally charged for at a later date if they wish to experience everything.

Or they can be full products, that then get extra stuff for those who really enjoy the game and dont mind paying for extra content.

[emwearz]

ALL CONTENT FROM THE VANILLA GAME IS ACCESSIBLE TO NON-DLC USERS.

Why does this point keep getting ignored.

[KalessinDB]

ALL CONTENT FROM THE VANILLA GAME IS ACCESSIBLE TO NON-DLC USERS.

Why does this point keep getting ignored.

...to borrow from Popo's response to me in another thread...


Don't you come in here waving your "facts" when there's moral outrage to be had.

[brunoafh]

ALL CONTENT FROM THE VANILLA GAME IS ACCESSIBLE TO NON-DLC USERS.

Why does this point keep getting ignored.

Because that's irrelevant. The issue is modes becoming temporarily locked, not content being removed.

[Opa Opa]

I'm not reading all this bickering...So the way I understand the article:
-new update and content released
-players get 'persuaded' to purchase DLC packs by getting temporarily locked out of base content.
-players are upset that they can't play something they already paid for/had access to unless they purchase said DLC or wait for the timer to unlock base content.

Is that a fair assessment of the situation?