XY DLC for Pokémon: What are your thoughts on all the new possibilities?

[Fancy]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

I actually do say that DLC may not last forever. Simply because, there will eventually be a new console, a new game, and the old will no longer be in the spotlight. Also, pokemon is getting rid of things like the dream world and the downloadable content that comes from the site such as Pokedex skins, C-gear skins and Musical theater options. Thats evidence right there foretells that pokemon DLC may have an expiration date.

Branching off that, if that DLC included things such as storyline development, that would only be exclusive to those who bought the DLC at the time it was available. It would not cater to the people that bought the game, and the people that would want to buy the DLC but could no longer do it.

Overall, I would want DLC, but if it would eventually expire, I don't think that would sit right with the people who picked up Pokemon X and Y after it expired. First come, first serve just doesn't seem right, but thats my opinion.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

And bonus content is still content, by your definition, when you watch the avengers, the theater should charge you extra if you stay after the credits for the shawarma scene. As I said, bonus content is still content, therefore part of the product.

Now I know this analogy definitely doesn't hold. The kind of DLC I'm talking about would be more like a 10-20 minute short that continues off the plot of the movie. Something like that would definitely not be given away for free. So if you payed an extra $1 for that short, and it wouldn't be required to watch for the plot to make sense, then that would be worth paying for. It's not a perfect analogy because bonus content doesn't really work for movie theaters, but that's basically what this is like.

Character development is essential in good storytelling, it's what makes you feel closer to the characters, and motivates you to move on in the plot. Theoretically you can have a game with no character development whatsoever, since games are inherently different from books or movies, but it would be very very poor, especially compared to the paragons of storytelling in videogames we have now: mass effect I/II/III, tomb raider 2013, uncharted, AC II, planescape: torment, KOTOR, deus ex, batman arkham series, metal gear solid, spec ops: the line, the ending to call of duty: modern warfare III, (I could do this all day).

Character development is something that's nice to have, but isn't really necessary for the plot, especially if it occurs before or after the events of the storyline. The only time DLC would really get in the way of that is if they left some loose ends in the storyline.

And you seem to have misunderstood my satirical commentary on the nature of complex DLC using the harry potter series as a medium.

No, you just used a bad example. The events of Assassin's Creed III don't depend on what happens in II, but they do for Harry Potter.

I actually do say that DLC may not last forever. Simply because, there will eventually be a new console, a new game, and the old will no longer be in the spotlight. Also, pokemon is getting rid of things like the dream world and the downloadable content that comes from the site such as Pokedex skins, C-gear skins and Musical theater options. Thats evidence right there foretells that pokemon DLC may have an expiration date.

Branching off that, if that DLC included things such as storyline development, that would only be exclusive to those who bought the DLC at the time it was available. It would not cater to the people that bought the game, and the people that would want to buy the DLC but could no longer do it.

Overall, I would want DLC, but if it would eventually expire, I don't think that would sit right with the people who picked up Pokemon X and Y after it expired. First come, first serve just doesn't seem right, but thats my opinion.

Well yeah, that's a given. But by the time the 3DS is dead, most people probably won't be playing X and Y very much, so it's not really a big loss. Most of the people who want the DLC will have ample time to buy it.

 

[jdivinity]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

I'm not for the idea of it but I'm also not against it. Maybe buying new clothes for your character would be nice but other than that I don't see GamFreak doing anything too big DLC wise.

 

[Fee]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

In all honesty, I really don't think Gamefreak is going to include DLC other than the usual mystery gift event stuff. None of Nintendo's core games thus far have had any substantial DLC, and (don't shoot me on this) I believe Nintendo's president has made a statement before saying they have no intention of including DLC in their games. (I read this on a forum post by the webmaster of a website and forum whose mascot is a green grass/psychic pokemon, if you catch my drift)

New Super Luigi U says hi.

Nintendo hasn't done DLC because they're consoles didn't support it until now, simple as that.

Wii supported it, Nintendo just didn't use it. Square Enix and Harmonix and a few others did. Anyway your arguments are all missing the point entirely. Yes DLC devalues the game figuratively and literally. Look at all the game of the year/ultimate editions. If you buy the game day one you just wasted money. The game of the year editions come out and are usually cheaper than the original when it was first released. Maybe Pokémon will never get one of tho- oh wait they've been running a similar concept with their third editions that include(nearly) all Pokémon from both versions. You can't trust Gamefreak with this stuff.

A continuation of a plot of the movie isn't important to the main plot of the movie? How about they just save those twenty minutes for a sequel? Whether or not it "makes sense without it" you're missing out on the conclusion of the character's story. You're right though, that analogy doesn't work. Imagine "Pay an extra dollar or leave before the whole story has been shown." that wouldn't stand at all. People would be upset like they are about DLC now.

Character development is not necessary for a plot but it is necessary for a good plot. Furthermore if they can continue a story(add things onto it.) it means there were loose ends. Otherwise it's a completely new story.

@Assassins Creed Reference: Yeah I bought the ultimate edition of that for 20 dollars(derp now that I think about it I bought it for like 10 dollars), the full game and the DLC for less than the cost of the original game. In other words original=devalued. Also there are some things important to the story,

Spoiler

Like Lucy being a traitor/AC revelations

that you'd only get from DLC. Connor's story might not be affected by the DLC but Ezio's

Spoiler

(he appears in two more games after ACII that take place before ACIII)

and Desmond's

Spoiler

(you wouldn't know about Desmond since you think the stories are all independent of eachother. Just for clarification without having to explain the story, Desmond is in both ACII and ACIII and his story is affected by the DLC)

are. Furthermore the example didn't have anything to do with the sequels in the first place(which ARE affected) but the actual game. The storyline for ACII is affected by the DLC for ACII that's all that matters.

And thus you admit that Professorlight's worries have been entirely correct from the beginning. Honestly his argument isn't even the same as my argument but really? He's been saying this whole time that he's not cool with DLC because it won't be available forever. You just admitted that's the case.

Meh. No more comments to you from me. You're arguing about stories you know nothing about and with people whose arguments you don't understand. Also for clarification. My argument is that DLC is part of the game and missing it is missing part of the game whether it's a "needed"(define needed) part or not. His argument is that DLC doesn't last forever and will not be available if you want to pass it on to a kid/etc. thus they won't get the full story/game ever.

Moreso whether or not the DLC is part of the story doesn't matter to me. If it exists and it works with the game it's part of the game. If you don't have it you're missing it. That's all there is to it.

 

[professorlight]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

... My argument is that DLC is part of the game and missing it is missing part of the game whether it's a "needed"(define needed) part or not. His argument is that DLC doesn't last forever and will not be available if you want to pass it on to a kid/etc. thus they won't get the full story/game ever.

Moreso whether or not the DLC is part of the story doesn't matter to me. If it exists and it works with the game it's part of the game. If you don't have it you're missing it. That's all there is to it.

Actually, I was making both arguments: the game's content is devalued by posterior DLC; and DLC has a short lifespan, anyway, so it's prejudicial to the player, since his inversion loses value and function.
And good point with AC, you know the cutscene I was talking about (when ezio talks to the crowd in firenze during the bonfire of vanities). That's an integral part of ezio's development, I believe; It's a shame it's DLC.

Fee's right, game freak has been doing a kind of DLC/expansion with the third game in each generation, but at least it's physical, and with improved graphics and gameplay, so I don't mind that so much (It'be nice if they stopped and use really original content, though).

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

Yes DLC devalues the game figuratively and literally. Look at all the game of the year/ultimate editions. If you buy the game day one you just wasted money. The game of the year editions come out and are usually cheaper than the original when it was first released. Maybe Pokémon will never get one of tho- oh wait they've been running a similar concept with their third editions that include(nearly) all Pokémon from both versions. You can't trust Gamefreak with this stuff.

The difference between the third versions and DLC is that with third versions you have to pay for the same game all over again, whereas if you buy the original and pay for DLC, you're just getting the extra content added on. Only the former is a waste of money because you're paying for the same game all over again. You're not magically losing value on your game because DLC is released, that value is fixed based on the amount of content in the game.

And thus you admit that Professorlight's worries have been entirely correct from the beginning. Honestly his argument isn't even the same as my argument but really? He's been saying this whole time that he's not cool with DLC because it won't be available forever. You just admitted that's the case.

It doesn't need to be available forever if it's not mandatory for the complete experience. If you want it, you'll have plenty of time to buy it. If you don't, you won't miss it. By the time the console is dead, nearly everyone will have moved on anyway.

Moreso whether or not the DLC is part of the story doesn't matter to me. If it exists and it works with the game it's part of the game. If you don't have it you're missing it. That's all there is to it.

That's not how it works. What's part of the game is decided by the developer by the time the game is released. Anything added on afterwards is extra.

 

[Acid_Bot]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

@Assassins Creed Reference: Yeah I bought the ultimate edition of that for 20 dollars(derp now that I think about it I bought it for like 10 dollars), the full game and the DLC for less than the cost of the original game. In other words original=devalued.

Firstly, games decrease in value the second you buy them, just like everything else in this world. If you want something that will hold its value do not buy video games, cars, property, televisions, or any technology for that matter. It really doesn't matter if they come out with another edition or not, the original game will decrease in value. By the time another edition (GOTY or any where the game+ DLC are bundled) the game has been out for awhile. Original games devalue over time no matter what. You wouldn't buy a copy of Halo 2 for $60 today would you? If you buy a brand new game, you are basically paying more to play it first. That is all. Don't want to spend more to play it first? Don't buy it at launch then. If you wanted to (and I know a lot of people do this) you could wait for the games to go down in price, because games always do if you give it enough time. I can't get mad at you for buying a bundle pack that includes the game + all the DLC I bought when I have had the game for a year (or basically an extended period of time) and have played through it already.

If the game feels incomplete to you without DLC then get the DLC. If you buy a new game and the developers come out with some DLC, maybe that DLC is just awesome and you want it, then why not just get it if you feel you need it. If the developers come out with DLC and it isn't that great then do not buy it, it shouldn't really bother you if you know it is terrible/not worth the money even if this means the game is "incomplete". I have a season pass for a great game, and have not downloaded the 3rd or 4th installment (can't remember the order) of DLC because I am not playing those games right now. I will even pick up the game and play it without the dlc, and it doesn't feel incomplete to me because I still have the full game.

What DLC are you guys buying that has a short lifespan? If I want to buy DLC for a game (via xbox live, steam, or playstation network) then when will it not be available to me again? When we all move to the next consoles? Will I still be playing Morrowind add-ons when Skyrim is released? Probably not, but that content is still available to me. Any DLC you get will eventually become obsolete, just like the games, please understand this is the nature of video games and all technology. When you buy DLC do understand that you will probably stop playing the game when the next one comes out, and it is up to you to decide if the extra maps/skins/areas are worth the money to you.

If you are talking in terms of story-relevance dlc has a short lifespan then yes it does, as does any game series with a continuing story. In that same sense the older games have a short lifespan because in a year (or so) another chapter will come out for the story, and everything from the past games isn't as important. Did you guys get story-important-dlc for a game and then a week later same-story-game-2 (that covers the week-old dlc story spoilers) comes out? If you enjoy a continuous game series but do not want to buy DLC then there are other ways of getting that story information (youtube) without purchasing the games.

TL;DR- Games decrease in value, regardless of later editions. You feel like you are missing out by not having DLC? Then just buy it already. DLC will eventually become dated/obsolete just like the game you bought it for. Story-relevant DLC will also become irrelevant in the long run just like the game you bought it for.

 

[Fee]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

Firstly, games decrease in value the second you buy them, just like everything else in this world. If you want something that will hold its value do not buy video games, cars, property, televisions, or any technology for that matter. It really doesn't matter if they come out with another edition or not, the original game will decrease in value. By the time another edition (GOTY or any where the game+ DLC are bundled) the game has been out for awhile. Original games devalue over time no matter what. You wouldn't buy a copy of Halo 2 for $60 today would you? If you buy a brand new game, you are basically paying more to play it first. That is all. Don't want to spend more to play it first? Don't buy it at launch then. If you wanted to (and I know a lot of people do this) you could wait for the games to go down in price, because games always do if you give it enough time. I can't get mad at you for buying a bundle pack that includes the game + all the DLC I bought when I have had the game for a year (or basically an extended period of time) and have played through it already.

It's true they don't have any reason to complain. I usually laugh when they do. You buy the game and all the DLC day one it's your fault. You support bad practices and you waste money. Regardless you can't say that DLC isn't decreasing the value of the game. The game decreases in value regardless of DLC yes but I'm pretty sure it decreases a lot faster with DLC. You mention yourself that people wait for the better edition to come out. Did people do this 20 years ago? No. Meaning that those people waiting would likely be buying earlier. Buying earlier means more sales=less reason to rapidly drop the price in order to boost sales. A lot of games these days get massive price drops after just a few months of being released. I can't conclusively say that it's because of DLC and you can't conclusively say that it isn't but I'm pretty sure it has at least a little bit to do with DLC.

If the game feels incomplete to you without DLC then get the DLC. If you buy a new game and the developers come out with some DLC, maybe that DLC is just awesome and you want it, then why not just get it if you feel you need it. If the developers come out with DLC and it isn't that great then do not buy it, it shouldn't really bother you if you know it is terrible/not worth the money even if this means the game is "incomplete". I have a season pass for a great game, and have not downloaded the 3rd or 4th installment (can't remember the order) of DLC because I am not playing those games right now. I will even pick up the game and play it without the dlc, and it doesn't feel incomplete to me because I still have the full game.

Yeah no. More like skip the game entirely until the better version comes out. This is what I do my friend. (Except I'll probably buy Pokémon day one because of the events which don't get released later in the expansions.) Anyway chances are you don't have the full game. If you bought a Season Pass it means they already had DLC planned. If they already had DLC planned then what you bought is the game without some of the parts that they planned to put into the game. Furthermore you bought a full season pass? Yeah. Why would you do that? Buy a DLC pack that you don't even know the contents of if it wasn't because you wanted the full package? It looks like you want the complete package too(or at least access to it) or I don't see why you would have done that. If you have a different reason feel free to share though. I can't see into your head.

What DLC are you guys buying that has a short lifespan? If I want to buy DLC for a game (via xbox live, steam, or playstation network) then when will it not be available to me again? When we all move to the next consoles? Will I still be playing Morrowind add-ons when Skyrim is released? Probably not, but that content is still available to me. Any DLC you get will eventually become obsolete, just like the games, please understand this is the nature of video games and all technology. When you buy DLC do understand that you will probably stop playing the game when the next one comes out, and it is up to you to decide if the extra maps/skins/areas are worth the money to you.

Well since I got his argument wrong in the last post I'm not going to speak for him again. I think he means the fact that online services have a tendency to shut down so you probably won't be able to download things for your PS3 Playstation Network when the PS3 Playstation Network is shut down due to the added cost to Sony. (since the console is no longer "relevant" to people...but there will still be people on there.) The same thing is happening to the B/W global link when X and Y come out and you know there are still a lot of people on that. But like I said I'm not going to speak for him, that's just what I think he meant.

If you are talking in terms of story-relevance dlc has a short lifespan then yes it does, as does any game series with a continuing story. In that same sense the older games have a short lifespan because in a year (or so) another chapter will come out for the story, and everything from the past games isn't as important. Did you guys get story-important-dlc for a game and then a week later same-story-game-2 (that covers the week-old dlc story spoilers) comes out? If you enjoy a continuous game series but do not want to buy DLC then there are other ways of getting that story information (youtube) without purchasing the games.

This is completely wrong. This whole paragraph. You're missing the point entirely. I thought I made it pretty clear last time that it wasn't about the sequels of the game it was about the game itself. Oh and YouTube? Rich. Ok then what's the point of playing a story-heavy game in the first place? Everyone should just YouTube it. Furthermore, and I'm getting a little upset with myself for speaking for him again, proffessorlight's first example was Mass Effect if I remember correctly. Mass effect is a game that allows you to choose(I'm not sure how far the choices go/how much of an effect they have on the story since I haven't played the games myself) how the story plays out for yourself so you're never going to get the same experience watching others play it on youtube.

TL;DR- Games decrease in value, regardless of later editions. You feel like you are missing out by not having DLC? Then just buy it already. DLC will eventually become dated/obsolete just like the game you bought it for. Story-relevant DLC will also become irrelevant in the long run just like the game you bought it for.

That wasn't very long. Story-relevant DLC will always be relevant to the story in that particular game. I bought the second Tales of Symphonia before the first and I thought I knew all about the first games story before I actually played it and realized I only knew the basics(and I didn't know all of the basics either). The sequel simply does not have enough time to explain everything that happened in the first game, or movie, or book etc. so no matter what it will always be relevant in and of itself. Also in a coherent story the first part will always be relevant to the most recent part no matter how much time has passed since then.

In conclusion how you guys feel about DLC will never change how I feel. I don't care if you feel it's complete, so don't tell me "it doesn't feel incomplete to me because I still have the full game" because I don't care. It doesn't feel complete to me.

 

[Tatertot]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

I think we might be straying away from the main issue many people have with DLC. Namely, that shelling out an extra $5 every few months (or weeks) for a DLC package seems kind of ridiculous when you have already shelled out $40 for a game (or $60 or more, depending on what game we're talking about, but I'm thinking in terms of the Pokemon series) really just serves to make people mad. If you buy every single DLC package that comes out for a game, it adds up, and suddenly that $40 game you bought for yourself or your kid has become a $100 game, all thanks to sneaky marketing by the game companies. This is completely unreasonable. I don't care what game it is, it's not worth $100.

If Pokemon was to include lots of DLC, I would hope that Gamefreak would have the courtesy to lower the price of the games to $25 or $30, since many people will be buying the updates. But of course, that's probably wishful thinking.

Of course, since the Pokemon series is primarily aimed at children, and most children do not have access to credit cards easily, I highly doubt Gamefreak will implement very much, if any DLC. Games that include DLC are aimed at an older audience, who are more likely to link credit cards to their gaming systems, and thus are more likely to spend the money.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

It's true they don't have any reason to complain. I usually laugh when they do. You buy the game and all the DLC day one it's your fault. You support bad practices and you waste money. Regardless you can't say that DLC isn't decreasing the value of the game. The game decreases in value regardless of DLC yes but I'm pretty sure it decreases a lot faster with DLC. You mention yourself that people wait for the better edition to come out. Did people do this 20 years ago? No. Meaning that those people waiting would likely be buying earlier. Buying earlier means more sales=less reason to rapidly drop the price in order to boost sales. A lot of games these days get massive price drops after just a few months of being released. I can't conclusively say that it's because of DLC and you can't conclusively say that it isn't but I'm pretty sure it has at least a little bit to do with DLC.

Okay, clearly none of you have any idea of what "value" mean, so I'm going to explain it with an example:

Spoiler

Okay, let's say we have a game that's 8 hours long (I know this would be a relatively short game, but in order to keep the numbers simple, let's just say this is reasonable) costs $40. Then we could say that you're paying $40 for 8 hours of game content, or you would be getting 8/$40 = 1 hour of content for $5. That is the game's value.

Now let's say later on they decide to make a DLC pack which gives you an extra hour of content for $5. Then you'd have 9 hours of content for $45, which is still 1 hour of content for $5. In no way does the value decrease when this happens, the game still ships with 8 hours worth of content, and when you buy the DLC, it's still the same ratio of content for your money.

It's only problematic if one of two things happens:

1. The 1 hour of content is too significant to the game to be left out.

2. Instead of giving you 8 hours of content for $40 plus 1 hour of extra content for $5, they give you 7 hours of content for $40 plus 1 hour of extra content for $5. Then the value actually does decrease because you're getting less content for more money.

What you and professorlight seem to be suggesting is including all 9 hours of content for the same $40, and that's not going to happen. Remember that video games are a business, they're made to make money. And adding in that extra hour of content costs money, so they have to make it back somehow to maintain profits.

Yeah no. More like skip the game entirely until the better version comes out. This is what I do my friend. (Except I'll probably buy Pokémon day one because of the events which don't get released later in the expansions.) Anyway chances are you don't have the full game.

And if there is no better version?

If you bought a Season Pass it means they already had DLC planned. If they already had DLC planned then what you bought is the game without some of the parts that they planned to put into the game. Furthermore you bought a full season pass? Yeah. Why would you do that? Buy a DLC pack that you don't even know the contents of if it wasn't because you wanted the full package? It looks like you want the complete package too(or at least access to it) or I don't see why you would have done that. If you have a different reason feel free to share though. I can't see into your head.

IDK what a Season Pass is, but anyone who pays for content that they know nothing about is extremely stupid.

Well since I got his argument wrong in the last post I'm not going to speak for him again. I think he means the fact that online services have a tendency to shut down so you probably won't be able to download things for your PS3 Playstation Network when the PS3 Playstation Network is shut down due to the added cost to Sony. (since the console is no longer "relevant" to people...but there will still be people on there.) The same thing is happening to the B/W global link when X and Y come out and you know there are still a lot of people on that. But like I said I'm not going to speak for him, that's just what I think he meant.

Well with online services becoming increasingly integrated into the experience, end-of-console server closures are pretty much an inevitability.

In conclusion how you guys feel about DLC will never change how I feel. I don't care if you feel it's complete, so don't tell me "it doesn't feel incomplete to me because I still have the full game" because I don't care. It doesn't feel complete to me.

That's nice, but it's not up to you whether or not the game is complete, it's up to the developer.

 

[professorlight]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

Firstly, games decrease in value the second you buy them, just like everything else in this world. If you want something that will hold its value do not buy video games, cars, property, televisions, or any technology for that matter. It really doesn't matter if they come out with another edition or not, the original game will decrease in value. By the time another edition (GOTY or any where the game+ DLC are bundled) the game has been out for awhile. Original games devalue over time no matter what. You wouldn't buy a copy of Halo 2 for $60 today would you? If you buy a brand new game, you are basically paying more to play it first. That is all. Don't want to spend more to play it first? Don't buy it at launch then. If you wanted to (and I know a lot of people do this) you could wait for the games to go down in price, because games always do if you give it enough time. I can't get mad at you for buying a bundle pack that includes the game + all the DLC I bought when I have had the game for a year (or basically an extended period of time) and have played through it already.

I agree with everything fee said, with an addition:
We (at least I) aren't talking about the monetary value of a game, we are talking about the value the game has for you,as a story, as an experience, as a toy, something to use.
If you buy a game,(or any toy, for that matter) just to resell it later, then you don't truly understand what you bought. Besides, vintage games can be even more expensive than new ones, thanks to that mentality.
As I said before: if you buy a book and, when you finished it you realize a couple of chapters, an epilogue and a prologue are missing, and it turns out you can get each for a fraction of the price of the book, what would you do? you enjoyed the book, you paid for it, the missing content clearly was just another part of the book until it was extracted to be sold separately. Would you be mad you have to pay it apart? would it seem unfair to you? That's DLC for you.

What DLC are you guys buying that has a short lifespan? If I want to buy DLC for a game (via xbox live, steam, or playstation network) then when will it not be available to me again? When we all move to the next consoles? Will I still be playing Morrowind add-ons when Skyrim is released? Probably not, but that content is still available to me. Any DLC you get will eventually become obsolete, just like the games, please understand this is the nature of video games and all technology. When you buy DLC do understand that you will probably stop playing the game when the next one comes out, and it is up to you to decide if the extra maps/skins/areas are worth the money to you.

Don't worry, fee, you got what I was saying, I was even gonna use the dream world as an example:
The dream world is closing, Would you have been able to predict that three months ago? I sure wouldn't. did you thought it was gonna last forever? servers cost money,and BW/BW2 support will not be of any priority to nintendo/GF once X and Y come out, and I can't blame them. The dream world was, at it's core, a free, optional DLC, an expansion of the games, and it provided the players with alternate pokemon, normally unavailable in their physical games. Was it part of the story? no, it was unimportant. It was the equivalent of getting a new rifle in call of duty or whatever. The game experience will be affected, though, especially if you traded/breeded/used DW pokemon, abilities and moves; and those people will miss the feature, that's our point. In 5 years you won't be able to get DW pokemon yourself in BW/BW2 (trading notwithstanding) whenever you like, as you can now, and the possibilities and offered features of your game would have diminished compared to now.

If you are talking in terms of story-relevance dlc has a short lifespan then yes it does, as does any game series with a continuing story. In that same sense the older games have a short lifespan because in a year (or so) another chapter will come out for the story, and everything from the past games isn't as important. Did you guys get story-important-dlc for a game and then a week later same-story-game-2 (that covers the week-old dlc story spoilers) comes out? If you enjoy a continuous game series but do not want to buy DLC then there are other ways of getting that story information (youtube) without purchasing the games.

So, you are saying any game does not matter because the next sequel will tell you everything you need to know about the story with or without DLC? and if there's something missing, there's youtube?
Have you even played a game? I don't think I should even legitimize that statement by trying to refute it.

This is completely wrong. This whole paragraph. You're missing the point entirely. I thought I made it pretty clear last time that it wasn't about the sequels of the game it was about the game itself. Oh and YouTube? Rich. Ok then what's the point of playing a story-heavy game in the first place? Everyone should just YouTube it. Furthermore, and I'm getting a little upset with myself for speaking for him again, proffessorlight's first example was Mass Effect if I remember correctly. Mass effect is a game that allows you to choose(I'm not sure how far the choices go/how much of an effect they have on the story since I haven't played the games myself) how the story plays out for yourself so you're never going to get the same experience watching others play it on youtube.

Don't worry about speaking for me, it seems I would say the same as you anyway.
As for mass effect: ME is an intensely personal game (games). Everything from your choice of character, to your way of relating to your companions, to all the choices you make along the way (and I mean ALL of them) to your class and powers choice, even to the weaposns you use, make your shepard yours, and there's no other shepard like yours out there, it's unique, it's almost as if it's a real person: you.
The story and characters are incredibly deep and compelling, and in many cases, you end up caring about them as if they were real. The decisions you make modify the future in many ways, giving them real weight, and making them harder. And the gameplay is just plain fun, it's not perfect, but you can visibly see how it improves in each installment.
Have you heard of the hell raised by fans after/because of ME3's ending (all three of them. A big number for such a big franchise, huh?) do you think that would have happened if those same fans weren't involved with the game? you play through three whole games, each more epic than the previous one, and in the end you get a crappy ending. You die, eveybody dies, the macguffin you were looking for doesn't make even a tiny bit of sense in such a meticulously crafted universe and it screws things up almost as bad as they were. Now, the endings (all three of them, can't stress that enough) might have some merit as a philosophical reflection, but not in mass effect, not after three games, not after all that emptional investment, after what those characters and you were through; such a pathetic excuse of a climax was uncalled for. That's why the players revolted, because it mattered to them, that's the enormous importance of a story in a videogame, and it's influence. If you don't see it that way, it's okay. But at least make the effort of undersatnding it. If you want to know more about ME, just ask me, I can't reccomend it enough.

 

[Acid_Bot]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

It's true they don't have any reason to complain. I usually laugh when they do. You buy the game and all the DLC day one it's your fault. You support bad practices and you waste money. Regardless you can't say that DLC isn't decreasing the value of the game. The game decreases in value regardless of DLC yes but I'm pretty sure it decreases a lot faster with DLC. You mention yourself that people wait for the better edition to come out. Did people do this 20 years ago? No. Meaning that those people waiting would likely be buying earlier. Buying earlier means more sales=less reason to rapidly drop the price in order to boost sales. A lot of games these days get massive price drops after just a few months of being released. I can't conclusively say that it's because of DLC and you can't conclusively say that it isn't but I'm pretty sure it has at least a little bit to do with DLC.

I am only 24 so I cannot conjecture what the video gaming was like in 1993, as I was only 4. But used games, and games becoming cheaper has been around since it all started. I remember going to a GameXchange when I was a kid and looking for a cheap video game. Our economy (I live in the USA) has seen better days and it is affecting everyone. Twenty years ago a new video game was still comparable to what it costs today, adjusting for inflation. My point is, we are in a recession that we weren't in 20 years ago. We are fortunate enough to have enough money to spend on extra things like video games at all, or at least that is how I feel. No, I cannot say that DLC doesn't affect a game's value, and as you said you can't say conclusively that it does. So... I will just leave it as we don't know, you are allowed your opinion and I am allowed mine.

Yeah no. More like skip the game entirely until the better version comes out. This is what I do my friend. (Except I'll probably buy Pokémon day one because of the events which don't get released later in the expansions.) Anyway chances are you don't have the full game. If you bought a Season Pass it means they already had DLC planned. If they already had DLC planned then what you bought is the game without some of the parts that they planned to put into the game. Furthermore you bought a full season pass? Yeah. Why would you do that? Buy a DLC pack that you don't even know the contents of if it wasn't because you wanted the full package? It looks like you want the complete package too(or at least access to it) or I don't see why you would have done that. If you have a different reason feel free to share though. I can't see into your head.

What do you mean by a better version? Yes, I bought a season pass when I pre-ordered Borderlands 2. I had played Borderlands extensively and ended up getting the DLC and absolutely loved it. I have loved the DLC for BL2 so far and I cannot wait until I have more time to enjoy the later installments. I bought the season pass because I knew I would eventually buy all the DLC and it saved me some money in the process. Why did I buy it? Because it saved me money, I loved the previous game, and I had already seen enough previews/trailers to know this was going to be an insta-buy for me.

Well since I got his argument wrong in the last post I'm not going to speak for him again. I think he means the fact that online services have a tendency to shut down so you probably won't be able to download things for your PS3 Playstation Network when the PS3 Playstation Network is shut down due to the added cost to Sony. (since the console is no longer "relevant" to people...but there will still be people on there.) The same thing is happening to the B/W global link when X and Y come out and you know there are still a lot of people on that. But like I said I'm not going to speak for him, that's just what I think he meant.

I honestly cannot speculate on the future of the Playstation Network, but considering how many ps4 pre-orders they have gotten and the fact that it is Sony, I think they will be okay financially. I was shocked to hear that Nintendo was closing the global link in January of 2014, because I know a lot of people enjoyed it and it could have played a role in X Y. I hope that if Nintendo/GF release DLC they will have the responsibility to keep it available when the next games come out, as most of the companies that offer DLC would hopefully want to keep those sales doors open for as long as possible. Why stop offering people something that will continue to make you money? (until at some point the maintenance of keeping those services running is greater than the number of purchases which would have to be way into the future)

This is completely wrong. This whole paragraph. You're missing the point entirely. I thought I made it pretty clear last time that it wasn't about the sequels of the game it was about the game itself. Oh and YouTube? Rich. Ok then what's the point of playing a story-heavy game in the first place? Everyone should just YouTube it. Furthermore, and I'm getting a little upset with myself for speaking for him again, proffessorlight's first example was Mass Effect if I remember correctly. Mass effect is a game that allows you to choose(I'm not sure how far the choices go/how much of an effect they have on the story since I haven't played the games myself) how the story plays out for yourself so you're never going to get the same experience watching others play it on youtube.

I never got into Assassin's Creed, so I guess I do not understand DLC that impacts the story, because all of my DLC experience has always been maps/customization/mini-storyline. If a story-heavy game decides to release story-important DLC (that you don't want in the first place) then that really puts you in a pickle, and I see why you would be against it. In storytelling mediums including video games, the story usually continues beyond the story you just read/saw/played, why should video games be different? To name two off the top of my head: Halo has books, films, and a television(they do already, or they will?) series to supplement the story of the games. Star Wars films and video games have many book/comic series focusing on additional adventures characters have. People bought the comics, books, and films to continue the story, why not DLC then?

And I would have liked youtube as a kid. I never got to see the "good" ending for any game I played, I only got to hear about it from the other kids at school. As rewarding as it would have been to earn it, I was never skilled enough or patient enough and at least now I have seen it and can stop wondering. I'd rather play a game through once how I like it, and youtube alternates because I don't want to play through it all again. I was not about to play through all of Far Cry 3 to see the alternate ending, even though it was a great game.

I guess if I am content with the story I have, I don't bother to learn about the previous story if it is rather extensive (to a point), and I have tried with many-a-series to learn all the plot and back story prior to what I am currently playing/watching/reading. This is why I have a hard time starting a current comic book series because I feel like I need to go back 8 years (or often times much, much longer) to issue 1, and I am trying to not let that bother me as much anymore.

Finally, Tatertot has it right, GameFreak knows that their main audience is children and making them pay more for a game will be difficult for them, credit card or not (Nintendo as well as all console "points" can be bought at retail stores). I can see them releasing some great free content, but I cannot imagine them releasing paid DLC for Pokemon XY.

 

[Acid_Bot]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

It's true they don't have any reason to complain. I usually laugh when they do. You buy the game and all the DLC day one it's your fault. You support bad practices and you waste money. Regardless you can't say that DLC isn't decreasing the value of the game. The game decreases in value regardless of DLC yes but I'm pretty sure it decreases a lot faster with DLC. You mention yourself that people wait for the better edition to come out. Did people do this 20 years ago? No. Meaning that those people waiting would likely be buying earlier. Buying earlier means more sales=less reason to rapidly drop the price in order to boost sales. A lot of games these days get massive price drops after just a few months of being released. I can't conclusively say that it's because of DLC and you can't conclusively say that it isn't but I'm pretty sure it has at least a little bit to do with DLC.

I am only 24 so I cannot conjecture what the video gaming was like in 1993, as I was only 4. But used games, and games becoming cheaper has been around since it all started. I remember going to a GameXchange when I was a kid and looking for a cheap video game. Our economy (I live in the USA) has seen better days and it is affecting everyone. Twenty years ago a new video game was still comparable to what it costs today, to my understanding (I didn't buy new games back then so if this is wrong, my bad). My point is, we are in a recession that we weren't in 20 years ago. We are fortunate enough to have enough money to spend on extra things like video games at all, or at least that is how I feel. No, I cannot say that DLC doesn't affect a game's value, and as you said you can't say conclusively that it does. So... I will just leave it as we don't know, you are allowed your opinion and I am allowed mine. I do not resell video games anymore, or toys for that matter, I collect toys. When I think about the value of something I purchase, I do tend to associate it with the price I purchased it. I can look back on a game/toy and think "hmm, did I really get my $20 out of that game?" and the answer 9/10 times is usually yes. I tend to not have regrets when I make purchases, even for brand-new games.

Yeah no. More like skip the game entirely until the better version comes out. This is what I do my friend. (Except I'll probably buy Pokémon day one because of the events which don't get released later in the expansions.) Anyway chances are you don't have the full game. If you bought a Season Pass it means they already had DLC planned. If they already had DLC planned then what you bought is the game without some of the parts that they planned to put into the game. Furthermore you bought a full season pass? Yeah. Why would you do that? Buy a DLC pack that you don't even know the contents of if it wasn't because you wanted the full package? It looks like you want the complete package too(or at least access to it) or I don't see why you would have done that. If you have a different reason feel free to share though. I can't see into your head.

If you want to wait and buy a better version that is fine, you have that right. Yes, I bought a season pass when I pre-ordered Borderlands 2. I had played Borderlands 1 extensively and ended up getting the DLC and absolutely loved it. I have loved the DLC for BL2 so far and I cannot wait until I have more time to enjoy the later installments. I bought the season pass because I knew I would eventually buy all the DLC and that the DLC was going to be amazing and it has been. It saved me money, I loved the previous game, and I had already seen enough previews/trailers to know this was going to be an insta-buy for me. Even with the season pass I do not own everything that is available for the game, and it feel complete enough for me, it was not about having the full package. I would have bought it the second after watching the Intro to Mr. Torques Campaign of Carnage.

Well since I got his argument wrong in the last post I'm not going to speak for him again. I think he means the fact that online services have a tendency to shut down so you probably won't be able to download things for your PS3 Playstation Network when the PS3 Playstation Network is shut down due to the added cost to Sony. (since the console is no longer "relevant" to people...but there will still be people on there.) The same thing is happening to the B/W global link when X and Y come out and you know there are still a lot of people on that. But like I said I'm not going to speak for him, that's just what I think he meant.

I honestly cannot speculate on the future of the Playstation Network, but considering how many ps4 pre-orders they have gotten and the fact that it is Sony, I think they will be okay financially. I was shocked to hear that Nintendo was closing the global link in January of 2014, because I know a lot of people enjoyed it and it could have played a role in X Y. I hope that if Nintendo/GF release DLC they will have the responsibility to keep it available when the next-next games come out, as most of the companies that offer DLC would hopefully want to keep those sales doors open for as long as possible. Why stop offering people something that will continue to make you money? Until at some point the maintenance of keeping those services running is greater than the number of purchases which would have to be way into the future, which kind of makes sense as GameFreak was providing a wonderful but not cost-effective service completely free to its customers. They couldn't keep it up forever without charging people. Sony now requires (or will I don't have a ps3) a paid service to use its network like Microsoft. Free is always the best, but when a company is not making enough money on something they could be, they do something about it.

This is completely wrong. This whole paragraph. You're missing the point entirely. I thought I made it pretty clear last time that it wasn't about the sequels of the game it was about the game itself. Oh and YouTube? Rich. Ok then what's the point of playing a story-heavy game in the first place? Everyone should just YouTube it. Furthermore, and I'm getting a little upset with myself for speaking for him again, proffessorlight's first example was Mass Effect if I remember correctly. Mass effect is a game that allows you to choose(I'm not sure how far the choices go/how much of an effect they have on the story since I haven't played the games myself) how the story plays out for yourself so you're never going to get the same experience watching others play it on youtube.

I never got into Assassin's Creed, so I guess I do not understand DLC that impacts the story, because all of my DLC experience has always been maps/customization/mini-storyline. If a story-heavy game decides to release story-important DLC (that you don't want in the first place) then that really puts you in a pickle, and I see why you would be against it. A apologize if my paragraph offended anyone, as that was not its intent. I feel as though to enjoy a series I should not have to go all the way back to its origins, and trust me when I say that there are many a series in which I have tried to do this. I shouldn't have to go back to 1963 and watch all the original Dr. Who to know what is happening in the current series. If I want to pick up a Incredible Hulk comic book, I don't have to read all the way back to issue 1. Yes those are extreme examples but to get ready for Black Flag in the AC series you could spend between 70-85 hours (rough estimate) getting through just the main story, not the extras or dlc.

In storytelling mediums including video games, the story usually continues beyond the story you just read/saw/played, why should video games be different? To name two off the top of my head: Halo has books, films, and a television(they do already, or they will?) series to supplement the story of the games. Star Wars films and video games have many book/comic series focusing on additional adventures characters have. Most movies coming out today have additional back story that you can read about on the website or they have a book mini-series or comic series as well. People bought the comics, books, and films to continue the story, how is this different from DLC then? It is a continuation of the story, that consumers pay to be a part of.

And I would have liked youtube as a kid. I never got to see the "good" ending for any game I played, I only got to hear about it from the other kids at school. As rewarding as it would have been to earn it, I was never skilled enough or patient enough and at least now I have seen it and can stop wondering. I'd rather play a game through once how I like it, and youtube alternates because I don't want to play through it all over again. I was not about to play through all of Far Cry 3 to see the alternate ending, even though it was a great game, don't get me wrong.

Tatertot has it right, GameFreak knows that their main audience is children and making them pay more for a game will be difficult for them, credit card or not (Nintendo as well as all console "points" can be bought at retail stores). I can see them releasing some great free content, but I cannot imagine them releasing paid DLC for Pokemon XY.

All in all guys and gals, DLC is your choice to purchase or not. I like having it available to me, and I will partake if I enjoy the game enough. Maybe you don't like it or feel as though it makes the game incomplete, and that is fine, you don't have to. I know that there is nothing I can say on here to change your minds and that was never my goal or intention. These are just my opinions and I respect those that have shared theirs in this forum.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

As I said before: if you buy a book and, when you finished it you realize a couple of chapters, an epilogue and a prologue are missing, and it turns out you can get each for a fraction of the price of the book, what would you do? you enjoyed the book, you paid for it, the missing content clearly was just another part of the book until it was extracted to be sold separately. Would you be mad you have to pay it apart? would it seem unfair to you? That's DLC for you.

The prologue and epilogue aren't always necessary for the experience, so I could see them doing that as DLC. What matters is that what you get from the book is greater than or equal to what you always get from the book. So if they give you a book with 10 chapters and you think that's reasonable for what you pay, you should go out and buy it. But then if in the next game they give you another 10 chapters, but then after they finish, they decide to add 2 cut chapters from the book, it'd be perfectly reasonable to pay 20% of the cost of the book to buy those 2 extra chapters. The book was sold with those 10 chapters in mind, so you're not missing anything with just those 10, the 2 additional chapters just give you something extra. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Don't worry, fee, you got what I was saying, I was even gonna use the dream world as an example:
The dream world is closing, Would you have been able to predict that three months ago? I sure wouldn't. did you thought it was gonna last forever? servers cost money,and BW/BW2 support will not be of any priority to nintendo/GF once X and Y come out, and I can't blame them. The dream world was, at it's core, a free, optional DLC, an expansion of the games, and it provided the players with alternate pokemon, normally unavailable in their physical games. Was it part of the story? no, it was unimportant. It was the equivalent of getting a new rifle in call of duty or whatever. The game experience will be affected, though, especially if you traded/breeded/used DW pokemon, abilities and moves; and those people will miss the feature, that's our point. In 5 years you won't be able to get DW pokemon yourself in BW/BW2 (trading notwithstanding) whenever you like, as you can now, and the possibilities and offered features of your game would have diminished compared to now.

The Dream World is an example of bad DLC where the developers are locking content that would normally be in the game in the first place, such as being required to use it to complete the Dex (you can catch all 3rd gen Pokemon with RSEFRLG, you can catch all 4th gen Pokemon with DPPtHGSS, why can't you catch all 5th gen Pokemon with BW1 and BW2?), and berry planting. They're intentionally taking content away from the game and putting it in the DLC. Whereas if it was just Hidden ability Pokemon that were exclusive to the DW, it'd be more acceptable. The Hidden abilities aren't really necessary to the experience, they're a bonus. Plus, they can be traded, so even if you don't use the DW, you can still trade for them.

So, you are saying any game does not matter because the next sequel will tell you everything you need to know about the story with or without DLC? and if there's something missing, there's youtube?
Have you even played a game? I don't think I should even legitimize that statement by trying to refute it.

The events of the DLC may not be relevant to the events of the next game. So in that case, it's perfectly skippable.

 

[professorlight]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

I never got into Assassin's Creed, so I guess I do not understand DLC that impacts the story, because all of my DLC experience has always been maps/customization/mini-storyline. If a story-heavy game decides to release story-important DLC (that you don't want in the first place) then that really puts you in a pickle, and I see why you would be against it. A apologize if my paragraph offended anyone, as that was not its intent. I feel as though to enjoy a series I should not have to go all the way back to its origins, and trust me when I say that there are many a series in which I have tried to do this. I shouldn't have to go back to 1963 and watch all the original Dr. Who to know what is happening in the current series. If I want to pick up a Incredible Hulk comic book, I don't have to read all the way back to issue 1. Yes those are extreme examples but to get ready for Black Flag in the AC series you could spend between 70-85 hours (rough estimate) getting through just the main story, not the extras or dlc.

In storytelling mediums including video games, the story usually continues beyond the story you just read/saw/played, why should video games be different? To name two off the top of my head: Halo has books, films, and a television(they do already, or they will?) series to supplement the story of the games. Star Wars films and video games have many book/comic series focusing on additional adventures characters have. Most movies coming out today have additional back story that you can read about on the website or they have a book mini-series or comic series as well. People bought the comics, books, and films to continue the story, how is this different from DLC then? It is a continuation of the story, that consumers pay to be a part of.

You are right in that you shouldn't need to catch up with the previous installments of the story to understand what is happening now. I feel the same. And that's exactly what complex DLC is, just not in the past, but in the future: to get the full story you need to get, maybe not 10 years of products, but three story-affecting DLC, the same way that to get the full story of the hulk you need to get hundreds of comics plus all crossovers and alternate realities and shit.
The fact that in modern works of storytelling the story can continue besides the main medium is true; that doesn't make it good or bad (that is to be determined on a case-by-case basis). I can't speak for halo, but I can for star wars and mass effect (it has some novels). In those cases, the "extended universe" takes elements and characters from the main works and gives them their own stories. That's not so bad. But in many cases that extended universe seeps into the main canon without further necessity or explanation (example: one of the main antagonists in ME3 is a character who appeared in a novel first, and the game provides scant information about him; oh, but they took out the main antagonist from the second game, the g***** leader of the reapers. And the second SW trilogy goes to great lengths to introduce loads of characters from the expanded universe without any benefit to the plot whatsoever, with the purpose of having more merchandising fodder), and that's wrong, because you are then forced to go to the source material to understand everything. It's a business tactic, alright, but it's still a dastardly business tactic.

The prologue and epilogue aren't always necessary for the experience, so I could see them doing that as DLC. What matters is that what you get from the book is greater than or equal to what you always get from the book. So if they give you a book with 10 chapters and you think that's reasonable for what you pay, you should go out and buy it. But then if in the next game they give you another 10 chapters, but then after they finish, they decide to add 2 cut chapters from the book, it'd be perfectly reasonable to pay 20% of the cost of the book to buy those 2 extra chapters. The book was sold with those 10 chapters in mind, so you're not missing anything with just those 10, the 2 additional chapters just give you something extra. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

The fact that stories doesn't always have prologues and epilogues does not mean they are not necessary. A prologue explains the events previous to the story so if it could exist (and it can always exist; just look at "the hobbit" in relation to "the lord of the rings") and the same is valid for the epilogue, it could provide more closure to the story, or to character arcs still unresolved and tie up loose ends
In your example you say: "they decide to add 2 cut chapters from the book". If those chapters were cut:
1- they were part of the story as the author saw fit from the begining and were cut on purpose to charge for them later; or 2- they were completely unimportant, hence why they were cut. In those two cases, you lose: 1-they are making you buy an incomplete story and then making you buy the rest because they know they can charge more for the whole book now (10$book=12 chapters / 10$book + 3$ 2 chapters= 12 chapters); or 2- they are making you buy something worthless that has nothing to do with why you enjoyed the book, therefore charging you for something with little to no value.

The Dream World is an example of bad DLC where the developers are locking content that would normally be in the game in the first place, such as being required to use it to complete the Dex (you can catch all 3rd gen Pokemon with RSEFRLG, you can catch all 4th gen Pokemon with DPPtHGSS, why can't you catch all 5th gen Pokemon with BW1 and BW2?), and berry planting. They're intentionally taking content away from the game and putting it in the DLC. Whereas if it was just Hidden ability Pokemon that were exclusive to the DW, it'd be more acceptable. The Hidden abilities aren't really necessary to the experience, they're a bonus. Plus, they can be traded, so even if you don't use the DW, you can still trade for them.

As DLC, both DW pokemon and berries are not necessary for the game experience (unless you go competitively, and as I said, people who do will miss the DW). They are more akin to the borderlands 2 DLCs acid_bot mentioned (I'm assuming they are weapon packs) they are just tools to give more variety to the gameplay and they don't affect the story in any way.
"Plus, they can be traded, so even if you don't use the DW, you can still trade for them"
I believe I said, and I quote: "trading notwithstanding". that means you still can't get the special pokemon yourself, and have to rely on someone having that pokemon, being willing to part with it, and wanting a pokemon you do have. I think that's an awful lot of specific circumstances compared to just catching it yourself in the DW.

The events of the DLC may not be relevant to the events of the next game. So in that case, it's perfectly skippable.

But they are relevant to the very game you are playing now, so, in that case, it's not perfectly skippable.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

The fact that stories doesn't always have prologues and epilogues does not mean they are not necessary. A prologue explains the events previous to the story so if it could exist (and it can always exist; just look at "the hobbit" in relation to "the lord of the rings") and the same is valid for the epilogue, it could provide more closure to the story, or to character arcs still unresolved and tie up loose ends

If the events of the prologue/epilogue have a direct connection to the events of the main story, then they should include that. Anything else, backstory, character arcs, isn't really necessary to the experience.

In your example you say: "they decide to add 2 cut chapters from the book". If those chapters were cut:
1- they were part of the story as the author saw fit from the begining and were cut on purpose to charge for them later; or 2- they were completely unimportant, hence why they were cut. In those two cases, you lose: 1-they are making you buy an incomplete story and then making you buy the rest because they know they can charge more for the whole book now (10$book=12 chapters / 10$book + 3$ 2 chapters= 12 chapters); or 2- they are making you buy something worthless that has nothing to do with why you enjoyed the book, therefore charging you for something with little to no value.

The first case is the one I was saying was a valid complaint, that's where the author/developer is removing content that was supposed to be part of the game in the first place. I agree that that's a cheap tactic and needs to stop.

The second case, not so much. That would be things like those extra character arcs, backstory, and self contained mini stories which aren't really necessary to the plot but still add to it.

There's also the possibility that these concept could've been thought up AFTER the game is already finished/released and the DLC is introduced later, in which case they're not withholding anything, they're just making an already complete game better.

As DLC, both DW pokemon and berries are not necessary for the game experience (unless you go competitively, and as I said, people who do will miss the DW).

Some of the Pokemon on the DW are (in fact, some of the Pokemon there don't even have Hidden abilities), since you need to use it to complete the Pokedex.

As for the berries, I suppose you could argue that, but since berry planting is a feature that's been a part of the gameplay for a while now that they moved to the DW to promote it. It's like that first case that you mentioned where the author intentionally removed chapters to sell the book at a higher price (except you're not being charged to use the Dream World, but the same concept applies). Putting berry planting in the DW doesn't add to the overall experience, it makes the main game's experience feel worse.

Actually, you know what? I don't think I like the idea of DLC for the main games if only because I don't trust Game Freak not to fall into Case 1, if you look at past games, they have a nasty habit of removing gameplay features even in the absence of formal DLC (besides the DW, they always remove things like Battle Frontier, gym leader rematches, etc. from the first games of a generation to make later ones look better, even from generation to generation, gameplay features added in one tend to not show up again in later ones). But this is a problem that they need to work on anyway, because removing gameplay features like that is a good way to decrease sales for certain games, so when they finally realize this, then they should start working on DLC.

That doesn't mean that DLC is pointless, though, it just wouldn't work under Game Freak's business philosophy.

"Plus, they can be traded, so even if you don't use the DW, you can still trade for them"
I believe I said, and I quote: "trading notwithstanding". that means you still can't get the special pokemon yourself, and have to rely on someone having that pokemon, being willing to part with it, and wanting a pokemon you do have. I think that's an awful lot of specific circumstances compared to just catching it yourself in the DW.

Considering that the DW Pokemon are breedable, the supply side of DW Pokemon isn't an issue. And given how stingy the games are at handing out DWfs, you actually have a better chance of trading for them than getting them yourself.

But they are relevant to the very game you are playing now, so, in that case, it's not perfectly skippable.

Is the ending of the game affected by the events of the DLC? If not, then it's skippable.

 

[Fee]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

I am only 24 so I cannot conjecture what the video gaming was like in 1993, as I was only 4. But used games, and games becoming cheaper has been around since it all started. I remember going to a GameXchange when I was a kid and looking for a cheap video game. Our economy (I live in the USA) has seen better days and it is affecting everyone. Twenty years ago a new video game was still comparable to what it costs today, to my understanding (I didn't buy new games back then so if this is wrong, my bad). My point is, we are in a recession that we weren't in 20 years ago. We are fortunate enough to have enough money to spend on extra things like video games at all, or at least that is how I feel. No, I cannot say that DLC doesn't affect a game's value, and as you said you can't say conclusively that it does. So... I will just leave it as we don't know, you are allowed your opinion and I am allowed mine. I do not resell video games anymore, or toys for that matter, I collect toys. When I think about the value of something I purchase, I do tend to associate it with the price I purchased it. I can look back on a game/toy and think "hmm, did I really get my $20 out of that game?" and the answer 9/10 times is usually yes. I tend to not have regrets when I make purchases, even for brand-new games.

I don't really have much to say to this, except I believe what I think is more than an opinion, but since I can't be sure...you're right.

If you want to wait and buy a better version that is fine, you have that right. Yes, I bought a season pass when I pre-ordered Borderlands 2. I had played Borderlands 1 extensively and ended up getting the DLC and absolutely loved it. I have loved the DLC for BL2 so far and I cannot wait until I have more time to enjoy the later installments. I bought the season pass because I knew I would eventually buy all the DLC and that the DLC was going to be amazing and it has been. It saved me money, I loved the previous game, and I had already seen enough previews/trailers to know this was going to be an insta-buy for me. Even with the season pass I do not own everything that is available for the game, and it feel complete enough for me, it was not about having the full package. I would have bought it the second after watching the Intro to Mr. Torques Campaign of Carnage.

Oh? So it was borderlands 2 you were referring to? Well that proves I was right about the game not being the full package since I had that game(someone told me it was good and I believed them but personally I thought it was boring.) and kept getting those class items(forget what they're called) for the Mechromancer which I could never use since I didn't have the DLC for it.(I know I said I wait for a better version but it was Black Friday and I was doing a buy two get 1 free thing so I was like "what the heck?" Plus I only adopted the "buy later" philosophy a few months ago.) Anyway you didn't save money. You bought the season pass but you only downloaded/used two entries. So you could have bought those two for 20$ instead of the Season Pass for 30$. If you ever actually decide to use those two other packs you can say you saved money but for now...not really...

Anyway I understand your reasoning and I certainly wouldn't call you "extremely stupid"(like some people) for buying the Season Pass.

I honestly cannot speculate on the future of the Playstation Network, but considering how many ps4 pre-orders they have gotten and the fact that it is Sony, I think they will be okay financially. I was shocked to hear that Nintendo was closing the global link in January of 2014, because I know a lot of people enjoyed it and it could have played a role in X Y. I hope that if Nintendo/GF release DLC they will have the responsibility to keep it available when the next-next games come out, as most of the companies that offer DLC would hopefully want to keep those sales doors open for as long as possible. Why stop offering people something that will continue to make you money? Until at some point the maintenance of keeping those services running is greater than the number of purchases which would have to be way into the future, which kind of makes sense as GameFreak was providing a wonderful but not cost-effective service completely free to its customers. They couldn't keep it up forever without charging people. Sony now requires (or will I don't have a ps3) a paid service to use its network like Microsoft. Free is always the best, but when a company is not making enough money on something they could be, they do something about it.

I said PS3 Playstation Network. The PS4 is going to have an overhauled Network and since the PS4 won't be backwards compatible with the PS3 there's no reason to include DLC from the PS3 on the PS4 network. Since they now require a fee to use it there's more chance that the PS3 network is costing them too much money and they'll shut it down in favor of PS4.

I never got into Assassin's Creed, so I guess I do not understand DLC that impacts the story, because all of my DLC experience has always been maps/customization/mini-storyline. If a story-heavy game decides to release story-important DLC (that you don't want in the first place) then that really puts you in a pickle, and I see why you would be against it. A apologize if my paragraph offended anyone, as that was not its intent. I feel as though to enjoy a series I should not have to go all the way back to its origins, and trust me when I say that there are many a series in which I have tried to do this. I shouldn't have to go back to 1963 and watch all the original Dr. Who to know what is happening in the current series. If I want to pick up a Incredible Hulk comic book, I don't have to read all the way back to issue 1. Yes those are extreme examples but to get ready for Black Flag in the AC series you could spend between 70-85 hours (rough estimate) getting through just the main story, not the extras or dlc.

It didn't offend me it was just...wrong...Anyway you're right that you shouldn't have to go all the way back to understand what's going on. I mentioned Tales of Symphonia and I understood the story of the second perfectly without needing to go back to the first but the first has a story of it's own.

In storytelling mediums including video games, the story usually continues beyond the story you just read/saw/played, why should video games be different? To name two off the top of my head: Halo has books, films, and a television(they do already, or they will?) series to supplement the story of the games. Star Wars films and video games have many book/comic series focusing on additional adventures characters have. Most movies coming out today have additional back story that you can read about on the website or they have a book mini-series or comic series as well. People bought the comics, books, and films to continue the story, how is this different from DLC then? It is a continuation of the story, that consumers pay to be a part of.

This is actually a pretty good point. The difference is that the DLC is actually directly connected to the game. Often films and books aren't considered "Canon" in other words they never actually happened in the true story. On occasion they are though and people often get upset about having to visit another medium to understand the full story from the original medium. (Having to read a book to understand a game.) You're right though...it's not too much different.

And I would have liked youtube as a kid. I never got to see the "good" ending for any game I played, I only got to hear about it from the other kids at school. As rewarding as it would have been to earn it, I was never skilled enough or patient enough and at least now I have seen it and can stop wondering. I'd rather play a game through once how I like it, and youtube alternates because I don't want to play through it all over again. I was not about to play through all of Far Cry 3 to see the alternate ending, even though it was a great game, don't get me wrong.

Meh. I occasionally YouTube stuff too.(usually for games I'm not planning on playing)YouTube's great but it's not a good replacement for full parts of games.

Tatertot has it right, GameFreak knows that their main audience is children and making them pay more for a game will be difficult for them, credit card or not (Nintendo as well as all console "points" can be bought at retail stores). I can see them releasing some great free content, but I cannot imagine them releasing paid DLC for Pokemon XY.

I don't really want them to release free stuff either to be honest...don't ask me why, I don't need a reason.

All in all guys and gals, DLC is your choice to purchase or not. I like having it available to me, and I will partake if I enjoy the game enough. Maybe you don't like it or feel as though it makes the game incomplete, and that is fine, you don't have to. I know that there is nothing I can say on here to change your minds and that was never my goal or intention. These are just my opinions and I respect those that have shared theirs in this forum.

You're cool too man.

 

[Luna_Cat16]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

With the new Corocoro out and the introduction of Mega Evolutions, do you think that these will be some variety of new DLC?

They're not directly new Pokemon and I've heard that they can only be accessed during battle, so the really uneven display of Mega Pokemon kind of confuses me. You'd think that they'd either not add Mega forms to a starter at all, or they would add Mega forms to all starters and not other Pokemon instead.

So what if they're going to start gradually adding Mega forms to the game? They initially release a batch of revealed ones when XY is released, and then they do some sort of DLC event where you can download "bundles" to access new ones. This could be done through giving you new items or even the Pokemon required for the form change, if they're making it so that only "special" Pokemon can get Mega-Evos. The DLC would probably be free or not very expensive in general?

Otherwise I really have no idea what they would do besides maybe put all the data for the planned Megas into the game originally and then have Wi-fi events for the new items/have them all in the game anyways, which would be illogical if they plan for a lot of them to exist. Given the theme of the game matches these Pokemon a lot I would be kind of confused if they waited until another generation to add more than maybe 5 new forms.

 

[Raptor9229]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

Ya know in a way we already had DLC in pokemon games for a long time.

Events and Event pokemon that are downloaded via wifi can count as downloadable content if you guys want to get technical as you had to go and download them into the game (unless you had action replay, then you could hack the event pokemon but that is besides the point)

 

[Mitja]

RE: What do you think about DLC for Pokemon X/Y ?

Well yes in a way.

I mean the upcoming Torchic event will be holding the item required for Blazikens Mega Forme, which implies its not obtainable in regular play (which would make sense in Torchics case as it has nothing to do with this region), or at least not easy.

So I would guess there will be Mega forme items being distributed in several ways from ingame to held by event pokemon, depending on what it is.