1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News 2K Games defends BioShock 2 DLC

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 15 Mar 2010.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. Bursar

    Bursar New Member

    Joined:
    6 May 2001
    Posts:
    757
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't get it. Everyone has the DLC already on disk, so providing it as part of the base game wouldn't split the player base. I think they realise they've been caught out, and are trying to come up with excuses.
     
  3. capnPedro

    capnPedro Hacker. Maker. Engineer.

    Joined:
    11 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    241
    ********. That doesn't even make sense. If the data's there, and they don't want to "split the player base", why not install it for everyone when the install the game. For free. Arseholes.
     
  4. Mentai

    Mentai New Member

    Joined:
    11 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    Everyone has the same thing = split player base. Charge so that only half the players can play together = united community.

    Yeah, makes sense.
     
  5. Jamie

    Jamie ex-Bit-Tech code junkie

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    8,180
    Likes Received:
    54
    Shens
     
  6. lacuna

    lacuna Member

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    641
    Likes Received:
    10
    so what happens if one person pays for the DLC and then plays with a group of people who haven't? do all of the people who haven't paid benefit from the playing with the person who has?
     
  7. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    17
    The way I see it is the DLC contains the textures etc. for the additional characters weapons etc. so you need to have it installed to see other people who are playing as these characters, even if they're not accessible to you as playable characters.
     
  8. b5k

    b5k New Member

    Joined:
    10 May 2009
    Posts:
    181
    Likes Received:
    4
    Here's how I think they've made a huge **** up and I'll use my favourite example again: Quake 3 Arena.

    Q3 has an Sv_Pure system which prevents any client connecting to a pure server having files different to that of the server. This means he has to have a replica of the server content if he wants to play on that server.

    Lets say in Q3 that the server has some new custom maps which cost him an unreasonable amount of money to buy and play. The people who bought that content can still play on normal Q3 server as they have all the original game files and this new DLC doesn't alter them. They can also go and play on their DLC servers. What can't happen is regular Q3 owners can't play the DLC cause they obviously don't have the files.

    Here's what's happening in Bioshock 2:
    All players HAVE to be given all the original game files AND the DLC, cause if they didn't then there would be a client mismatch and they wouldn't be able to play together. That's like saying the original Q3 owner can't play on an original Q3 server on original Q3 maps with out having the custom DLC maps he doesn't even own (some might argue he does cause they were on the disc he purchased).

    It's complete ******** and shows a huge flaw in their system of creating games. This isn't rocket science people. Developers have been doing this for ages successfully, whys it so hard for this game in particular? What also makes this absolutely ridiculous is the fact the "DLC" isn't even DLC any more! Developers getting sloppy.
     
  9. kylew

    kylew New Member

    Joined:
    28 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    214
    Likes Received:
    2
    So what happens if they to decide to release a DLC that they've genuinely worked on post release?

    It's not "REALLY" a DLC anyway, the name itself implies what it is.

    Downloading the "key" to unlock the content doesn't mean that it's actually "DLC".

    I really don't why they did it like this, if everything was finished come release and they're putting it on the disc then they shouldn't under any circumstances, charge for it.
     
  10. lacuna

    lacuna Member

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    641
    Likes Received:
    10
    great. so if you want to play the multiplayer you're going to have to buy the DLC otherwise you're just going to get your ass handed to you over and over with the weapons you can see but can't have.
     
  11. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    269
    I like how they're still calling it DLC when they've admitted it's not DLC :duh:

    Besides, just about every other developer has managed to release DLC after the game's release without splitting the player base, so why can't 2K? Are they really that s**t at coding or do they just assume all their customers have a single brain cell between them and are too stupid to see the truth behind their lame excuses. I'm not sure what's worse to be honest.

    If they really had to have everyone install it, they could just make it a compulsory patch to play online while only people who pay get the extra features, but here they've just admitted they're simply charging extra for something that was created in the standard development cycle of the game, yet they have partitioned it off from the main game to get extra money from it instead of charging more for the game itself. What's worse is that this DLC seems to be almost compulsory if you want to do well in the multiplayer side of the game, thereby holding the consumer hostage.

    This is not a trend I (or for that matter any self-respecting gamer) would like to see continued, and should not be encouraged. Kill them with fire.
     
  12. Gunsmith

    Gunsmith Maximum Win

    Joined:
    23 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    8,804
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    thats bollocks and you know it, Aztec is dead and we aint got....oh wait, wrong game

    **** i need help :(
     
  13. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    That doesn't even make logical sense.

    If you're letting people download the same data, everyone has the same data.

    If you're giving people the content on the disc and unlocking it, everyone has the same data.

    I don't think there's an interpretation of this that doesn't end with the publishers looking, first, unbelievably cynical, then second, pathetically unwilling to own up when rumbled.
     
  14. mikeuk2004

    mikeuk2004 What you Looking at Fool!

    Joined:
    3 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    11
    I have not got this yet and not interested in the multiplayer, but it just shows whats coming. You buy a game with half the content locked and have to pay later to unlock it.

    Its a good way to increase revenue. Look at Fable 2 on xbox live, they are selling that online in segments and it aint cheap, such a rip off when you can buy the full game for £10 now.
     
  15. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    124
    Why is it suddenly smelling like cow dung around me...
     
  16. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    Greedy liars.
     
  17. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Member

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    929
    Likes Received:
    8
    DoW2 was recently updated to include all of the Chaos Rising units so that owners of the original can still play multiplayer and Last Stand with people who have CR. So that excuse is bollocks. In fact, I don't think they have done anything wrong by having it on the disc. Hell, it saves bandwidth and benefits everyone. I can see why they would do it this way.

    The thing is though, that having it on the disc means it was developed and finished before the game was even launched. That is the issue, and I don't see anyone actually complaining about that. Frankly, if they had released this as true DLC this close to launch, I would still be miffed. The only difference between finishing it before release and putting it on the disc, and finishing it before release and making it true DLC at this time is that now we know they finished it before release, with the former we would only suspect it.
     
  18. Evildead666

    Evildead666 New Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2004
    Posts:
    340
    Likes Received:
    4
    +1
     
  19. sotu1

    sotu1 Ex-Modder

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    2,877
    Likes Received:
    26
    If by Shens you mean shenanigans then +1

    Highly HIGHLY disappointed here.
     
  20. Cerberus90

    Cerberus90 Car Spannerer

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    7,510
    Likes Received:
    134
    Thats how I've interpreted it from the article too.

    Although, in Forza 3, with their download packs. I've only got one of them. I was playing with someone, who has one of the packs I don't. They picked one of the DLC cars, and in the menu it showed their car as 'DLC car'. However, in the game, I could see the car fine.
    With the track pack, I think its a different matter. But the cars all seem to display fine even to people who haven't bought the packs.

    It sounds like 2K are telling the truth.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page