DLC can be anything. It can be just gimmick, it can be single maps/items/units - and it can be a whole expansion. There wasn't these 'gimmick' addons before, because it would have costed too much money to do this stuff (I mean, they would had to create new CDs for a single Item, etc.).
Now you can do that kind of stuff and thats what the companies are using. If theres profit, it will be tried out
There are several kinds of DLC. One bad example are these DLC from Magic the Gathering 2012 (or what its called anyway), were you pay 1€ fo foil some cards. Yeah. You pay money to get a slightly different skin for some cards. Seriously?! Or you can enable new decks/cards which are already ig.
then again there are other DLC. Some are mappacks, and, on the other hand, some are even expansions. For example Magicka, The stars are left looks pretty much like an Addon - it gives new campaign, new robes, new enemies, new challenges, etc. Things you would expect from a normal addon, too.
Dont say DLC is bad. DLC is just a different way to gice access to new stuff by scrapping CD's/DvDs and other physikal mediums in order to download it.Nothing else. _________________
Think of me as Nordos, 'cause Banshee wouldn't rename me QUICK_EDIT
Gaming evolves. DLC is more money than expansion packs. Therefore, there will be DLC instead of expansion packs for most games now.
It evolves for the companies that sell the games, but not for the customers who buy the games (At least when you associate the word "evolve" with an improvement, not a degradation) . QUICK_EDIT
Gaming has changed, the major consumers have come to accept the advent of DLC, the minority who will reject it? Nobody cares because they aren't the consumer!
The market who wants C&C Gens 2, and the largest consumer base of said game, the GR type people, will buy the shit out of any DLC and new units simply to have all factions up to date and to handle all possible outcomes in a battle. They -will- accept DLC because it's in their nature. The tiny modding community that i as important as the firestorm Limpet Drone?
Well, we gamers can opt to show that we don't like DLC but that's not going to work because:
1.) Most people like DLC as it's being able to pick out features you really like and not buying stuff you don't want.
2.) It's cheaper in individual doses as opposed to the price of an expansion (which is about US $40.00 nowadays) for those on tight budgets.
And besides, why the ztype do you people keep blaming DLC? The devs don't want to release mod tools due to their complex nature, not to protect their DLC. Fallout games had DLC AND a major modding scene. QUICK_EDIT
Many of you don't understand the complexities of today's engines; especially Frostbite 2.
It's less fuss to not make modding tools for a small percent that will end up using them anyways. Creating modding tools for these engines are more of a pain and take time, plus the amount of people that end up actually modding it are hardly any. Basically EVA has summed it up.
The community has had whole engines handed to them (UDK, CryENGINE, Unity) and still complain about companies not giving them modding tools. There are other more powerful alternatives out there, and so my conclusion is that modders are too lazy and untalented to come up with their own content for engines like these. That is the only thing I see people not going to sources like the UDK. You cannot complain that these are too hard to learn because they have been tailored for ease of use, and guess what: Engines will continue to become more and more complex. (Wow, who knew )
I think that's why they have huge development teams working on modern games, or they just like having a lot of people to loiter around the office.
And if you find it so necessary to modify a game that has no tools handed to you: Hack the game, create your own tools, learn to things without having them handed to you on a silver platter. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
TIMEOUT!, a little question here, follow along please:
1- DLC's are external data files added to the game's directory or some other place.
2- The game gives you access to something new, like a whole unit/faction/whatever.
3- There must be a previously set list of these, or maybe not (like generals).
Doesn't that mean that the game can be modded by modifying a DLC content?, the least that the DLC files must have is some sort of an ini/xml or anything that set's the properties of this new add on, so in the end, the big Q:
Wont we be able to mod the game through DLC's?, Just buy one you don't want (or a cheap one) and then modify it, then copy it a couple of times etc?.
EDIT:
By all means, am against DLC's, just because the guy next door can afford all of the DLC's means that he can beat me in an RTS game?, Where the heck is the balance in that, just imagine him having ultra powerful super weapons while all I have is some useless stock ones?, OH how fair. _________________ Modelling an infantry unit for TS/Ra2/Yr with 3dsmax (Tutorial):
http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=458275#458275
=======================
Donut Arnold's great templates for TS and Ra2
http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/download.php?id=43817 Last edited by Mav.EricK on Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
The community has had whole engines handed to them (UDK, CryENGINE, Unity) and still complain about companies not giving them modding tools. There are other more powerful alternatives out there, and so my conclusion is that modders are too lazy and untalented to come up with their own content for engines like these. That is the only thing I see people not going to sources like the UDK.
Well, when you're making a mod, you can usually use the game's basic assets in the mod; while on an indie game that wouldn't be possible. Unlike modern games, many mods haven't required a larger team behind them because the modders could have used the assets of the original game.
Joshy wrote:
And if you find it so necessary to modify a game that has no tools handed to you: Hack the game, create your own tools, learn to things without having them handed to you on a silver platter.
That's what TS and RA2 modding is pretty much based on (hacking the game), but with more complex engines that's also harder than before.
But I have to say that despite those opinions Frostbite 2 really sounds like something that'd be very difficult to mod even with proper tools. I also agree with the financial point of not developing modding tools, especially when people don't usually buy games only because of mods (and if the game is good enough, people will buy it even if it wouldn't have modding tools).
I personally don't think I will be getting Generals 2 though; when deciding about purchases I look at it from the gamer's / modder's standpoint who I am, and not having mod support is a big minus to me. I know EA doesn't really care about me not buying the game because of not having mod support (since the masses will get it anyway), and I'm fine with it.
Oh and I'm fine with DLC's as long as they're either free or offer a good amount of content when compared to the price. Most games I've played (Dragon Age: Origins for example) have just used the DLC system poorly with the content being mostly like "Pay $15 and get tougher items than before!". _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Well, when you're making a mod, you can usually use the game's basic assets in the mod; while on an indie game that wouldn't be possible. Unlike modern games, many mods haven't required a larger team behind them because the modders could have used the assets of the original game.
That's why I concluded that: modders are too lazy and untalented to come up with their own content
Most mods are values changes or new maps.
Quote:
That's what TS and RA2 modding is pretty much based on (hacking the game), but with more complex engines that's also harder than before.
Yep, you're right. So, people complain because it is increasingly harder to modify these engines.
Quote:
especially when people don't usually buy games only because of mods
Yeah, I agree. I buy games so I can play them and enjoy them.
Quote:
Wont we be able to mod the game through DLC's?, Just buy one you don't want (or a cheap one) and then modify it, then copy it a couple of times etc?.
Nope! _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Not sure whats wrong with the sage engine, specifically the version used in CNC3. Its fast, runs on a ton of hardware and looks great. The new battlefield engine while good for battlefield seems like overkill for an rts game and needs so much cpu. The sage engine is great because of how much power it gives you and avoids most of the hardcoded crap we deal with regarding the earlier games. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:46 pm Post subject:
It's too early to judge the superiority (or not) of Frostbite 2. It depends on how the game will run in your machine, if the improvements on the graphics will compensate the loss of performance, if multiplayer games will have reconnection errors or not, and how much it can be customized by the company and the users.
Regarding user customization, so far we know that SAGE is much better. The graphics shown in the first Generals 2 trailer does not count, since it is 'photoshopped', the engine was optimized for that trailer and we don't know which hardware ran it. QUICK_EDIT
If Battlefield 3 can run this engine, supporting 64 players in a single match with no hiccups, there's nothing, barring crappy server hardware, that will prevent Generals 2 from having the same experience. Yes, it's going to need new hardware but can everyone really expect a top dollar publisher and producer to stay with an archaic, dying engine for the sake of nabbing a few more people? Hell no, they're not.
It's time to scrub C&C of the SAGE platform and move the fuck on. SAGE was a godawful, unoptimized mess of an engine. Generals 2 is moving into an engine proven to be flexible and powerful already.
Besides, if you people want to "mod so badly," get your asses a copy of UDK, Unity 3D or Spring and learn something goddammit. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
If Battlefield 3 can run this engine, supporting 64 players in a single match with no hiccups, there's nothing, barring crappy server hardware, that will prevent Generals 2 from having the same experience.
Except perhaps 400 units attempting to move simultaneously as well as an equal amount of projectiles all making their calculations etc etc QUICK_EDIT
Not likely since the size of the maps will be so much smaller. The maps in Battlefield 3 are gigantic in scale and require much more power to properly render. Generals 2 will likely sport maps around the same size as Red Alert 3. Even with other effects, Generals 2 should still run as smoothly as BF3, if not moreso because the scale will be much, much smaller. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
I don't think C&C3 SAGE was that unoptimized, but it's nowadays simply very outdated. In addition it never really looked that good, just compare C&C3 to other titles released in 2007 like World in Conflict (which I actually think looks better than even SCII despite its age) or even Petroglyph's flop, UAW. It's about time they move to something newer.
About Frostbite 2, not much has been revealed yet. I can't remember seeing very large battles in the trailer, and it was most likely made with pretty powerful hardware that most players can't afford. Limited mod support is a negative thing anyway, at least for a small percentage of those who'd potentially buy it.
Oh and the minimum requirements of the game are fine. Even my 5-year-old (6+ at the time of the release) Core 2 Duo appears to be good enough, aswell as my 3-year-old HD 4850. The game is coming out in 2013, so if someone has 7-year-old hardware at that point it'd be about time to upgrade anyway. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:29 am Post subject:
Frostbite 2 is an extremely powerful (and flexible) engine. I mean, think about it. If you can have massive-scale battles, both in the air and on the ground, like in BF3 with an FPS, then turn around and make an RTS with it? psh. I'm glad they're moving to Frostbite 2.
I'd like to see them implement a physics engine from Havok. Dynamic destruction of buildings? ztype yeah. Explosion next to the structure on the west wall damages only the west wall. Wouldn't that be awesome? _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum