Am I the only one...

[Fisherson]

Who thinks too many games are getting into this whole "online only" or "purchase this to play". Seriously it's gotten ridiculous to me that almost every game is online to begin with, but also you have to pay for it most of the time. I mean I saw that sort in MMO's...But in something like Fable? Honestly I must be old fashioned because I prefer non-online games best. I could just be soured since recently I purchased  Fable 3 for the PC, since they didn't make a second one available for the PC, and cause I have dial up I can't even get it to install. Unlike in Fable 1 or Fable the Lost Chapters you can't play it offline. This just really makes me mad! I mean why can't I? Some people don't like online stuff right? Some of us have the right to be anti social, darnit! XD I understand some games are really better online like Minecraft or Guidlwars but I mean...do they all have to be? I worry if game companies start figuring out how to profit from this and have online everything people like me will suffer. Am I paranoid or are there some people here who feel the same?

[DragonBlaze]

I absolutely hate the 'purchase this to play' pattern! The worst part is that a lot of game are released and sold for $60, but THEN they have 'extra' content that you can buy for even more money. Like in FFXIII-2 the main characters, in my opinion, looked super gay. You could make them look cooler, if you spent extra money. Or there was another 'ending', if you bought it. When you buy a game, you should be buying the entire game, not just a sub-par version that you need to spend an extra $30 on to get the optimal experience. I can understand paying for major expansions, but paying $10 for a decent character texture is ****ing ridiculous.

As for online-only games, they're growing on me. I don't mind them as long as I can still play by myself if I want to. A great example is Forza 5 for the xbox one. You need an online connection to play, but all of the AI you face is built from other player's playing habits, which makes them much more dynamic than standard AI. I usually also play against my friend's 'drivatars' which makes it even more exciting. I'm still playing by myself, but the experience is much richer with the online content. So in my opinion, as long as being online vs offline enhances the overall gameplay, I'm fine with it. On the other hand if it is a game that you should be able to play single player (Diablo 3) but forces you to play online with other people, then that's bull **** as well.

[Cerebus]

While you do need to be online at all time, you can play Diablo III all by yourself.

I guess it's just one form of security, even if they claim it's for a better player environment and such.

It personally bothers me a bit, but at the same time, I'm always connected, so there's no real difference. It's mainly annoying when you have an unreliable connection and such.

DLC's and such are indeed quite annoying, though, but that's a different subject.

[Prpl_Mage]

I'm surprised noone mentioned sim city yet.

And yes, there are some problems with having to connect to play your games. Like mass effects 3. On the other hand, games like Dark Souls allow you to play without logging in. And being connected allows other players to invade your world.

And regarding Diablo 3, a lot of people had a problem with this. I get it. But it's also much more convenient to be able to log in to your characters on a different computer. And while tons of people kinda threw poop at Blizzard for doing this - Path of Exile (the diablo 2 clone) did the exact same thing and no one cared, so it's probably too common now. In Path of exile I also get to see other characters plague my cities even when I'm playing alone.

Also DB, I sure hope you didn't pay $60 for FFXIII2, or $10 for the optional outfits, I think the game was released for like 20-30 over here and each pack like 2-3. Also, I don't mind the aesthetic stuff being DLC that you have to pay for. Simply because it's completely optional. What bothers me are games with a "pay to play" philosophy. Several MMOs and other online competitive games suffers from this disease where players who actually want to tackle the harder challenges (or just win a match) need to spend real money to do it.
Example, the game S4 League had weapons that could be bought for money. These weapons gave you an edge over all the non-paying players. And this is a PvP arena type of game so the balance was disrupted. And then there's like tons of Korean MMOs where you can pay for special armor sets with bonuses, weapons, special potions, more play time, faster building time etc etc.
Aesthetic DLCs was the subject right, I kinda like it. Although I tend to disslike it in games that don't offer anything in game. Dead or Alive 5 for example had a bunch of outfits to unlock in-game by playing the game. But at the same time it had like 20 different outfit packs to get. Like sexy swimsuit, retreat swimsuits, sexy santas, bad santas, bunny outfits blablabla. In the end, I had no interest in those and therefore didn't get 'em. But other people truly wants to see their characters in sexy swimsuits (but didn't preorder it) and can therefore get them if they want.


Anyway, I think the problem is that everyone is getting a solid internet connection these days. Indoors, outdoors, at home, on the train, on the bus, on the plane. With the exception being out on the ocean. I can pretty much walk around with my phone and get internet anywhere. Everyone is connected to the internet, all the time, facebook, twitter and instagram. So the whole internet connection business will probably disappear soon. What we need to fear is when game companies include automatic facebook updates regarding your achievements in-game or twitter updates for the stuff you're doing while playing.

[DragonBlaze]

I forgot how much I payed for it, but I bought it used, a while after it was out, so I don't think it was that much. I just through out guestimate numbers :p I did buy an outfit because I hated the default sooo much I guess I just much prefer when games reward you with these things like new outfits and characters by actually doing things in the game instead of spending real world money on them. The worst example was an MMO I played where you had to spend real money on outfits, except you weren't 'buying' the outfit, you were just renting it for a day, week, or month, after which you would need to pay them more money.

[Archem]

While I hate the new ways companies are finding to gouge prices (to the point of selling a "skeleton" game with all the rest of the product available in hundreds of pieces of DLC worth hundreds of dollars all together), the real thing that caught my attention in this thread is that Fish still has dial-up.

I was genuinely not aware that dial-up was still offered in developed countries.

[drenrin2120]

I'm surprised noone mentioned sim city yet.

I was just trying not to explode into a fury of rage.

[Apex]

DLC doesn't bother me all that much. I have the willpower to choose which DLC is worth buying. I completely ignore anything cosmetic, extra weapons, and extra vehicles in games, whereas I don't mind paying for an extra level, character, or an expansion to the game. That being said, if it's an obvious cash-in system that EA, Xbox Live junk, and Capcom are infamous for, I tend to avoid it entirely.

Having said that, most of the games I get do not pull the nickle and dime-ing BS most people complain about. A good example of this, would be Counter Strike Global Offensive: It has Workshop integration that has a constant supply of new maps to play for free, whereas games like Call of Duty just recycles it's old maps for a fee. I lost my train of thought... User generated free content is the way to go, it's typically free, typically good, and typically lovingly crafted.

[SaiKar]

My general $1 = 1 hour of entertainment has always treated me pretty well. If a DLC costs 5 bucks, and I think I can get 5 hours of new entertainment out of it (either because it's 5 hours long, or because it adds things to the game that would keep me playing for 5 more hours of renewed interest than I would have gotten bored) then I think it's a fair price. But it can be hard to judge. I'm trying to get to know companies and how fair and complete they make their DLCs... honestly, most everything has come up lacking.

Then again, on the other hand, an IMAX 3D movie costs like 15 bucks, and only lasts 2 hours, so that's a horrible ratio and I put up with *that.* Eh. Well. It's a good rule of thumb.

[Apex]

My general $1 = 1 hour of entertainment has always treated me pretty well. If a DLC costs 5 bucks, and I think I can get 5 hours of new entertainment out of it (either because it's 5 hours long, or because it adds things to the game that would keep me playing for 5 more hours of renewed interest than I would have gotten bored) then I think it's a fair price. But it can be hard to judge. I'm trying to get to know companies and how fair and complete they make their DLCs... honestly, most everything has come up lacking.

Then again, on the other hand, an IMAX 3D movie costs like 15 bucks, and only lasts 2 hours, so that's a horrible ratio and I put up with *that.* Eh. Well. It's a good rule of thumb.

That's a pretty good way of looking at it.

Honestly, thinking back to the days before DLC and digitally distribution, we used to have expansion packs. No one would bother buying a whole separate product unless there was plenty of incentive. Blizzard and Bethesda did a pretty good job, adding large portions to their games, (Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction and Morrowind: Tribunal come to mind.)
I don't think people would have put up with going to Walmart just to buy superficial junk that started around the Horse Armor stunt (Yes, I realize that I praised Bethesda, then blamed them for spearheading the pointless DLC movement. I'm more emphasizing on the era of additional content though.)

[Prpl_Mage]

My general $1 = 1 hour of entertainment has always treated me pretty well.

That's pretty interesting. I made simpler formula when I started playing World of Warcraft. The 60 days play card used to be like $38 (approximately, not sure how much 250kr used to be back then)and I divided it by the number of days I got to play it, turns out it was like 0,63$ a day. Which isn't much.
But anytime I bought something after that, I kinda calculated how many times/ days I would have to use it to make it worth it. Like clothes and shoes and stuff like that as well. Is it a reasonable price to buy a shirt for $50 for a single party? A multiplayer game for $50?

Anyway, based on hours I would say that every pokemon, monster hunter(my 3 ultimate is like 600 hours) and hotseat multiplayers (like mario party, smash, mario kart, tekken, etc) have been worth it. Not as sure about some RPGs I've been playing lately.