Mercenaries 2 demo, DLC planned News

oh noes, DLC again =(

As long as the core game is good, DLC doesn't bother me. I can take it or leave it.

When they shiv the core game to make DLC possible, THAT fucks me off.

I hate the way developers are using downloadable content. If it is already working at this stage in development then it should be included in the retail version of the game. Downloadable content should allow developers to create extra content for a game after release, if the game is popular.

Cheeky bastards. Nice to see EA's influence working wonders at Pandemic.

my concern is that new style of 'we remove elements of the game to make it DLC'.

I don't care if they had DLC done AFTER the game is out, as long as it's a bonus, not a deliberated marketing plan to get out hard earned bucks

The DLC is already up and running and not included in the game, WTF??!!

I'm not convinced about this game from what I've seen of it in the form of (early) gameplay videos from last year (which looked very flaky) and the recent trailer so I'm pleased I'll be able to try a demo of it. Looks very generic and uninspired to me though, beyond the ability to blow everything up (wow!) and, actually, it reminds me a lot of the so-so Just Cause. Hopefully it isn't as boring...

I'm guessing the DLC will be skins for your character rather than anything major.

So then the DLC is free.. right?

Like has been said, if it's added later as new content to keep the game going, then great! if it's held back intentionally so they can make us buy it then.. Sorry, but I wish developers would realise that gamers aren't this stupid.

With GTA and Saints Row coming out realtively close, I can't say I'm particularly interested in this at the moment, I bought the first game after hearing all the hype and was rather disappointed. I'm glad they're putting up a demo at least.

Sorry, but I wish developers would realise that gamers aren't this stupid.

But gamers clearly are that stupid, or they wouldn't do it.

DLC is already up and running? Surely i'm just reading that out of context?

.....Or is this another Gotham 2 as in ''we'll put it on the disk and you pay to unlock it'' or better yet, its all done and there just leaving it off the disk!

DLC free erm, I can only see burnout to have the devs take care of us. At least what they say, they might change their mind to charge it when they'll release it.

It's possible that the DLC is too big to fit on the disc... remember this game has to fit on a DVD with 7.2 GB of usable space for the 360 version... ;)

DLC free erm, I can only see burnout to have the devs take care of us. At least what they say, they might change their mind to charge it when they'll release it.

Hundreds of games on the PC have free DLC. But 360 gamers seem to have embraced high cost, poor value DLC and sites like EG have given it an easy ride, and so that's now becoming the norm.

Why not put that DLC, you know, on the disc. FFS I am really getting tired of companies swindling me by holding content back for DLC and then trying to claim its added value.

I am a big fan of Mercs too, this is the game that pushed me to get one of these consoles, I can deal with the endless delays but this DLC nonsense is pissing me off. No doubt EA is a driving force in this crap.

IF IT'S WORKING BEFORE RELEASE IT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC YOU THIEVING RATBAGS.

I hate the way developers are using downloadable content. If it is already working at this stage in development then it should be included in the retail version of the game. Downloadable content should allow developers to create extra content for a game after release, if the game is popular.

QFE, +1, this, and what he said.

Buy our game, then buy this extra bit to actually get all of the game!

DLC on release is a ridiculous, money-grubbing concept.

Add me to the "why isn't the DLC on the fucking disc then?" list. Nice to see that John guy's "brand new EA" are nothing more than money grabbing cunts looking to extort it's customer base. Like he said before, it's what their customers deserve. I'm going back to the second hand market on EA products me thinks.

DLC is fine if it's worked on AFTER the game is out...but planning it beforehand? Couldn't it just go in the game already?

Do any of you have any concept of what a 'budget' is? Devs don't just make a bunch of content and then decide how to divvy it up. And they don't have staff sitting round twiddling their thumbs instead of working on your "Oh why didn't they put X in" feature. If it wasn't for the projected revenue of the DLC, the DLC features wouldn't be being made.

What I do is look at the game and see if it's worth the money. If it isn't, I don't buy it. Then I do the same thing with the DLC. If it isn't worth the money, I don't buy it. At no point in this process do I imagine that someone is somehow stealing something off me.

When they made all three LOTR films at the same time but then made you buy them separately, did that upset you all as well? What about when Telltale makes 6 episodes of Sam and Max and then charges you for each one individually instead of giving you all six for free, does that make your blood boil too?

Sorry Plug but I think you're on your own there. And you used the worst possible examples to get your point across. Comparing this to the three Lord of the Rings movies? Are you trying to say they should have released a 9 hour movie in the cinema? You could have at least compared the special edition versions to the originals.

And Sam and Max was a venture into episodic releases, which is completely different to DLC for a full game.

DLC should reflect how successful the retail version of the game was. If it sells massively it makes sense to put a lot of effort into the DLC and charge accordingly. If a game sells a reasonable amount, then put the appropriate resources into creating some DLC. And if the game sells nothing, forget about DLC.

Of course it is always up to the consumer whether to buy or not, but in this case they are obviously creating the DLC alongside the game so in my opinion, should be included in the game. Then after the game is released, listen to the feedback and create something the people who bought the game actually want.

If the ''budget'' allows them to have it up and running at this stage, before the game is out, then it should be on the disc period.

So basically no, then. You don't understand what a 'budget' is. OK. I think I'll leave it there.

I mean, I could announce the the idea of a movie sequel is 'ideally' to build on the success of the first film, and so if they're filming both at the same time that suddenly means they're stealing off me, but it wouldn't make it any more true than the rest of the crap trotted out on this thread.

"I hate the way developers are using downloadable content. If it is already working at this stage in development then it should be included in the retail version of the game. Downloadable content should allow developers to create extra content for a game after release, if the game is popular."

Absolutely agree, this new trend is outrageous. If this gen was a Friends episode it'd be called "The one where the consumers get shafted"

I'm sure they're saying they've got the means to deploy stuff implemented internally, and it works in their test environment. Make something -> it integrates properly into the game.

TuftyMcTavish: I was just about to make the same comment. Darn you! :)

Let’s just pretend for a moment that I run a games development studio. I have an idea for a game. I take this idea and I pitch it to a publisher, and they like it! They predict it will sell n thousand units and so they give me a budget of x to make it. I take this x and I work out all the features I need to include to make my game, and I work out how long they will take and the headcount I will need to complete them in time. I compare that to my budget, and it won’t fit, so I cut some of the less critical features; and I hire my staff and schedule their work and off we go.

But games now go beyond the boxed product. There is a second revenue stream now open to me – DLC. So! I go back to my publisher with my DLC pitch, and they like that too! What’s more, I get to resurrect some of the features I had to cut from the main game because I didn’t have enough cash to make them all! Hurray! They predict I will sell m thousand units and give me a budget of y. I hire a few more staff and set them to working on the DLC. The sun shines, the birds sing, all is well in the world.

Then I foolishly stumble onto an internet forum, where a bunch of 'experts' are basically calling me a thief because apparently the people I hired using budget ‘y’ would still somehow have been working for me creating content even if I hadn’t been given any money to hire them with, and because the main game and the DLC are being worked on simultaneously, I have to include the DLC on the disk for free and somehow all the numbers will still add up and I won’t go out of business.

I log off thanking my lucky stars I don’t have a second game in development at the same time, as apparently by the same logic, if I have the budget to be making it, I should be including it with the other game for free as well. Or something.

DLC=More revenue=More budget=More content. It's really not that complicated an equation.

Bend over and take whatever EA gives you, like a good boy.

I really do love all the anti EA rhetoric on this forum. It genuinely makes me chuckle. Like Activision and Ubisoft are just in it for the fucking love, man!. Or like Pandemic weren’t ever planning to do DLC until the evil EA overlords came during the night and kidnapped all their children. They're all just big corporations. Big corporations sometimes do bad things for money. It's their job.

The point I'm making isn't that this DLC is going to be good, or that there aren't some publishers out there taking the piss with horse armour and shit. The point is that just because the two are being developed simultaneously that DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE DLC. It just doesn't. Some games are rip offs, so don't buy them. Some DLC is a rip off, so don't buy it. Whether or not the DLC is developed before, during or after the main project makes absolutely not one single jot of difference to this situation. You can have rip off DLC developed after the main project, you can have really cool valuable DLC developed during the main project. I don't see why the timescale is such a big area of contention.

@ PlugMonkey

While your rant makes perfect sense, don't forget that this is coming from a company who seems to be notorious for screwing over its fans. Not to mention that it's just off the cuff of the whole Battlefield incident.

I agree that most of these devs and pubs are just or nearly as bad, but I think it's hard to deny that EA takes the money-grubbing cake. Coming from the 2nd largest publisher in the world, it doesn't send a good signal to anyone else. If EA were Microsoft, they'd charge you $200 to fix your RRoD. :)

Basically, time and time again EA has shown that it will go out of its way to charge for content that people feel should come with the game. The fact that they'd announce that the DLC is already "up and running" months before the full game is supposed to ship shows that EA isn't really in touch with gamers or how they interpret things, and that's pretty sad.

While your rant makes perfect sense, don't forget that this is coming from a company who seems to be notorious for screwing over its fans.

Who, Pandemic? Unless you seriously believe that in the last couple of months EA have steamed in there and railroaded them into doing some cheap-assed rip-off DLC against their will? The EA bile on here is getting seriously out of hand. They're no worse than anyone else. I mean, take the Xbox exclusive DLC for GTA IV - you think work hasn't started on that yet? It's probably on the disc. But where's the Rockstar bile? All I see is people saying "I'll probably go for the 360 version for the DLC!!" and rightly so in my opinion.

If the game's worth the £40 and the DLC's worth whatever they ask for it, then what's the problem? If MS hadn't forked out for them to make it, it wouldn't exist, and the revenue was always going to be DLC.

I'm not saying there isn't crap rip-off DLC - that would be the same as saying there are no crap rip-off games - I just think we should be judging it based on the content and the price not on when it's being made.

If, as Tiste says, they've stripped the 2nd half of the game out to sell it back to you again, then by all mean complain. But at the moment, all people know is that the team working on it have already got it working and the reaction to that information is ridiculous. Is it really so bad if they've thought about it a bit beforehand instead of tacking it on at the end?

@ PlugMonkey

Well, you make it hard to reply when you disregarded 99% of my comment...