Bulletstorm Gun Sonata DLC out on consoles now, PC 'soon'
New Echo and multiplayer maps for Bulletstorm are available now on consoles in the $10 first DLC pack, which will launch on PC later.
In February, Epic Games boldly announced a Bulletstorm downloadable content before the game had even launched. That pack, named Gun Sonata, is now available on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 for $9.99 (800 Microsoft Points).
Gun Sonata adds three new arenas for the Anarchy multiplayer mode, along with two new maps for the single-player score attack Echo mode. You also get another two Leash enhancements, the charmingly-named Flamingo and Pulp.
A PC release for Gun Sonata is promised "soon." Hopefully it won't take as long as the Bulletstorm PC demo did, which launched ten weeks after the console edition.
-
Shacknews
replyComment on Bulletstorm Gun Sonata DLC out on consoles now, PC 'soon', by Alice O'Connor.
-
no thanks.
-
-
10 dollars is an insane amount of money? How do you even leave the house or afford the internet?
-
Ok insane amount is a bit excessive but the game isnt worth 60 bucks (Even though I loved ) so to keep charging for more and more little DLCs isn't worth it in my opinion. I am glad I got it on PC for less than that but still charging 10 bucks every time they add something adds up. There is no way I can redeem myself without sounding like an idiot. So just leave with I miss when they added the stuff for free.
-
-
Wake up call: the days of free updates are mostly over, and for good reason.
Years ago a single guy could pretty much single-handedly make an entire expansion pack worth of maps. They didn't require any content other than simple geometry, lighting, and entity placement. Now it takes a whole team of people to make a single level, and the expected level of quality includes custom meshes, and an immensely higher level of detail than before.
All the old companies have had to grow in size ten-fold or more to deliver the level of detail expected by consumers. Costs have ballooned along with that, yet games cost only as much now as they did then. You are getting games for a very reasonable price now.
Shelling out the same amount of money that you'd pay for a meal at Burger King for a set of maps you are going to play for weeks is not asking for much. I'd much rather they release DLC that extends the life or look of the game for a few bucks, then have them skip DLC altogether and have to wait 2 to 3 years for their next major release.-
I think the ideal DLC model is part free, part pay. It extends the life of the game for everyone, and people who might not initially buy DLC might end up caving in later and buying it because the game has been well supported.
I think Killing Floor is an excellent example of this. Free maps, but pay DLC character models. It seems to be a pricing model that has worked very well for them.
Relic did awesome too recently. The released the Dark Angels DLC as a pay option, but simultaneously released the Freebooters and Last Stand DLC's for free.-
Or, you know, you can release a mod tool of your game for public 'consumption', either pay or for free. I know they are in to make money, but why not let the customers do it for you?
You mentioned a lot of DLCs nowadays but failed to mention why mods (majority of them are free) are so important and that is also why a TON of old games are still being played today. Very very little of the modders community actually make a total conversion and get paid for what they are doing (most are doing this on their free time and for the community) and I personally think that is helping the game even further than shelling out DLCs that might create more issues and more things for them to fix (or not fix).
Look at how many maps are out for TF2 that is unofficial, or for any other action games. Heck, Counter strike Source even began as a mod and incorporated maps from modders into the game.
-
-
-
Pretty much this. If you are going to charge money, better make sure they are worth the amount (like Magicka Vietnam..5 bux for an 'expansion' and you only need to buy one copy and you can play the game with three other people that dont have the DLC).
I sincerely hope one day stupid overpriced DLCs (like map packs or costumes, etc) is over.
-
-
You're wrong, they're just greedy!
-
-
-
The problem isn't $10 DLC.
The problem is that they charge you $60 for a game that can be beaten in 1 [fairly long] sitting, and then release 1 lackluster DLC pack for $10 for something that'd be released free years ago.
The article says it right there: Epic announced DLC before the game was even released. Does that not scream greed to you? Clearly they had time to work on more content before putting the game out for launch, but they blatantly chose to withhold adding stuff to the game so they could instead put a fancy name on it and charge you $10 more shortly after the game is sold.
DLC is the plague that's killing a lot of could-be-great games. Developers would rather skimp on a title, push it out the door as fast as possible, and then charge you $10 for a marginal amount of effort after that.
Activision is doing a wonderful job of that with COD.-
[deleted]
-
Quantity doesn't equal Quality. No one wants a 40 hour campaign for COD, but for the type of game it is, I'd say COD had a ton of content at release. Enough content for most people to get to at least Prestige 1, which is a good chunk of gameplay hours per dollar.
No, Epic announcing DLC right away isn't greed. It's showing they are going to offer content updates soon after release. I don't care when they started working on them. I'd much rather have DLC options very soon then wait months or years for an expansion pack to come out that costs 3x the price of DLC.
DLC is the lifeblood that will allow less companies to fold due to the old dynamic of banking on one income-generating product every few years.
The financial reality for most game developers is incredibly bleak. If they can release timely, periodic content that is optional to consumers, but is successful (as most DLC is), and keeps them afloat and making more games in the future -- then i am all for it.
If Thief had DLC, who knows...maybe Looking Glass would still be around, and if COD didn't have DLC, they'd be just looking to other ways of getting more money from players.
I for one will continue to buy cosmetic DLC for games I like (Killing Floor, Retribution, etc). I dig customizing my look in games, and I am more than happy to pay for it because I see the money going toward a good cause (the developer's ability to provide more entertaininment in the future) -
Do you not understand that a game gets 100% locked down and content creation teams must stop working on a game weeks or sometimes months before a game actually ships? And that it is very, very common to just lay those workers off? Having more content created while the game is in the certification/shipping process keeps those people working and it puts more game content out there for you to play. So really just stop it.
-
Announcing DLC before release is common practice and not a bad thing in and of itself. Releasing a console game takes a long time after it's finished because it needs to go through validation, going gold, etc. During that time they work on DLC, which they may or may not be able to finish by launch but either way that work is not part of what you paid for.
The price is shitty though, as is typical of most DLC. The value per-dollar is just poor relative to what you paid for the full game. They price it to what the hardcore fans will pay and everybody else simply doesn't get to play it. It's especially terrible in multiplayer games where DLC maps and game modes fragment the community. -
[deleted]
-
funny, then, how Valve and other devs manage to stay in business with free DLC and updates... even before steam was around. 15$ for 3 multiplayer maps? thats greed, my friend. you can justify it however you want but its a horrible practice to keep a company in business - especially when they nerf a game or cut out parts that they promised, only to release them in DLC a week or two after shipping (Mafia 2) 5 hr singleplayer game @ $60 then a few maps here and there for $15... sounds like they figured out how to stay afloat alright.. at the expense of gullible wallets.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
No, he didnt actually address the difference between now and how costs have skyrocketed. Ironhorse86 mentioned Steam and even right now Steam is giving away contents for free for their games. They do give the option to buy but you can still get it for free.
You might not remember L4D2 (which was not so long ago) and how it got free content updates (on PC only), including two (or more) free 'expansion' pack (two totally new campaign levels/maps). So yes, it is funny how they can still be alive and doing very well. They have L4D, HL2, Portal, and even TF2 which is still played to this day and they keep getting contents (either from Steam or community) in almost a daily basis.
Besides that, us as gamers want to see the game stay alive, right? Well, like I said, do what Steam does. Give mod tools (or sell, I'm sure community will be fine). Have you seen how many maps are out there for free from modders who meticulously made them and not charge them? Heck, I'm actually replaying Max Payne 2 again last night with the total conversion mod just for the heck of it.
Yes, cost of game development may have tripled or more nowadays, but I hope you realize the quality actually has gone down. With that amount of programmers/engineers working on the same game, how can they still ship the game with bugs and have to really 'sell' updates/patches so that the game can work as intended? That's just shame. I understand the game is getting more complicated (maybe some are not), but dont you deserve a complete, fully working game when you spend $50 or $60++ on the game? I think you and everyone else here does.
-
[deleted]
-
See, I'm not asking a company or group of people to work for free, I know the industry has changed, I worked in it myself once. You say games has becoming more complicated, it is not necessarily so. The technology behind it? Maybe, and this is if the developers are trying to push the boundary, but how many are there left?
We saw a lot of games using the same recycled engine (FPS: COD since MW, any 3rd/1st person action: Unreal engine), and really, is the formula behind the gameplay that difference than any other games? I enjoyed Bulletstorm but I'm also feeling like I've seen this shooter before (it has that Gears of War in first person vibe to it). I'm not saying there are lack of originality, but just compare some of the newer games with the older ones. I believe you can see the difference in quality and length of the gameplay (Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2, Total War Series, Splinter Cell series, aw hell, Dragon Age series, add some more that I cant think of right now). My point is just that you are right, we have more people working or developing games right now compared to before, but with that increase of team member, is it wrong for the customers to expect higher quality product? Of course not.
In regards to DLC, well, here is the thing: I personally just dont like the idea. I despise it even more when the company doing it blatantly cut content off from the game so that you can get a 'whole' game later. Case in point? Mafia 2. You will see article that the end product is really nothing like the writer has intended. Compare it with Mafia 1.
Why Valve is not a good example to use for this? They are a valid PC developer (now multiplatform). The fact that they have only limited resources (aka developers/engineers) even further strengthen the argument that companies (with the right strategy) still CAN provide content after release and still making money and they do have quite big library of games. Another example would be CD Projekt. Another example again would be THQ (to some extent). Another example again I know would be Blue Byte and Related Designs. There are quite a lot actually, and even though some of them are not grade AAA developers, they still do provide quite exciting contents/updates without having to charge it.
It's quite a long post, but the only point I'm trying to say is that I understand the industry has changed, but it may not be for the better. I'm not expecting all companies to follow suit and provide free DLCs, but at least if they have plans on releasing DLC (or expansion is what it used to be called), make sure the amount of work put and fee is feasible for the customers. Putting out 4-5 map packs that the community perhaps can whip in a week and charging 15 bux is, in my opinion, not worth the trouble. Putting out a whole new story expansion or totally new game modes or like I said, a modkit tool, and charging for it reasonably is definitely better.
-
-
1) Name one instance where a developer has charged for a patch, as you claim they are.
2) Show me a piece of software, game or otherwise, that is released with no bugs whatsoever and maybe your argument will have merit.-
You might miss the quote when I said sell. I read it again and definitely it causes confusion. What I mean is that some companies are trying to sell the product based on the patches that they will put out because the game currently is not working as intended. I know that customers already buying it will surely get it, and yes, for free. I do not have an example of companies charging for patch unless you see MMORPG patches as paid patches. :) Examples? Oh, I dont know. To some extent Civilization 5 and Elemental.
I assume you played a lot of games, but when you play games like Half Life 2 (aside from the original trouble activating the game via Steam), Sins of Solar Empire, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, do you think they need patches or have glaring game-breaking issues? I dont think so. Also, who doesnt want to have a game or piece of software that is bug free? I know I do but I dont live in a dream world. I think what we want is to have a game that when released is playable as intended and do not require any super big patches because it is crashing/freezing/glitching like most recent games.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
I don't care for what DLC's done to the landscape either, but I respect that developers are businesses who need to stay in business. I think 0-day DLC is a good way to discourage used sales (or at least get a cut down the line). I don't like how too frequently, the DLC is nickel-and-diming stuff that's using in-game assets, or is unlocking shit already on the disc.
-
[deleted]
-
-
Jesus fucking christ, lol.
-
-
I remember when People Can Fly and Epic were PC developers. Isn't it funny how Epic's still one of the leads on the alliance that wants to manage PC gaming?
Then again, in a world where a Crytek PC game can start up with, "Press start," you really can't expect any high end PC developers to exist, right?
Can it run Crysis? No? Can it at least run Crysis 2? -
-
Isn't Borderlands GOTY just the base retail game with 4 download codes?
-
I wish Borderlands had more DLC. 3 of the 4 Addon's where fantastic (Ned, Knoxx and Claptrap).
-
-
