Borderlands 2 'Add-On Pack' coming February 26
Borderlands 2 is packaging together the first two expansions along with various other bits of downloadable content for a disc-based "Add-On Content Pack." It's coming to consoles on February 26 for $29.99.
Like Borderlands before it, Borderlands 2 is getting various bits and bobs of downloadable content bundled together into a single disc-based add-on pack. The "Borderlands 2 Add-On Content Pack" will be available for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on February 26, at a price of $29.99.
The set packs together the first two major expansions, Captain Scarlett and Her Pirate's Booty and Mr. Torgue's Campaign of Carnage. Plus it includes Gaige the Mechromancer (who was also a pre-order bonus), the Creature Slaughter Dome battle arena with Mad Moxxi's rocket launcher as a prize, the Gearbox Gun Pack and Skyrocket Grenade, additional heads and skins, and an extra Golden Key. All-in-all Gearbox claims it's $40 worth of content for a cool thirty bucks, which isn't half bad if you missed the content when it was being sold a la carte.
The most recent add-on, Sir Hammerlock's Big Game Hunt isn't included, nor is (obviously) the upcoming fourth expansion that is still unnamed. We wouldn't be surprised to see those two wrapped up with some extra goodies for some future disc-based set too.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Borderlands 2 'Add-On Pack' coming February 26.
Borderlands 2 is packaging together the first two expansions along with various other bits of downloadable content for a disc-based "Add-On Content Pack." It's coming to consoles on February 26 for $29.99.-
in the end you pay 100 dollars for a single game, no thanks.
-
-
[deleted]
-
DLC is fine so long as its optional. You make the game and we buy it and then you make more of the game and we can buy that too if we want.
The problem is people can't separate the idea that DLC is a separate affair. You find out that a game plans DLC from day one and you think that they basically broke out the game into sections and they're only releasing part of it and then making you pay extra for the rest. Maybe, but maybe the original game is complete and then the DLC really is just more missions.
Of course then you find DLC that's for a console game and already on the disc. That's a little dodgy. That really does smack more of "we decided to make you pay for more of the game later"
Really I think what we're seeing here is that games need to be more expensive to cover the costs in making them and the profit margins the companies need or want to maintain and they know that just raising the price won't cut it. In the food industry if you want to eat cheap you go to McDonald's but if you want to spend more there's no limit to what you can do - there's restaurants out there with $1,000 cheeseburgers if you're interested. But if you try to charge $100 for a game no one will buy it so you need to think of a way to charge $100 for the people willing to pay more. Price segmentation. If they didn't target a market notorious for having Internet OCD this wouldn't be such a big deal.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
they kind of were. A game came out, you bought it, and it was the same game that everyone else had, the same experience that everyone got. It was complete for what it was (unlike say mass effect 3, where it appears crucial story is relegated to DLC)
There weren't any ingame adverts to try to up-sell you extra things (expect for monkey island trying to sell Loom... you bastards ;)
Even more relevant, multiplayer was more cohesive, you didn't have new maps and game modes coming out every three month, you had the base game, and maybe an expansion; So you community and servers were not fragmented.
-
They were also:
- Much simpler affairs
- Easier and less expensive to make
- Products of a smaller industry with less competition and smaller teams
- Incapable of fixing anything due to nature (those bugs in Super Mario Bros. were just there forever dammit)
- Much less likely to lower in price (remember when a game stayed $50 forever?)
- Products of an era without Steam sales
Also, how far back are you going that multiplayer wasn't more fragmented than it is now? Every time a new version of Quake 3 came out it splintered the server community further. Steam now forces everyone to be in sync and we're the better for it.-
at least patches are free. I look at the BF3 servers, at there's like 4 different DLCs and server can be running any combination of them. It's pretty horrible.
As for Steam, I really dislike that they don't let the user select which patches to apply. 99% of the time you want to be up to date, but sometimes a patch horrible breaks something, and you'd rather use an older version.-
-
Even then, sometimes they tweak the hell out of gameplay in a patch that changes gameplay unfavorable.
I remember back in the counter-strike days, there were certain version that everyone was still playing despite newer versions being out.
I'd much rather have control, maybe like a versioning system like Apple's time machine, so you could go forward and backwards with patches.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
and by far the worst is the prevalence of pre-order DLC (not something total unique to modern gaming, but much more common today)
semi-related:
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
-
-
[deleted]
-
(unsarcastically) yeah why can't we?
-
Borderlands 2 has quite a bit of original game. Probably at least 30ish hours between the two playthroughs. That is more than some games give you. Plus none of the DLC they put out is essential to the game unlike some other games which will put some important backstory into DLC. So ya, not really seeing the problem here. If you don't feel that the original purchase was worth it then don't buy the DLC.
There is my reasonable reply to a bad front-page post for the month
-
-
