june gloom on 9/1/2011 at 02:34
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I think it's perfectly rational to refer to tiny little DLCs that add nothing more than some ePeen-expanding equipment- often unbalancing the game in some way, or on the opposite end being completely fucking useless- as horse armor. It's a meme, but there's a reason for it.
icemann on 9/1/2011 at 08:00
Hate DLC which only adds weapons, items, armors etc. Give me content, not items. Items + content though is fine.
Malf on 9/1/2011 at 08:53
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
It's been 5 years. It was the first DLC, when DLC itself was in its infancy. Can we move on?
It was the first DLC to generate controversy, sure, but I think the first paid-for downloadable extra content for a game was a multiplayer map for Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Ubisoft proving early on that they're pioneers in the art of commercial exploitation and general assholerey.
It's interesting to look at as a study of the recent history of modern videogames; a lot of the most maligned developments have been flagship technologies developed or supported by Ubisoft.
Paid-for multiplayer maps (anathema to the PC gamer), explicit refusal to release development tools to the community in order to promote a commercial product, implementation of Starforce copy protection, and more recently their online cloud-save restricted DRM.
Sure, others do some dipshit things (2K and limited activations, Actard and RealID), but in general, Ubisoft appear to be the company to watch if you want to see what customer-hating idiocy the rest will be adopting in the next few years.
mgeorge on 9/1/2011 at 18:29
Quote Posted by Malf
It was the first DLC to generate controversy, sure, but I think the first paid-for downloadable extra content for a game was a multiplayer map for Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Ubisoft proving early on that they're pioneers in the art of commercial exploitation and general assholerey.
It's interesting to look at as a study of the recent history of modern videogames; a lot of the most maligned developments have been flagship technologies developed or supported by Ubisoft.
Paid-for multiplayer maps (anathema to the PC gamer), explicit refusal to release development tools to the community in order to promote a commercial product, implementation of Starforce copy protection, and more recently their online cloud-save restricted DRM.
Sure, others do some dipshit things (2K and limited activations, Actard and RealID), but in general, Ubisoft appear to be the company to watch if you want to see what customer-hating idiocy the rest will be adopting in the next few years.
Here here! I agree with you 100%. They
are a bunch of dickwads. To bad to because they've made some very good games over the years.
henke on 15/3/2011 at 17:09
I think it's wonderful that The Language Of Videogames has it's own slang. We can all be jivin' bout horse armor and aimbots without the squares gettin hep! :cool:
Dresden on 16/3/2011 at 01:38
Quote Posted by mgeorge
Here here! I agree with you 100%. They
are a bunch of dickwads. To bad to because they've made some very good games over the years.
Like what exactly?
gunsmoke on 16/3/2011 at 01:49
You ARE kidding, right? Wow, if you've yet to enjoy one game in their catalog to date, I feel sorry for you.
Renzatic on 16/3/2011 at 02:06
Hello. I'm an edgy dood on the internet, and I hate everything that's popular.
How ya doin? :thumb:
Jason Moyer on 16/3/2011 at 02:58
Quote Posted by Malf
It was the first DLC to generate controversy, sure, but I think the first paid-for downloadable extra content for a game was a multiplayer map for Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Ubisoft proving early on that they're pioneers in the art of commercial exploitation and general assholerey.
That wasn't even the first Splinter Cell game to have DLC, and DLC predated the xbox anyway.
