Lego Batman 3 Video game

epyon396

Oh, good. Launch day DLC. Guess where you can stick that, Telltale.

Also, worth noting that the DLC isn't coming to Wii U. I know quite a few people around here buy the LEGO games for that console.

Shib

Im not a fan of DLC either, particularly dlc thats available at launch, but still thought the cowl piece looked interesting.

teal93mr2

DLC is great in theory, and poor in execution. $15 for that season pass on top of an already overpriced game???? Count me in when TT finally makes these games online co-op, which will probably be never.

Oh and for some reason, GameStop's website is not showing anything about a pre-order bonus this time. Booooooooo!

legomatt

Oh dear.

Yet more random/different DLC packs (not just a few characters but whole game areas it seems this time) = Not buying it until much much later, when hopefully a special edition with all dlc included is released the following year... and if not, the game itself will be bargain bin by then anyway.

If they're not careful with this new found love of more and more dlc, they might accidentally alienate an audience who until recently were getting just about the full experience of the lego games from day 1 (and were thus buying on day 1), into now not buying the game early (at full rrp) anymore. Then if sales are impacted significantly, they'll start to think the lego games have lost their appeal, not realising it might be the increasing amounts of dlc putting off early adopters, instead of attracting them as designed. Usually DLC is a means to secure pre-orders. But for Lego games, i don't see it working the same way. People will end up abandoning the games if they start feeling they missed out on a character, or will start to hang back and buy later (if dlc's start getting packaged all-in later).

Such a shame to see the lego games go this way. One of the best features of the TT lego games was that everything was included from day one, and you knew that you were missing out on nothing. Now it looks like strategic buying is required to obtain a particular version... and that nagging feeling that whatever version you get, it's not the whole experience.

Not good.

madforLEGO

legomatt said:

Oh dear.

Yet more random/different DLC packs (not just a few characters but whole game areas it seems this time) = Not buying it until much much later, when hopefully a special edition with all dlc included is released the following year... and if not, the game itself will be bargain bin by then anyway.

If they're not careful with this new found love of more and more dlc, they might accidentally alienate an audience who until recently were getting just about the full experience of the lego games from day 1 (and were thus buying on day 1), into now not buying the game early (at full rrp) anymore. Then if sales are impacted significantly, they'll start to think the lego games have lost their appeal, not realising it might be the increasing amounts of dlc putting off early adopters, instead of attracting them as designed. Usually DLC is a means to secure pre-orders. But for Lego games, i don't see it working the same way. People will end up abandoning the games if they start feeling they missed out on a character, or will start to hang back and buy later (if dlc's start getting packaged all-in later).

Such a shame to see the lego games go this way. One of the best features of the TT lego games was that everything was included from day one, and you knew that you were missing out on nothing. Now it looks like strategic buying is required to obtain a particular version... and that nagging feeling that whatever version you get, it's not the whole experience.

Not good.

Personally I would rather have a game where DLC content kept coming out for it and making things fresh and new without buying another game for 49.99 USD, but that is just me I guess.

legomatt

^ Agreed, that's a no brainer for a consumer, which i'd happily see happen if it was genuine ongoing development. But this feels more like taking already-developed stuff back out ahead of release, in order to cash in for a bit more later. It's less about keeping it fresh, and more about stripping it back, in order to milk the audience.

Now, if i switched my Lego LotR on and found 'Update available: Minas Tirith Level', or 'Update: New freeroam features- horses & trolls', to freely download, i'd love it. Who wouldn't?

It's wishful thinking i know, but I wish they would develop games that have sold well with extra stuff to stay fresh - that would feel much more like a genuine 'thanks for your support in making the game a day 1 sales hit, here's some extra stuff we were able to develop because of the extra cashflow'. That might even invigorate sales mid-lifespan, rather than seeing the game sold off cheap.

But when companies have already developed content prior to release, (like movie dvd special editions) it just like sections of a game have been selectively sliced off to be held to ransom. That's not keeping it fresh, it's just purposefully holding stuff back.

I'm all for ongoing development keeping a game fresh, but call me a cynic, i don't feel this is about ongoing development, it feels more like a cash grab (if the dlc is to be paid for, that is), leaving some of the audience with a somewhat 'lighter' game (still great, of course, but lighter all the same) if they don't buy in.

Shib

^I had this exact conversation with someone recently when I said that Nintendo starting to move into DLC made me a bit nervous and they just didn't seem to understand that some game makers deliberately hold stuff back for DLC and DLC available on day one is a prime example.

plasmodium

It's not only day one DLC which bugs me, but pointless DLC. Look at it this way, with examples from my experience. In the Steam Summer Sale, I bought 2 games (with DLC):

1) The Lego Movie video game (with Wild West DLC)
2) The 'complete' editions of Mass Effect 1 & 2

The Lego Movie DLC was completely pointless - four characters and four trousers (ie, abilities) which added nothing to the game and which I (or my brother, with whom I play it) have never used.

The Mass Effect DLC (specifically the 'Bring Down The Sky' DLC for the first - I haven't got onto the 2nd game yet) was brilliant. They added a whole new mission with a mini-story at least 3 side quests, new areas to explore, space bases which were new and interesting (compared to the rather repetitive ones in the original game) and an interesting moral choice for your character to make.

The TLMVG DLC was £.99, and no way worth it. The Mass Effect DLC was effectively free, and yet I would gladly have shelled out several of my hard earned quid for it, because it genuinely added something to the game. DLCs like example Lego does are annoying because they appeal to the completionist in me, and yet I don't really get anything from it.

madforLEGO

legomatt said:

^ Agreed, that's a no brainer for a consumer, which i'd happily see happen if it was genuine ongoing development. But this feels more like taking already-developed stuff back out ahead of release, in order to cash in for a bit more later. It's less about keeping it fresh, and more about stripping it back, in order to milk the audience.

Now, if i switched my Lego LotR on and found 'Update available: Minas Tirith Level', or 'Update: New freeroam features- horses & trolls', to freely download, i'd love it. Who wouldn't?

It's wishful thinking i know, but I wish they would develop games that have sold well with extra stuff to stay fresh - that would feel much more like a genuine 'thanks for your support in making the game a day 1 sales hit, here's some extra stuff we were able to develop because of the extra cashflow'. That might even invigorate sales mid-lifespan, rather than seeing the game sold off cheap.

But when companies have already developed content prior to release, (like movie dvd special editions) it just like sections of a game have been selectively sliced off to be held to ransom. That's not keeping it fresh, it's just purposefully holding stuff back.

I'm all for ongoing development keeping a game fresh, but call me a cynic, i don't feel this is about ongoing development, it feels more like a cash grab (if the dlc is to be paid for, that is), leaving some of the audience with a somewhat 'lighter' game (still great, of course, but lighter all the same) if they don't buy in.

Yeah, I see your point now. I agree if they will use it as a crutch and not to benefit the gamer then it is a waste of the initial 49.99.

However if you can be patient and get the game for 29.99 or 19.99 and get all the DLC then I'm guessing it will not be bad, so really smart gamers will find the way around this and the makers of the games will not make anymore money than if they just added all of this at the beginning.

legomatt

Yeah, as i don't use online features (which is usually the key reason to buy those early - to play with everyone else), my video game buying habits have in recent years been that I would usually wait for the special/budget editions to be released X months behind the crest of the wave. This usually meant a deeply reduced price and often contains all existing DLC for free (and occasionally important game patches too, so no initial-release glitches to contend with).

But with the TT Lego games not (previously) having DLC to wait around for, I usually didn't, and bought it early (or received it as a present). If TTgames are going to start following the industry standard of variable DLC, then i'm probably going to revert to waiting it out to see what happens, like any other release... which could (if my habits reflect any mass market behaviour) result in a reduction in initial sales, the exact opposite of what DLC is meant to encourage.

@plasmodium Are you my secret twin? ;o) I also bought a multi-pack Mass Effect set (complete trilogy) too. All dlc free. I've not played much of them yet, I'd only just started out and then got sidetracked with other stuff, but so very enjoyable.

epyon396

It's interesting to see more people like my buddy Al with the whole "I'll wait a year and grab the $30 version with all of the DLC". I didn't realize that there were so many with that mentality.

I buy games I want on day one, plow through it as fast as humanly possible, getting the platinum trophy on PS3 or PS4, and then sell it online for $40-45 (I pay $48 per game at Best Buy). So it's more like a rental that I keep until I'm completely done with it. DLC interests me exactly 0%, regardless of how substantial.
For example, I'll be done with Destiny by the end of next week, and actually make money from selling it. LEGO Batman 3 should take about 2 or 3 days, if past LEGO games are anything to go by.

Also, feel free to add me on PSN or XBL, my fellow Bricksettians. epyon_396 and epyon396, respectively (who would've guessed?).

Geddes

I was about to ask if there was anyone else playing destiny! I cant understand all the negativity

Shib

legomatt said:

Yeah, as i don't use online features (which is usually the key reason to buy those early - to play with everyone else), my video game buying habits have in recent years been that I would usually wait for the special/budget editions to be released X months behind the crest of the wave. This usually meant a deeply reduced price and often contains all existing DLC for free (and occasionally important game patches too, so no initial-release glitches to contend with).

This is the same mindset I have to most games. I'm only just getting close to buying The Last of Us now that the PS4 version has pushed down the price of the PS3 version. O don't have as much time for computer games as I used to so there's no point in paying a premium for day one in most cases.

plasmodium

legomatt said:

@plasmodium Are you my secret twin? ;o) I also bought a multi-pack Mass Effect set (complete trilogy) too. All dlc free. I've not played much of them yet, I'd only just started out and then got sidetracked with other stuff, but so very enjoyable.

Keep playing @Legomatt - it is an epic game! I'm just lucky that I'm still at uni so I can doss around in the last few weeks of my summer holiday!

I used to live in Africa where there was no Amazon and the internet was too slow to download new games on Steam/Origin/whatever, so I'm just catching up on the best of the last 10 or so years of video games. What I didn't say is that I am also playing through the original Half Life games from 1998 or so as well...

The exception is the TT Lego games - between my brother and I we've managed to stay more or less up to date with those (played all except for the superheroes ones and the Hobbit), but the Lego Movie one was a bit disappointing. Very juniorised, and too much talking - your characters keep talking during levels, telling you what to do, etc.

Speaking of the Hobbit, does anyone yet know how they're adding the third movie in? I heard rumours about it being DLC, but will it be paid or not? I can't imagine many people will be happy if they have to pay to finish their game...

madforLEGO

epyon396 said:

It's interesting to see more people like my buddy Al with the whole "I'll wait a year and grab the $30 version with all of the DLC". I didn't realize that there were so many with that mentality.

I buy games I want on day one, plow through it as fast as humanly possible, getting the platinum trophy on PS3 or PS4, and then sell it online for $40-45 (I pay $48 per game at Best Buy). So it's more like a rental that I keep until I'm completely done with it. DLC interests me exactly 0%, regardless of how substantial.
For example, I'll be done with Destiny by the end of next week, and actually make money from selling it. LEGO Batman 3 should take about 2 or 3 days, if past LEGO games are anything to go by.

Also, feel free to add me on PSN or XBL, my fellow Bricksettians. epyon_396 and epyon396, respectively (who would've guessed?).

All depends on the type of player. I do not plow through games anymore. If I pay 40-50 dollars I want to enjoy it, plus I do not like playing a game until I see the sun come up anymore.
So I'm sure for some, you way listed above works well, but for others I'm also not much of a resell the game kind of person. I still have my dads Atari 2600 and Colecovision from yesteryear, as well as NES, Dreamcast, Genesis, PS2....
Finally I figure that if I decide to sell my console, it will be worth more if I have games with it.

epyon396

^ I've only been doing that since the PS3/360 generation.

Older games are a different story. I don't sell from my personal collection. I have over 900 games spanning the 2600 to N64 :)

legomatt

epyon396 said:

I buy games I want on day one, plow through it as fast as humanly possible, getting the platinum trophy on PS3 or PS4, and then sell it online... So it's more like a rental that I keep until I'm completely done with it. DLC interests me exactly 0%, regardless of how substantial.

I totally understand that approach, it makes perfect (and financial) sense if you can dedicate yourself to it and just want to immediately move on. It just doesn't suit my playing style (plus i like to keep them so that i can go back to them again).

I'm more of a 'soak it all up slowly' sort of person - so it makes sense for me to get an edition with maximum added content where possible - if there's an animated battle in the far distance, or the sun is setting, or a fire burning, or water to be jumped in, or simply a horizon to be stared at, i'll spend ages just basking in that atmosphere, or splashing about and watching the effects (usually in awe). I can spend hours getting nowhere, but just loving the animation/art. Not exactly ideal qualities for roaring through a game. :o)

Shib

oh man, image of Detective Chimp minifigure has been revealed, really wish he would appear in a set, but would be massively surprised if it ever happened!