Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kuzu last won the day on April 15

Kuzu had the most liked content!

About Kuzu

  • Rank
    Rougher than the Rest of them
  • Birthday 05/09/1993

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Vadeo games, Animu, The piano, Biking, tvtropes(fuck that site).
  • Gender
  • Country
    United States
  • Location
    Za Warudo

Contact Methods

  • PSN
  • Skype
  • Steam
  • Twitter
  • NNID

Recent Profile Visitors

225,795 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by Kuzu

  1. The same people complaining about DLC are the same ones who would have gladly thrown $60 for a remake of a game from 2006, just saying.

    1. Kuzu


      Note: This does not include people on this site.

    2. Tarnish


      Well, a good remake of a good game vs $5 or more for a weapon or something stupid...I know which sounds less insulting to me.

    3. Legendary Emerald

      Legendary Emerald

      Not me, because I never bought the game to begin with and never plan to. I'll still complain about shitty DLC practices wherever they occur.

    4. Kuzu


      @Tarnish The main point is that people will support shitty practices that they complain about and then turn around and support the same practices if it suits them.

      This is why devs feel they can get away with this because consumers are fickle when it comes to their beliefs.


      This isn't a call out or anything, but merely an observation of a phenomenon I've noticed. 

    5. Ryannumber1gamer
    6. Tarnish


      @KuzuI'm not a fan of remakes at all, but I still think they're way less shitty of a practice than carving a game into a million pieces and selling it back in bite sizes. I don't think remakes and the different types of DLC are even in the same level of shitty practices.

      Remakes are mostly just lazy, DLCs (depending on which type) are slimy monetization tactics.

    7. Thigolf


      I have no idea how this is even comparable tbh

    8. Kuzu


      A remake is, by definition,  a game that you have already bought, played, and beaten but dolled up with additional content.

      Like you said, it's pretty lazy. Now whether it's worse than DLC depends on the person but they're both trying to squeeze money out of you at the end of the day.

      The only difference is that with a remake, you know what you're in for...or at least you have an idea that you'll like it. With DLC, it's a gamble and it's not guaranteed that you'll like it. 

      I can at least understand that because nobody wants to spend their own money on stuff that they may not enjoy versus what they know they will enjoy, so remake would be the lesser of two evils here.

    9. Tarnish


      Well it depends, a remake doesn't necessarlity mean you have the original game. Maybe you just heard about the original game, was contemplating of buying it, but then you heard of the remake and decided to buy that one instead.

      With DLC, you can't just buy the DLC, you have to obviously buy the base game first so you can have the 'privilige' of spending more money. With DLC, the 'Sunk cost fallacy' can be in play, thinking "Well, I already paid for the base game, might as well spend a bit more to get that item I really want that's DLC only". With a remake, that's not the case.

      Unless of course, a remake has DLC...now THAT'S super shitty...

    10. Thigolf


      I feel like "Releasing a game again 15 years later, completely remade, for you to (re)experience" is way, WAY less egregious than "Dumping interesting stuff that should've been in the game in the first place into the game half a year later for 30 bucks"

      You're acting like they would've just dumped the DS graphics of D/P/P on Switch and slapped a 60 dollar price tag on it.

    11. Ryannumber1gamer


      Not really, that would be a remaster. Trying to compare something like Resi 2 Remake, and Resi 2 original, and act like you would be silly to buy the remake is kinda wrong, at least from the viewpoint of "you bought this in the past, therefore you're wasting money buying this".

      A remake will typically overhaul the graphical style, add new gameplay mechanics potentially, add new substantial content, update the game in a meaningful way, usually employing new modern mechanics in order to fix issues the game previously had. A remake is a substantial redevelopment process that can take up the entire budget of a regular game development. That's nowhere as comparable, and the closer comparison you'd want is either a port, or a remaster.

      Not that it really excuses Game Freak either way. It's pretty fucking shitty to rush out their first major console title, and then ask for another £30 DLC on top of it to make the experience meaningful and fun, especially only two months after the fact. At that rate, it probably should've been delayed and packaged in, instead of holding it out to squeeze more money out of people to get a good experience from a long-awaited title. I don't even give a shit about Pokemon, and I can see where people are coming from with being annoyed at the DLC price.

    12. Kuzu


      But then that's a slippery slope; you're saying tons of development goes into remakes, but you could literally say the same about DLC too.

      I feel this goes back to people's inherent distaste of DLC, because the logic being used here is "it should have been there to begin with" but that ignores things like deadlines and the like.

      There's no guarantee that they were already working on the DLC after the initial game was sold, and pushing games back is huge risk involved.

    13. Thigolf


      I don't have a distaste for DLC. If I feel like the game was well worth its money, I couldn't care less if they add to it with more DLC. I approve, even. Smash is a great example.

      But when you crap out a game with straight lines and barely anything to do for 60 bucks, you bet your ass I'm gonna be miffed that things that look way more interesting than anything in the game for 30 additional bucks. I'm not a shareholder, I don't care if the game has to be out on a certain point. I care about the end product. And if it feels like you sold me a half-finished game and come back two months later and go "Please buy the rest", I'm gonna say so. 

      If I get a great meal for a good price and someone offers me amazing dessert for additional cost, of course I'm down. If someone throws me a tray of cafeteria food for the same price and then shows me a decent looking meal but if I have to pay even more, why should I be happy about that? 

      Also, pushing back Pokemon being a risk? Come on.

    14. Kuzu


      Then that honestly comes down to personal taste; what makes a "complete" game will vary from person to person, because as plain as day, plenty of people were satisfied with SwSh for what they were.

      About the only thing here I can agree with is that cutting the Pokemon and selling them later is indeed very questionable, I'm not going to question that. 


      And yes, pushing Pokemon back is a risk because it means you need to delay the associated merchnand products that come with each new generation. Game devs only have a limited number of resources and limited time to work with before a product is finished because they need to sell for the holiday season.

      I'm not saying that to justify the practice, but there is a business aspect here that goes over people's heads when discussing this.


      I don't really have any more to add to this as it seems we've reached two different conclusions: all I can say is that people aren't obligated to buy DLC and can just as easily ignore it until something worth the money comes along.

  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.