Jump to content
Detective Kaito

Sonic Forces Super Sonic DLC Will Be Free Forever

Recommended Posts

I don’t get how you find it ridiculous if it’s effective... like you’re not on some moral high ground if you argue against acting like this. These are shitty company’s that don’t care ultimately. I don’t get why this is unreasonable or the equivalent to beating someone up. It’s also valid criticism to do this? Like, serious what are you wanting exactly if in your mind anger isn’t the same or can’t exist with valid criticism 

like, you keep divorcing these two because you personally like to always be positive towards companies vs negative.

Also given your stances on many issues within the gaming industry, yeah you probably wouldn’t be a fan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I don’t get how you find it ridiculous if it’s effective... like you’re not on some moral high ground if you argue against acting like this. These are shitty company’s that don’t care ultimately. I don’t get why this is unreasonable or the equivalent to beating someone up. It’s also valid criticism to do this? Like, serious what are you wanting exactly if in your mind anger isn’t the same or can’t exist with valid criticism 

like, you keep divorcing these two because you personally like to always be positive towards companies vs negative.

...I don't like to always be positive towards companies. Not in the slightest. If a company does something shitty, then I'm gonna think that they did something shitty. But... that's it. I've never been of the mindset that if a game company does something I don't like, that automatically means they need to stop or change it to appease me. Nor do I feel the need to mock/degrade/shit all over the company and the people who work there.

I don't see what they did with Super Sonic DLC as being that big of a deal. Period. Was it something worthy of criticism? Yes, of course. Was it worthy of outrage? In my opinion, no.

I don't think we're really gonna get anywhere further with this discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have left to say CrystalStorm is maybe read the room a bit better in future then.  If you're saying Sonic fans are overreacting or being too angry in this thread, where that isn't happening, people are going to assume you're overreacting to whatever reactions people are having in this thread.

I'd also say this isn't really an issue that requires careful, considerate, constructive criticism of SEGA's actions either.  "This is shit, don't do this" is pretty much everything that needs to be said, and if people feel they need to be more colourful with how they say that to get across just how much they mean it, then that's fair enough.  But I don't think there's any need to desire more nuance than "this is shit, don't do this".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not anger was the right word (though I did sense some anger in some posts in the other topic), it wasn’t the only thing. There was a lot of overreaction and WTF levels of complaining and people not acting reasonable, and I often associate those things with anger, and whether or not that is the case, which it might not be for some, those other things were there on that other topic. It is definitely not a good way to spend energy. Like I said, there are better ways of handling it. That is all I am saying. Now, some people were being reasonable on that other topic, but from what I saw, not everyone was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

You are sounding extremely condescending in this thread and this needs to stop. And you have little to no place for criticizing others for what you perceive to be overreacting about Sega after immediately saying things like,

 

Calm down, Sean. There was no harm intended. Plus, I wasn't trying to sound condescending. I had my own reason for saying the things the way I said it, but nothing harmful. Plus, I I am sure that EA thing was just a little thing. I only said that because I heard EA was evil. Not much other than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you just quit trying to tell people to "calm down" because it looks a lot less like you want to have a levelheaded conversation and you just want people to shut up and stop picking on poor little Sega.

 

10 minutes ago, CrystalStorm51 said:

Plus, I I am sure that EA thing was just a little thing. I only said that because I heard EA was evil. Not much other than that.

lolno

22 hours ago, CrystalStorm51 said:

You do realize that EA is evil, right? Like they listen to anything, and to any possible thing they did listen to, it probably wasn't because they were thinking of/cared for the fans, but more so of being annoyed or just couldn't take the criticism anymore.

 

If you think it's okay to spout hearsay about one company (since by your own admission you only heard this was the case and did no investigation yourself), which by your logic means it applies to everyone working at EA, then Sega is fair game--especially when people have something right in front of them to criticize them for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Aaron Webber confirmed on the stream today that Super Sonic was never planned to be in the base game, and was added late in development specifically to be an extra thing for DLC. I’m sure that doesn’t matter to some of you, but he did confirm that they weren’t withholding a standard feature of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kellan said:

So, Aaron Webber confirmed on the stream today that Super Sonic was never planned to be in the base game, and was added late in development specifically to be an extra thing for DLC. I’m sure that doesn’t matter to some of you, but he did confirm that they weren’t withholding a standard feature of the game.

Given Super Sonic literally was in the base game though, that doesn't exactly mean much. They were still planning to charge for on-disc content, which is still pretty naff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Super Sonic mentioned in the day-one patch notes? I can understand it's a bit of an afterthought (which is exactly what it looks and plays like), but... yeah, they were still going to charge for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

Given Super Sonic literally was in the base game though, that doesn't exactly mean much. They were still planning to charge for on-disc content, which is still pretty naff.

 

3 minutes ago, Zaysho said:

Wasn't Super Sonic mentioned in the day-one patch notes? I can understand it's a bit of an afterthought (which is exactly what it looks and plays like), but... yeah, they were still going to charge for it.

I looked it up, and yes, it was in the patch-notes for the first update. So, I assume that means it wasn’t in the base game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jango said:

On disk DLC, everyone's favorite. Aw, SEGA... why, tho'? You we're so cool years ago...

Well, no, it wasn’t on-disc. I’m not trying to defend this, or attack it for that matter, but based on the first update’s patch notes, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that it was on-disc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is being part of a free patch not essentially the exact same thing? People keep pointing out these semantics as though it's a distinction with any actual meaning, but it still doesn't change the fact that the data was already on the player's system when they sectioned it off with the intention of making it paid DLC, which is the core essence of the "on disc DLC" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super Smash Bros. did the same thing to enable support for matching against opponents online with certain DLC characters or stages even if you don't own them yourself. The actual purchased DLC amounted to a few kilobytes or so. Including DLC content in patches isn't entirely unheard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for one, doesn’t most DLC get put on the system a little bit before it becomes available to purchase. Like, I follow a lot of fighting games, and I think I remember always hearing about how the new character that’s about to go live is already in the game. Sometimes players would even get access to the characters early through hacking or glitches. When Jason got added to Mortal Kombat, I remember personally accessing the character by starting practice mode, opening and closing Netflix on the PlayStation, and reopening the game. (I’m not sure where I’m going with this tangent. Uhh…)

Anyway, I thought that the reason people didn’t like on-disc DLC was because it implied that the developers didn’t put any extra effort into making the extra content, and therefore were just being greedy by asking for more money.

 

Edit: Oh, Sean posted before I did. Just to be clear, this was intended to be a reply to Jango.

Edited by Kellan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

Super Smash Bros. did the same thing to enable support for matching against opponents online with certain DLC characters or stages even if you don't own them yourself. The actual purchased DLC amounted to a few kilobytes or so. Including DLC content in patches isn't entirely unheard of.

To be honest I don't entirely agree with Smash's usage of the concept either, but at the very least I can see sound reasoning for it - in a multiplayer fighting game it essentially splits players into two different crowds that have no way of interacting with each other without it, disadvantaging people who have no intention of playing more than the base game and the people who paid for more at the same time by splitting the player base. You might notice that Forces is neither multiplayer nor a fighting game, so that excuse doesn't really fly, leading back to:

3 minutes ago, Kellan said:

Anyway, I thought that the reason people didn’t like on-disc DLC was because it implied that the developers didn’t put any extra effort into making the extra content, and therefore were just being greedy by asking for more money.

They... really didn't? The patch in question was a day one patch if I'm not mistaken, so "not being in the game yet" is really only a technicality - it was still readily available on the day of release, and plans to monetize it were only made clear after the fact.

In addition to that, I don't exactly know how big the patch itself was, but speaking on behalf of people like myself who work on capped internet it's really annoying to be basically forcefed data I don't want, can play the game without, can't opt out of and have to pay actual money to access anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if he wasn’t “on disc” he was being worked on during development, a standard feature removed and planned for paid dlc, and inserted in via a day one patch. Nothing exactly is changed with this news 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blacklightning said:

They... really didn't? The patch in question was a day one patch if I'm not mistaken, so "not being in the game yet" is really only a technicality - it was still readily available on the day of release, and plans to monetize it were only made clear after the fact.

Technically, that still means that they could have been working on it in the time between the games were printed and the actual release of the game. I can’t comment on the implication that creating two new variations of gameplay didn’t take any extra effort, as I don’t know enough about game development to make an informed opinion.

11 minutes ago, Blacklightning said:

In addition to that, I don't exactly know how big the patch itself was, but speaking on behalf of people like myself who work on capped internet it's really annoying to be basically forcefed data I don't want, can play the game without, can't opt out of and have to pay actual money to access anyway.

While I appreciate your situation, wouldn’t that make you against all paid DLC for non-multiplayer games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kellan said:

Technically, that still means that they could have been working on it in the time between the games were printed and the actual release of the game.

Could have been? Possibly. Knowing the cynicism that surrounds nearly every other decision they've made with this game, though, I'm just going to say it's unlikely, and it still wouldn't change the fact that it's already thrust onto the player in an inaccessible state before they're able to pay for it anyway. At best, that only moves the goalposts from "monetizing existing content" to "monetizing cheat codes", which Super Sonic might as well be.

3 minutes ago, Kellan said:

While I appreciate your situation, wouldn’t that make you against all paid DLC for non-multiplayer games?

The key word is "want".

I don't mind paying for extra content if I'm confident I'll enjoy it and I know it isn't specifically gated off from already finished content. I don't, on the other hand, like not being given a choice in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Blacklightning said:

it still wouldn't change the fact that it's already thrust onto the player in an inaccessible state before they're able to pay for it anyway.

12 minutes ago, Blacklightning said:

I don't, on the other hand, like not being given a choice in the matter.

Ok, this is what I’m not following. Doesn’t, like, almost all DLC get added on to their games like this? The game updates, it adds the new stuff, and then you’re later given the option to buy the content, which allows you to access it. This isn’t at all unique to this game, which is why I thought you would be against paid DLC in general, because I thought it was always like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kellan said:

Ok, this is what I’m not following. Doesn’t, like, almost all DLC get added on to their games like this? The game updates, it adds the new stuff, and then you’re later given the option to buy the content, which allows you to access it. This isn’t at all unique to this game, which is why I thought you would be against paid DLC in general, because I thought it was always like this.

What on earth gave you that impression? Some publishers do it, sure, but it's far from the rule of thumb - for the most part it's only downloaded to you if you pay for it, the main exception being the compatibility case with multiplayer games that Sean mentioned. And even then some publishers will still not provide you with the content in any form until you pay for it, even if that means driving a wedge through the player base (like Town of Salem, just as a totally arbitary example off the top of my head).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.