This DLC policy is absurd and violates business ethics.

I've been out of the loop on Destiny. Haven't played it for a little while. Decided to load it up again.

I come back to find... I'm now locked out of the daily, weekly, and nightfall content because I don't have the DLC. As of this moment, I find myself with:
-No access to strikes that have a reasonable difficulty for my gear.
-No access to any content with special modifiers whatsoever (other than the Heroic modifier).
Perhaps this changes when the content is for non-DLC levels? Even if it does, a large fraction of the endgame content that I liked to play prior to my hiatus, a major chunk of what kept the experience balanced, is toast. The Destiny I saw when I logged onto my character tonight looked quite compromised compared with the Destiny that I had previously been familiar with.

This brings Halo 3's MP DLC policy to mind, but in that case, there was something of a reason to restrict playlist entry: without it, you risk wasting the money of people who did buy the DLC, which was a complaint that came up when they mostly reversed the policy with Halo Reach. This was also strictly an issue of matchmaking infrastructure; the core content was not actually locked away, and could still be accessed outside of the matchmaking system.
However, this content isn't matchmade in the first place (and largely isn't matchmaking-suitable), and thus there wouldn't really be any drawbacks to giving alternative options, such as offering two choices of weekly strike, or even just giving players greater freedom in setting up difficulty and modifiers for activities.

Thus, as of this moment, my only possible conclusion is that advertised content that I paid for, in a product which was said to not be subscription-based, has been removed for the sole purpose of selling me a replacement. And after just 3 months, no less!

This isn't an issue of content being unplayable because of development issues; that's a widespread problem with the modern games industry, but by and large it is not wrapped up in malicious intent.
This, however, is a configuration of a polished system. It is a deliberately-implemented mechanism. It is theft: if not in a legal sense, then a practical and ethical one.

I want to buy the DLC. Even if I found Destiny a little disappointing given Bungie's pedigree, even if it sounds like the DLC is getting somewhat lukewarm reception, I'd happily snap it up, because at the end of the day Destiny is a fun game that I like to play. And I will buy the DLC, if this policy is completely and utterly revoked. Until then, as much as I want to get in on the action, this is a line that I will not cross. Any desire that I have to play the content is not worth the encouragement of such business practices.

//=========================

edit: I still have the interface up, looks like the daily story was just changed to Garden's Spire, and I'm able to select it. So these features aren't perma-locked all the time, they're just selectively locked on the content manager's whim. Which perhaps makes this "less bad", but doesn't significantly change my opinion on the system.

locked

2761 views

This is not a big deal. The new content is just part of the rotation. On certain days/weeks you won't have access to them, but most of the time you will and can level up just fine.

If you are really against how this works, then MMOs just aren't for you.

locked

2239 views

The new content is just part of the rotation.

Why should it be this way? What is stopping Bungie from having two different weeklys/dailys for different content holders?

If you are really against how this works, then MMOs just aren't for you.

The argument that everyone else does it just accept it, is a terrible one.

locked

2216 views

The new content is just part of the rotation.

Why should it be this way? What is stopping Bungie from having two different weeklys/dailys for different content holders?

Time. Time is a finite resource, even from a company with many people. Saying yes to one feature means saying no to other features. And some festures also introduce a ongoing maintenance cost. So the question is not why they did not do this but instead why they should do this instead of implementing some other feature. You can, of course, argue for your favorite feature, but this particular one is not only a feature that benefits only a sub-section of the players — and therefore must overwhelm the universal features by being that much better — but one that only benefits the people who do not pay for the ongoing maintenance of the game; one that the most supportive players literally would be unable to get any benefit from.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. It would be a classy and very nice move. But selfishly, I don't want them to do that instead of making the game better on a way that I would ever be technically able to even notice. And since you brought up business motives, I don't expect the expansion to bring benefits to people who don't buy it (even though I would be wrong because it already has in a couple ways — namely armor and level upgrades).

You see it as a diminution of the game because before you had access to 100% of the game and now you don't. I get that, but that's the nature of expansions. The daily and weekly always selected a portion of the game. You used to have access to all portions of the game but now there are new things you don't. From an equally true vantage, this feels worse only because there were no pay-walled areas at launch (imagine the outrage). The mechanism of the daily/weekly did not change.

I'm not without sympathy for the people who are enjoying the game less now, but I don't suffer the accusations of immorality. Anything sold for a cost — especially an upgrade to something —will leave some people behind. I see this as a hard fact of life in a capitalist system. No reason not to feel bad or not to be upset when it bites you but it's not an immoral act.

locked

2245 views

Why should it be this way? What is stopping Bungie from having two different weeklys/dailys for different content holders?

Time.

What you are getting at is the point I was trying to make. Bungie made the decision to shrink the game for players who don't pay up in order to work on other cool things. It is a priority choice that they made, but there is no hard bound keeping them from making the opposite decision.

but this particular one is not only a feature that benefits only a sub-section of the players.

I disagree with your use of the word "benefit" here. Implementing my idea "avoids harming" only a sub-section of the players. I'm not asking for a benefit, those who purchased DLC got a benefit, and rightly so. I just don't want everyone else to get actively harmed.

You see it as a diminution of the game because before you had access to 100% of the game and now you don't. I get that, but that's the nature of expansions.

If they nature of something is to harm a segment of your player base, perhaps you should take an alternate route. Like I said above, there is no hard and fast law that "expansions" have to work this way, it is a choice Bungie made in order to benefit those who pay money while still working on cooler stuff for everyone. I get the reasoning, I just think it was a bad decision.
Hell, the word is "expansion" not "reallocation".

I'm not without sympathy for the people who are enjoying the game less now, but I don't suffer the accusations of immorality. Anything sold for a cost — especially an upgrade to something —will leave some people behind. I see this as a hard fact of life in a capitalist system. No reason not to feel bad or not to be upset when it bites you but it's not an immoral act.

How about a bad analogy? In this capitalist system you go out and buy a sweet rocking chair, and the designer tells you that soon you can buy upgrades to the chair. That's awesome, you buy the crap out of it.
In a couple months the designer comes to your house and says, "The upgrades are available!" and you say, "Cool, I'll actually wait and see what other people think first". The designer says "Well, okay that's your choice. But I have to take the rockers from the chair from you. Don't worry, you can still sit in it, and it is still perfectly comfortable, it just won't rock anymore."
Legally you probably signed some document on purchase that had this buried in the fine print, but ethically, the designer is an asshole. Had the designer told you that he would be removing chunks occasionally if you refused to pay up, it would be a much more above-board deal.

locked

2212 views

Why should it be this way? What is stopping Bungie from having two different weeklys/dailys for different content holders?

Time.

What you are getting at is the point I was trying to make. Bungie made the decision to shrink the game for players who don't pay up in order to work on other cool things. It is a priority choice that they made, but there is no hard bound keeping them from making the opposite decision.

I spoke a lot about one viewpoint in the last post because I felt like it was being under-represented. I can simultaneously see two viewpoints, but what you have said here is slightly aside from either of them. Bungie didn't shrink the game. The game operates the exact same way as before (unless you are too low level to play the new harder dailies/weekly). YOUR EXPERIANCE however did shrink. The number of things you can do is less. I think a lot of the problem I'm having aligning with people on this is this conflation of two different things. (The other is the hyperbolic language).

I'm not without sympathy for the people who are enjoying the game less now, but I don't suffer the accusations of immorality. Anything sold for a cost — especially an upgrade to something —will leave some people behind. I see this as a hard fact of life in a capitalist system. No reason not to feel bad or not to be upset when it bites you but it's not an immoral act.

How about a bad analogy? In this capitalist system you go out and buy a sweet rocking chair, and the designer tells you that soon you can buy upgrades to the chair. That's awesome, you buy the crap out of it.
In a couple months the designer comes to your house and says, "The upgrades are available!" and you say, "Cool, I'll actually wait and see what other people think first". The designer says "Well, okay that's your choice. But I have to take the rockers from the chair from you. Don't worry, you can still sit in it, and it is still perfectly comfortable, it just won't rock anymore."
Legally you probably signed some document on purchase that had this buried in the fine print, but ethically, the designer is an asshole. Had the designer told you that he would be removing chunks occasionally if you refused to pay up, it would be a much more above-board deal.

You admitted up front its a bad analogy (as most analogies are) so I won't spent too much time picking at it. I'll just point out again that nothing was removed from the chair, only from your enjoyment of it. Beating the analogy well past death: You used to be able to bring your chair to chair club run by the designer and this week only the upgraded chairs will fit in the new location chair club meets at. You can't go to chair club this week. You can still sit in your chair in all the same places with all the same people, just not while the club meets at the new location. They won't make a new chair club just for the people who don't upgrade their chairs in the weeks chair club meets at the new location (but combine it other weeks? And then make a third and fourth chair club when the new chair upgrades release so as to cover all 4 permutations? This scales nearly exponentially, people) You miss chair club, but that does not make the chair damaged. These are different things.

locked

2190 views

Bungie didn't shrink the game. The game operates the exact same way as before

If I'm closed out of things that I previously was not closed out of, then no, the game absolutely does not operate the exact same way as before. Previously, when I got on, I could hop into a daily, a weekly, or a nightfall. Now I can't. The game has changed.

Casting access restrictions as "it's the EXPERIENCE, not the GAME, that's changed" is cartoonish euphamisery.

(but combine it other weeks? And then make a third and fourth chair club when the new chair upgrades release so as to cover all 4 permutations? This scales nearly exponentially, people)

Why wouldn't that be a reasonable solution? What would be the problems with giving DLC owners extra choice of mission?

You miss chair club, but that does not make the chair damaged.

In this form of the analogy, it does not damage the chair insofar as it is a chair, but if you bought the chair under the pretext that you'd be able to use it at chair club, the overall entity that you purchased (i.e. chair as a ticket to chair club) was damaged.

locked

2155 views

(but combine it other weeks? And then make a third and fourth chair club when the new chair upgrades release so as to cover all 4 permutations? This scales nearly exponentially, people)

Why wouldn't that be a reasonable solution? What would be the problems with giving DLC owners extra choice of mission?

Sorry I guess I addressed this too slightly. Besides my original point of time to implement and prioritizing, which I assume we are not talking about because you quoted this, I'm saying the problem is that the complexity of the solution does not scale well. Today they would need two options some weeks and one for others, if they wanted to simplify on original content weeks. I don't know if they would but I forsee people being upset that paying money lets you do the same things more often with the content they also paid for.

After the next expansion they would need one for OG game only, one for dlc1 only, one for dlc2 only and one for season pass. And the next step after that is even more complicated Because the number of total permutations coins almost exponentially (but not exactly because everyone has original game).

locked

2202 views

Sorry I guess I addressed this too slightly. Besides my original point of time to implement and prioritizing, which I assume we are not talking about because you quoted this, I'm saying the problem is that the complexity of the solution does not scale well. Today they would need two options some weeks and one for others, if they wanted to simplify on original content weeks. I don't know if they would but I forsee people being upset that paying money lets you do the same things more often with the content they also paid for.

After the next expansion they would need one for OG game only, one for dlc1 only, one for dlc2 only and one for season pass. And the next step after that is even more complicated Because the number of total permutations coins almost exponentially (but not exactly because everyone has original game).

I'm not sure I follow. An implementation that had fully separate playlists would get somewhat messy in the menus, but an implementation that simply expanded each category into a few separate level options (depending on which DLC people in your party had) would be pretty clean, and the complexity of the implementation would scale lineary with the number of DLC options.

Actually, I'm having a hard time visualizing a solution that would have exponentially-expanding complexity, unless you're literally just talking about the total number of level-choice permutations, which isn't very relevant for these sorts of things as far as workload goes. As an analogy: a 16-bit number takes twice as much storage (and in many operations, processing workload) as an 8-bit number, not 256 times as much, even though there are 256 times as many possible values.

locked

2096 views

I'm Talking about content pack ownership permutations. I Think you're on the right track to what I'm talking about when you refer to menu clutter. Adding more daily weekly is not linear because people can skip any number of packs, it's just that right now there is only one. Anyway. It's a reason if they go down the road of serving d/w up to people without the full set it should be done silently in the background at launch like matchmaking chooses a map.

locked

2159 views

I'm Talking about content pack ownership permutations. I Think you're on the right track to what I'm talking about when you refer to menu clutter. Adding more daily weekly is not linear because people can skip any number of packs, it's just that right now there is only one. Anyway. It's a reason if they go down the road of serving d/w up to people without the full set it should be done silently in the background at launch like matchmaking chooses a map.

I'm still not seeing the issue. My vision was that everyone would always be able to play the d/w/n, but depending on what content you purchased, you'd be able to choose between different options (in addition to the current choice of different difficulties). There's two major ways in which that could be realized: having an option for each content pack, or simply making it so that if the current week's "normal" choice is DLC, a base-game level is also available. They could even set it up so that the party leader was able to see in the selection window which option(s) their current party could and couldn't play.

If you were imagining that it would always reduce everything down to a single visible option for any given player, that would have some weird design hurdles (which choice to show, how to handle parties where different players have different options), but managing the system would still not exponentially increase in complexity with new DLC unless you literally accomplished the result by having the person managing the game fill out a general-purpose decision-making tree every time they updated the d/w/n. This would indeed be a confusing mess (both for players and Bungie!), but there's no reason to handle it like that. Rather, you'd want to have the person to just drop a couple options into a prioritized list, and each client's game would tick down the list until it got to an option that they could play, or something like that.
(But I'd really rather avoid any solution that shows a single option in each player's lists anyway, since it either make the party system confusing or break it, depending on implementation).

locked

2150 views

Time. Time is a finite resource, even from a company with many people. Saying yes to one feature means saying no to other features. And some festures also introduce a ongoing maintenance cost. So the question is not why they did not do this but instead why they should do this instead of implementing some other feature. You can, of course, argue for your favorite feature, but this particular one is not only a feature that benefits only a sub-section of the players — and therefore must overwhelm the universal features by being that much better — but one that only benefits the people who do not pay for the ongoing maintenance of the game; one that the most supportive players literally would be unable to get any benefit from.

It's true that they'd have to spend a little time adjusting the interface and rewards systems to make room for something like this, but it's extremely unlikely that it would be very significant.

The bigger problem here is that you're casting support for a major feature that people bought as part of a $60 product, as a new feature. This is rubbish. If an update breaks a feature in a product that is still essentially new, repairing that damage is not "new feature development", it's a business obligation just like fixing new hardware that fails under normal usage.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. It would be a classy and very nice move. But selfishly, I don't want them to do that instead of making the game better on a way that I would ever be technically able to even notice. And since you brought up business motives, I don't expect the expansion to bring benefits to people who don't buy it (even though I would be wrong because it already has in a couple ways — namely armor and level upgrades).

I'm not arguing that the expansion should bring benefits to people who don't buy it.

You see it as a diminution of the game because before you had access to 100% of the game and now you don't. I get that, but that's the nature of expansions.

I didn't get the memo. The only times I've seen content cut off from non-expansion releases when an expansion has been released, it's had realistic design justifications, and would basically never cut off features released as park of a paid bulk release only 3 months previously.

I'm not without sympathy for the people who are enjoying the game less now, but I don't suffer the accusations of immorality. Anything sold for a cost — especially an upgrade to something —will leave some people behind. I see this as a hard fact of life in a capitalist system.

Yes, it will leave some people behind in the sense that it introduces a new product with different and perhaps better capabilities than the old. But when Toyota releases a new and better car, they don't also send out a technician to smash my windshield with a tire iron. There is a big difference between creating a new and better product, and actually damaging the old product.

I work on test equipment for circuit boards. If, when we released new and upgraded system cards, our software deliberately made it so that a number of features on our old system cards did not work, almost all (if not all) of our customers would fire us on the spot when they found out what had happened.

locked

2207 views

I've played many games... Many MANY games, where the existence of an expansion does not detract from the pre-existing experience in the core game. Even as far back as Starcraft you could play on battlenet with or without the expansions to the game. The system was smart enough way back then to simply allow you to pick your games based on the content you had. No Broodwar? Ok. you just play with other people that don't have it, or even people who DO have it but choose to play the vanilla version on MP.

But destiny is an MMO you say? I'd argue that Destiny is really no more an MMO than Dark Souls. Dark Souls has DLC that is NOT required to continue to play the exact same game you bought. I had a patch that made the DLC content visible to me and I could play with or against others that had that new gear but I just could't get it myself. The new areas were there but I couldn't go in without the DLC. What Destiny has done would be similar to if Dark Souls just decided that every so often you wouldn't be able to summon or invade other players for a week unless you had the DLC. That's just stupid. When an expansion negatively impacts the available content to previous game owners then it isn't really an expansion, it's a required upgrade.

I'm not particularly enraged that I can't play the weekly stuff right now. I intend to eventually pick up the DLC. But it really is crappy to pull back access based on ownership of "optional" content. They've added enough other new stuff via Eris bounties and new gear and other experiences that somewhat make up for it in my opinion, but I really have to wonder about the core company attitude at Bungie these days. This seems more like the kind of dick move you'd expect from a company like EA. But when most of the core personalities and key players of a company have been fired or quit, then you I guess you can't be too surprised when the company changes who they are and what is important to them.

locked

2121 views

This is not a big deal. The new content is just part of the rotation. On certain days/weeks you won't have access to them, but most of the time you will and can level up just fine.

I never said anything about leveling up, but obviously that's another (and very closely-related) can of worms which, it seems, has been discussed quite a bit.

What I'm talking about is broad removal of access to immediate gameplay.

If you are really against how this works, then MMOs just aren't for you.

I'm fully aware that MMOs aren't for me. Destiny also isn't an MMO.

Even if it was, that doesn't really justify this. When MMOs actually cut off old content, it usually has sensible design reasons, similar to Halo 3's choice of restricting playlists. And when changes that inflict restrictions or removal of previous content do concern content purchased in bulk (as opposed to subscriptions in which the time-limited terms are spelled out in the purchase), it doesn't exactly tend to happen over just a 3-month lifespan.

locked

2144 views

Time-limited, rotating, only using in-built modifiers. How are they separate 'content'? Where LASO Challenges in Reach 'content'?

You can still play all the strikes you already have.

What would be nice though, is higher-level Vanguard Strike playlists. Plus a way to play missions and strikes with a custom set of modifiers for our own twisted sense of 'fun.'

locked

2220 views

Time-limited, rotating, only using in-built modifiers. How are they separate 'content'? Where LASO Challenges in Reach 'content'?

They are content because of the gear you can get from them. The loot train changes everything.
Also, because there are no custom options in Destiny at all, vs. Halos that had tons, what I would call "content" is a little different between the two.

locked

2182 views

They are content because of the gear you can get from them. The loot train changes everything.

Heh.

Even non-owners can get gear from the tower vendors that exceeds the power level of anything you could get last week (Mythoclast excepted).

Given that the Weekly Heroic Strike only offers coins for Xur's stock, and the Nightfall loot is totally random, it wasn't exactly reliable method of acquisition. Some weeks I'd only get Legendary duplicates from the Nightfall. Yet some on this forum are saying they are nearing or are at 31 already from buying new gear.

So non-expansion-owners get a few less chances for gear than the owners. So, what? Non-raiders did - and still do - get fewer opportunities. Don't like crucible? Can't get IB gear. Can't get pocket infinity etc.

locked

2214 views

Make a second character in time for next week, and you'll more than make up your 'lost' chances for gear from not owning the expansion, by running the stuff you have access to multiple times.

But then again, if loot was really so important, wouldn't an expansion pass purchase be a no-brainer?

locked

2197 views

Time-limited, rotating, only using in-built modifiers. How are they separate 'content'?

The individual challenges were events, but the availability of said events was an advertised feature.

Where LASO Challenges in Reach 'content'?

Only vaguely, but importantly, I'm still fully capable of playing any Halo Reach level on legendary with all skulls on.

You can still play all the strikes you already have.

Only on low difficulties and without modifiers. Only on some weeks will I be able to play strikes on appropriate difficulties and/or with modifiers.

locked

2151 views

What would be nice though, is higher-level Vanguard Strike playlists. Plus a way to play missions and strikes with a custom set of modifiers for our own twisted sense of 'fun.'

There is a higher level Vanguard Strike playlist called "ROC" for level 26. The Max level before the update was 24.

locked

2198 views

There is a higher level Vanguard Strike playlist called "ROC" for level 26.

It's nice to see that they're addressing the issue of high-level strike matchmaking, although perhaps the status quo winds up maintained due to the increase in level cap.

Unfortunately, naturally, the playlist that would have provided some degree of higher-level strike availability to replace the missing weekly and nightfall strikes is only available to DLC owners.

locked

2207 views

There is a higher level Vanguard Strike playlist called "ROC" for level 26.

It's nice to see that they're addressing the issue of high-level strike matchmaking, although perhaps the status quo winds up maintained due to the increase in level cap.

Unfortunately, naturally, the playlist that would have provided some degree of higher-level strike availability to replace the missing weekly and nightfall strikes is only available to DLC owners.

The thing is, beyond what's on the disk ("on-disk DLC" whining aside), Bungie doesn't owe you experiences. They're not removing the weekly/Daily/Nightfall, they're offering the people who bought the DLC a chance to get their money's worth. The strikes are still there, the story missions are still there, and all of the other playlists are still there.

ROC is a premium playlist for DLC owners, and why shouldn't Bungie cater to the people who are showing interest in the game by buying content?

locked

2134 views

I understand it would have been a lot of work to offer one nightfall to one group and another to a different one; would it have been as difficult to offer two nightfalls to dark below users though? One for the dlc strike and one for everyone? It doesn't exactly vibe with the 'no guardian left behind' statements we were getting pre-expansion, when Bungie pulls any endgame-level strike content for a week.

locked

2183 views

I understand it would have been a lot of work to offer one nightfall to one group and another to a different one;

How is it a lot of work? You change a few flags.

locked

2187 views

I understand it would have been a lot of work to offer one nightfall to one group and another to a different one;

How is it a lot of work? You change a few flags.

Well, then, all the more reason to have an option for non-DLC purchasers to receive a different nightfall.

locked

2198 views

The thing is, beyond what's on the disk ("on-disk DLC" whining aside), Bungie doesn't owe you experiences.

When I purchased the game, they said that it included modified daily and weekly missions to provide endgame challenge. The game has only been out for 3 months, and that's already not true.

They're not removing the weekly/Daily/Nightfall

They are, for some periods of time, if you don't have the DLC.

they're offering the people who bought the DLC a chance to get their money's worth.

But in this particular case, there's no reason that this requires restricting content for people who don't have the DLC.

The strikes are still there

On a consistent basis, only in low-level form without modifiers.

the story missions are still there

On a consistent basis, only without (aside from Heroic) modifiers.

ROC is a premium playlist for DLC owners, and why shouldn't Bungie cater to the people who are showing interest in the game by buying content?

I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm just making an observation that strengthens the argument that the way content was introduced (to both DLC and non-DLC users) was seemingly planned to ensure that the non-DLC version would be damaged to get people to buy the DLC. Some content was distributed to everyone; things that would have at least somewhat lessened the damage caused by the new restrictions were kept DLC-only.

locked

2186 views

They're not removing the weekly/Daily/Nightfall, they're offering the people who bought the DLC a chance to get their money's worth.

While I disagree with your opinions, what you said was accurate. Except for this bit above. The DID remove those things from the game for us. They are no longer in the game. Bungie made it that way intentionally. There is no getting around that. Sure they are offering DLCers stuff, but they CUT IT OFF temporarily for everyone else.

There are plenty of ways to make sure DLC buyers get their moneies worth but making it so that activities literally have a little picture of a lock on them are not the only way. Bungie chose to give DLCers their worth AND lock out non-DLCers, instead of giving DLCers their worth AND not locking parts of the game to non-DLCers.

I'm not accusing you of this, but the idea that this behavior is inevitable from a game company regarding DLC is incorrect. Game dev is about give and take and Bungie chose a path that I fully believe is bad.

locked

2113 views

I think maintaining separate playlists for non-DLC owners is a nice-to-have feature, but not one without costs. I don't assume that I know or understand all the reasons behind the decision not to offer them, but it does complicate things, and I'm sure it costs something.

As an analogy, in a world where most people have cellphones, those who were used to having a phone booth every few blocks begin noticing that they no longer have as many options, but they can still use the phone system.

Destiny is a living world. I like being in it, but it's changing, and who knows? Down the road it may change to a point where I don't like being in it. This isn't Halo. None of us can play the game that came out in September. That game no longer exists.

What is the value of the game? Have the people who bought the game gotten their money's worth? Is part of their expectation that the game, or at least a portion of it, would continue to offer the same experience whenever they want to have that experience? To a degree, probably, but the nature of Destiny makes that expectation less realistic than it would be for a different kind of game. The other economics in play are the costs of developing content. We want it all. We want other planets, and we want those planets to be consistent in quality to what we've gotten so far, and I don't think making such things are easy or cheap. You don't just poop out environments like we see in Destiny. Speaking for myself, the game continues to amaze.

Bungie is threading a needle here. Can they continue building such a game, and keep users happy over the long term (and make money)? That last parenthetical brings out the cynics, who assume the worst of the companies involved, and there certainly is reason to distrust the money men. I think Bungie has been pretty responsive to users, but this game isn't quite like anything else, and some experiments within it might fail. I remain hopeful that over time, Destiny will grow into something that exceeds our expectations of it. I've seen glimpses in this DLC that it can.

locked

2221 views

Bungie is threading a needle here. Can they continue building such a game, and keep users happy over the long term (and make money)? That last parenthetical brings out the cynics, who assume the worst of the companies involved, and there certainly is reason to distrust the money men. I think Bungie has been pretty responsive to users, but this game isn't quite like anything else, and some experiments within it might fail. I remain hopeful that over time, Destiny will grow into something that exceeds our expectations of it. I've seen glimpses in this DLC that it can.

Certainly has been far too long since I've heard something correct come out of your cyber mouth, friend.

locked

2188 views

Bungie is threading a needle here. Can they continue building such a game, and keep users happy over the long term (and make money)? That last parenthetical brings out the cynics, who assume the worst of the companies involved, and there certainly is reason to distrust the money men. I think Bungie has been pretty responsive to users, but this game isn't quite like anything else, and some experiments within it might fail. I remain hopeful that over time, Destiny will grow into something that exceeds our expectations of it. I've seen glimpses in this DLC that it can.

I don't know. I'm substantially less excited now that I see their plan. It's getting worse as far as I'm concerned. I have to wait for Destiny 2 to see if it gets better, because House of Wolves is going to be more of exactly the same. Nothing short of a radical shift that only a sequel or an expansion can bring about (a REAL expansion, not DLC which we got) can bring this game back on track.

From where I'm standing, Destiny is the laughingstock of game critics, who are mostly mediocre thinkers, and even THEY joke about the grind fest and lack of real things to do.

locked

2141 views

I think maintaining separate playlists for non-DLC owners is a nice-to-have feature, but not one without costs. I don't assume that I know or understand all the reasons behind the decision not to offer them, but it does complicate things, and I'm sure it costs something.

As an analogy, in a world where most people have cellphones, those who were used to having a phone booth every few blocks begin noticing that they no longer have as many options, but they can still use the phone system.

Destiny is a living world. I like being in it, but it's changing, and who knows? Down the road it may change to a point where I don't like being in it. This isn't Halo. None of us can play the game that came out in September. That game no longer exists.

What is the value of the game? Have the people who bought the game gotten their money's worth? Is part of their expectation that the game, or at least a portion of it, would continue to offer the same experience whenever they want to have that experience? To a degree, probably, but the nature of Destiny makes that expectation less realistic than it would be for a different kind of game. The other economics in play are the costs of developing content. We want it all. We want other planets, and we want those planets to be consistent in quality to what we've gotten so far, and I don't think making such things are easy or cheap. You don't just poop out environments like we see in Destiny. Speaking for myself, the game continues to amaze.

Bungie is threading a needle here. Can they continue building such a game, and keep users happy over the long term (and make money)? That last parenthetical brings out the cynics, who assume the worst of the companies involved, and there certainly is reason to distrust the money men. I think Bungie has been pretty responsive to users, but this game isn't quite like anything else, and some experiments within it might fail. I remain hopeful that over time, Destiny will grow into something that exceeds our expectations of it. I've seen glimpses in this DLC that it can.

Well said, Kermit. This might be the best post I have ever read on this, or any other, site regarding Destiny.

locked

2158 views

I think maintaining separate playlists for non-DLC owners is a nice-to-have feature, but not one without costs. I don't assume that I know or understand all the reasons behind the decision not to offer them, but it does complicate things, and I'm sure it costs something.

As an analogy, in a world where most people have cellphones, those who were used to having a phone booth every few blocks begin noticing that they no longer have as many options, but they can still use the phone system.

Destiny is a living world. I like being in it, but it's changing, and who knows? Down the road it may change to a point where I don't like being in it. This isn't Halo. None of us can play the game that came out in September. That game no longer exists.

You are definitely right, the game is ever changing. Now that I see more clearly what Bungie plans for the game, I am much more disappointed than I anticipated being. For instance I expected that the base game would remain whole throughout the next couple years. I expected lots of tweaks, changes, maybe some small things removed or added for balance or in response to players.

If I had to pay an upfront fee to get access to the network of payphones, with the creator promising changes and additions as the years went on, then yes, I would be very upset if that same creator switched the network over to cell phone and started removing pay phones 4 months after first installing them.

We want it all.

Nah, I don't want the new stuff ;P
As I'm sure you know, my issue isn't with a lack of content. I think the level of content is pretty standard for a new game. I just don't want them lobotomizing the game that I already have. I know this is asking Bungie to change the plan they have for the game. I know my request go against the effort they decided to put into the game. But I also think that this is what they should do.

I guess I didn't expect people to disagree with the idea that a company should never lock off chunks of the game to people who don't pay up.

locked

2104 views

I think maintaining separate playlists for non-DLC owners is a nice-to-have feature, but not one without costs. I don't assume that I know or understand all the reasons behind the decision not to offer them, but it does complicate things, and I'm sure it costs something.

As an analogy, in a world where most people have cellphones, those who were used to having a phone booth every few blocks begin noticing that they no longer have as many options, but they can still use the phone system.

Destiny is a living world. I like being in it, but it's changing, and who knows? Down the road it may change to a point where I don't like being in it. This isn't Halo. None of us can play the game that came out in September. That game no longer exists.

You are definitely right, the game is ever changing. Now that I see more clearly what Bungie plans for the game, I am much more disappointed than I anticipated being. For instance I expected that the base game would remain whole throughout the next couple years. I expected lots of tweaks, changes, maybe some small things removed or added for balance or in response to players.

If I had to pay an upfront fee to get access to the network of payphones, with the creator promising changes and additions as the years went on, then yes, I would be very upset if that same creator switched the network over to cell phone and started removing pay phones 4 months after first installing them.

We want it all.

Nah, I don't want the new stuff ;P
As I'm sure you know, my issue isn't with a lack of content. I think the level of content is pretty standard for a new game. I just don't want them lobotomizing the game that I already have. I know this is asking Bungie to change the plan they have for the game. I know my request go against the effort they decided to put into the game. But I also think that this is what they should do.

I guess I didn't expect people to disagree with the idea that a company should never lock off chunks of the game to people who don't pay up.

Chunks of the game have been locked off from the beginning. I know people who have enjoyed the game but who have never touched challenge activities in part because they either weren't high-level enough or they didn't have people to play with. I have alt characters myself who literally cannot play the high-reward activities. The game says it's impossible, and the game doesn't lie.

Lots of things have changed that you do have access to, but I think you overstate the significance of having DLC content added into the rotation for these challenges. Lobotomies don't undo themselves the next day or week. I think most players who make use of the challenges are the same players who wanted more content and therefore wanted the DLC. In other words, I think the DLC-buying audience and the audience who tackles the challenges are more or less the same. I'm okay if the resources that would be applied to accommodating outliers in this instance are being used instead to create more cool stuff.

One more story. I have a friend who has played the demo obsessively for weeks now, but cannot bring himself to buy the game. He loves the demo, but the value of his money is worth more to him than the value of owning the full game. All of us with disposable income have that choice, whether we're talking about the game or the expansion content. There are trade-offs in everything. Consumer transactions are based on equity. Bungie supports their fans, and fans support Bungie with their money. If it feels unbalanced to you, you walk away, and if enough people do, Bungie will suffer. I still like what they're up to, and I want to give them my money.

locked

2163 views

ROC is a premium playlist for DLC owners, and why shouldn't Bungie cater to the people who are showing interest in the game by buying content?

Bungie doesn't have to offer anything new to people who don't by the DLC, they simply have to not take anything away.

1. If you don't have the DLC, the daily story and weekly strikes should change to a non-dlc version if a DLC mission is up in the rotation.
2. The level 24 Vanguard strike which used to give engrams should continue to if you don't have the DLC
3. Heroic, Nightfall, and daily should still max out at level 28 if you don't have the DLC.

If those three things were done, which are very very simple things, this conversation would not be taking place. Of course if you buy the DLC you should get tons of new stuff, but if you don't you should lose nothing you had.

locked

2191 views

Bungie doesn't owe you anything, Cody. I've never seen such entitlement in my life.

Even if they locked you out of the entire game until you purchased The Dark Below, that's still their right. They need to do what's best for the people dedicated enough to give them $20 every 3 months for the continued privilege of playing the base game that they already bought.

You knew you were only buying a license to play whatever Bungie chooses to let you play. You should be happy with this arrangement because it allows Bungie to fix bugs like the one that allowed players to strategize in the fight against Atheon.

locked

2181 views

I game with a significant online component that you only pay for once initially is a risky proposition to be sure. That said the idea that they don't "owe him anything" is if legally correct not a reasonable expectation that a consumer might have. You are using the example of DLC breaking the game for him but imagine a different scenario where all of their servers just went off-line. Absolutely everyone would feel that they were entitled to a game that was supported in its online component for more than three months. And I think most people would say that would be a reasonable expectation for them to have.

locked

2187 views

That said the idea that they don't "owe him anything" is if legally correct not a reasonable expectation that a consumer might have.

car15 was being sarcastic :)

locked

2221 views

I'm Sure it means something about this issue and this game that even knowing that now her you told me it still comes off as a colorable argument.

locked

2175 views

Can't tell if troll . . .

Bungie doesn't owe you anything, Cody.

They don't owe him "the game"? Because for me they just swap out "the game" for a smaller version of "the game".

locked

2172 views

It wasn't a troll, but it was sarcasm used to make a point about the way Bungie & Activision are treating their customers.

locked

2139 views

I'm not prepared to read this entire thread, so forgive (and ignore) me if what I'm about to say already has alread been brought up.

But if they changed it so that the non-DLC people had a different Weekly/Daily... Then do the non-DLC people get two Weeklies/Dailies those days? If so, do they both give rewards, or just one? Would they then always get an extra Weekly/Daily? Further questions can be envisioned; I think they're worth taking into consideration?

Also, I've gotten engrams at the end of Tiger strikes, still, so that's a thing.

And now, having left this possibly redundant thought beyond, I'm gonna skedaddle.

locked

2112 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

This DLC policy is absurd and violates business ethics. (Destiny)