GTA:IV, Fallout 3 - now Tomb Raider: Underworld: Is this the next chapter in "exclusive games" ?

From XboxOZ360:

"First there was GTA:IV's Exclusive DLC, then we discovered Fallout 3 will have Exclusive DLC and now Tomb Raider: Underworld has joined the ranks of those games offering Xbox 360 owners exclusive content through XboxLIVE.

The two majors have both stated publicly that the era of "Exclusive titles" - 3rd and some 1st party titles, has run it course, due mainly to a change in the distribution and financial turn around on games in the current market. Not to mention major publisher/developers like Capcom dropping exclusive content."

[Hunter86]

Really looking foward to the new tomb raider.

[chasuk08]

So was I until Uncharted came out, and destroyed all tomb raider games.

[AAACE5]

Well, some people like Tomb raider, some like Uncharted! Since you spend alot of time looking at the characters back-side, some guys prefer to see a female, and some guys prefer to see a male!

It just depends which one you like and feel comfortable with!

[thewhoopimen]

Here's my angle on it. Some guys like pretending they're a femme fatale, with a nice curvy body and get to act out their girl fantatsies and do girly things like flirt with guy players (online) for example.

I tend to think guys that like playing girl characters aren't just in there b/c they prefer to see a girl's behind. Maybe I'm narrow viewed, but I think guys that love playing female characters are kind of transgendered...and are curious about behaving/living like a female. They don't want anyone to know of course so they pretend like its a long hours staring at a guy issue.

My example is Age of Conan. You'd think most guys would want to play a Conan character, but look at all those flirtatious sonjas out there played by men... sick.

[Tsalagi]

You guys are looking WAY too deep into this. People just like both games because they're fun.

[LONEWOLF231]

Yeah but then again you'd have to be a total loser to be actually aroused by a game female character. If you do you need to get out more and find yourself a girlfriend.

[Cenobia]

You mean some people like to pretend to be a woman. It's easier and less embarrassing than shopping in the woman's department.

What a retarded argument.

[gaminoz]

@ Lonewolf

I think it may be more a matter of aesthetics not just 'perving'. I'd prefer to look at a graceful female game character and listen to a sexy female voice than a Marcus Fenix man-mountain with a gravelly he-man tough guy voice. Mind you I played as a male in Oblivion...

[gaminoz]

I still think most content should remain on disc rather than save some for downloading later at profit...but I suppose downloadable content is the way of the future.

I'd like to see more single player stuff added to games later rather than just multi maps...

[XboxOZ360]

If you check out the story, there's mention of the new Watchmen which is due out in March - April '09. Two games only available via DLC as Full Games. So that's in excess of 7 gig for each. On average. The developers have said if it doesn't fly as DLC as well as they pan, then they could well bundle both items in a single disc set and sell it as a Special Edition.

Which I'm personally hoping what will happen.

Not everyone in the world has unlimited broadband and that 14 gig would cap many Australian users out not to mention the huge price tag on the 120 gig 360 HDD at $200.

These sort of ideas and systems are fine for the likes of Nth America, and sections of the UK/Europe now, but the rest of the world is not like that, and is a long way off being like that.

And yes, I'd also like to see much more usable content for the Single Player modes in games. All most developers do is add more cars, some tracks, both of which can only really be raced in MP online, and Maps and weapons are the same, with use only allowed or utilised through Online Play.

It's certainly NOT extending the Single Player mode, and aimed straight at getting more people online and paying more.

[XboxOZ360]

Personally I want to keep Disc-based games, as there are several generations that are used to "having something in their hands" to show for the money they spend.

While DLC might be great for some, and it could prove a viable thing in the future, there are many countries outside the US that do not have the broadband that they get so cheaply over there, nor do we have the luxury of so many users, so the advancement of such things is years off for many other countries.

SO long as there will be two styles on offer at some stage, then fine, but if it gets to a point like some music, I can see many game developers loosing rather than gaining users.

[darkmurder]

Boy am i glad to have a 360.

[IsThatSo]

Agree!

All the top games with exclusive DLC!!!

[PopEmUp]

am I glad you guys wasted your money with DLC which however should be in the disc itself

[Cenobia]

I know! It's great right? Who needs exclusive games anyway, when we can have special extra's!

You people are puppets.

[Immortal Kaim]

I actually think offering exclusive DLC is appalling, it's a slap in the face to the consumers who purchased your product and then dont get the full experience.

[Megaton]

Agreed, even though I'm not a fan of 2 of the 3 franchises in the title.

It rips the fan base into different groups, and slaps a value on them. One group gets the opportunity to buy extra content to extend the game, the others get a slap in the face, all is well in the world, right? Of course the developers don't see it like that cause their wallets get heavier when they do this, but from a gamer's point of view, it's not right being left out in the cold by a series you've grown to love, just because the owners decided to cut a deal with only one company.

[Silogon]

It's a shame that Sony has 50gb of space to work with for the ps3 on each disc/game made and yet Developers would rather make exclusive DLC for the xbox 360. "ha" What a slap in Sony's face.

Not only are we not going to make your version on par with the xbox 360 version, graphically; but we're also not going to take advantage of the extra space you allow for us and instead we're going to give the xbox 360 2 levels of DLC that we could put on your blu-ray disc.

boy, Sony's business model is really faltering. What are these idiots doing? Ask yourselves what is Sony doing, cause they're damn sure not communicating with 3rd party developers, that's for sure.

@ Sunnygrg, you bet I did! I think I get to go back tomorrow or later on today, though. It was a short ban for being an overly sophistocated gamer.

@Halo3mgs4, I suppose so. I mean, look at Bruce Wyane, he's loaded and he's Batman. Then again, Kimbo slice is rolling in money now, and he couldn't beat Seth on Saturday.

@hazbaz, you're right. It's probably hard to do a lot of things when your competition is whoring themsevles out so much. Sony played hard to get for too long and the developers got hard up. That's about how I see things.

[sunnygrg]

Did you get banned from the gamerzone again?

[Halo3Mgs4]

when you got money out da ass you can pretty much do anyTHANG

[hazbaz]

How the hell can you expect Sony to talk with said developers with said developers' mouths are chuck full with MS's money and checks?

[Pain]

M$ Thinks More is better so they buy.

[theEnemy]

And we won't know if the version for the PC and PS3 are "complete".

Sales of this game won't go up. It will go the other way around.

People who only have a PC or PS3 will think that they are buying an incomplete game.

[XboxOZ360]

I don't think so myself, as that fact was not echoed with GTA:IV, as GTA:IV for the PS# was as complete as the 360 it's just that further content will be made available once it is finished for the 360 and again when the second lot of DLC for GTA:IV is ready next year.

All the games that ship will be "complete and match each other at the time of release. How can they not. But what MS and in some cases SOny are doing, is making sure THEIR customers get a little extra for their patronage.

Tomb Raiders Underworld will be the same on the PS3 PC andthe 360 on day one. A few months later, once the extra content is finished there will be an additional chapter. Nothing more or less than an extension of a game, not the completion of a game.

That said, I am in disagreement with the whole DLC for full games, no matter what the platform. If there is extra content to a Disc-based game, it should come at a sizable discount, or be free, just like many other developers are now doing. It's been shown that console gamers are not PC gamers, and hesitate at paying extra for more content.

Plus many like to have something in the hands to show for any money they spend. I certainly do, otherwise irt's like having "virtual goods of no value to anyone once you've finished with them. You can't sell them, trade them, swap them or even store them away for a rainy day.

[Halo3Mgs4]

60+10,15 or 20 is not (Boy am i glad to have a 360.) material

[Perjoss]

its all optional, its nice to have those options if you are a big fan of the games in the first place. This is all fine for now, no reason to complain until they leave the ending of the game out and sell it separate, which will never happen.

[TheZippo]

shhhh don't give them any ideas. :)

[Halo3Mgs4]

you mean like how its optional that they're charging you for dlc and how it's optional that they don't include it in the disc?

[Bolts]

How many PS3 owners are hurting because they can't get the precious GTA 4 DLC? Prolly none, they're too busy looking forward to Resistant 2 and KZ 2. How about PC gamers, do they give a damn about the 360 DLC for GTA? Nope, they have the best version of GTA 4 and they're too busy playing the best looking game in the industry with Crysis: Warhead to care.

In other words, DLC = fail. After the CoD 4 DLC, I doubt anyone give a rat's ass about this ripoff scheme anymore.

[Pennywise]

I could care less for DLC. Only way DLC gets my consideration is if it is an online game I love. Then I will buy the maps/guns or w/e. Otherwise, DLC is not for me.

[TheZippo]

I think DLC is pointless if it isn't ready for download before all the buzz is gone from the game. With GTAIV, I may have thought about getting it when I was playing it but not now. It doesn't have the longevity that Oblivion had.

The DLC for Oblivion came out with perfect timing. Giving you little bits and pieces that made you want to keep exploring the world. Well, except for the horse armor that is.

[militant07]

that dosent sell consoles but will make decision for multi platformers

[gaminoz]

True...unless the copy with extra stuff looks/ plays much worse (boy do the Bioshock PS3 shots I've seen look off...does it really look that bad on PS3?)

[DeZimatoR]

For the 360 and Microsoft, surely.

Microsoft doesn't have enough first party studios and its probably to expensive to pay for exclusive third party games now that the PS3's install base is considerable, so they just buy 'exclusive' content and try to make it look like its as big of a deal as having an exclusive game.

I mean, how many times has GTA IV's 'exclusive DLC' been thrown around by 360 fans in the always entertaining 'exclusive games lists' battles?

[XboxOZ360]

And for Sony, as SOny has openly stated that as far as they are concerned, the days of Exclusive titles being sold are at an end. (do a google to find the comment from Sony).

Watchmen will be only available through DLC as a full game, =both games . . That's through XboxLIVE, PSN and via Steam for PC. There will be additional content for new PS3 games coming that will only be available through PSN, just like XboxLIVE. It's how they both plan on delivering content in the future.

As much as we might not like it, there is a huge % of newer gamers who see this as normal, as many simply do not carry discs around or even want a disc to own. They'd rather have all their bits on a small flash drive or similar item to use when they choose. This allows the PS3 to utilise it's USB connections and open downloading, unlike the 360 which only allows DLC to be stored on its Proprietary HDD.

There has to be both versions, otherwise there is several generations of gamers, such as many on here, that will not buy the DLC or even desire it, but there is an even greater number, and growing fast, of younger gamers who do NOT want solid real world items, and are happy with DLC.

@ DeZimatoR

About the same amount of times Sony developers through around the word exclusive in the hope to win over customers or would be customers. Many a time, and we won't go into specifics here, that Sony has stated that certain games are "exclusive' to the PS3, only to find out later that they were never going to be exclusive at all. It's a marketing ply used by ALL major companies, get used to it. Don't be so naive' as to think one does it and theother doesn't. they all do it.

[Why o why]

you're right, they all do it but it seems MS is relying on it more than sony to the point where they're even bragging about it. We all thought that the money spent on timed and dlc could help fund new games altogether but others prefer MS didnt i suppose. What do you think?

edit, just noticed ur out of bubbles, no worries, next time

[gaminoz]

On PS3 both Siren and SOCOM are going to be downloadable...so Sony does seem headed the same way.

[juuken]

I'm sorry, but DLC doesn't sell consoles.

[Stryfeno2]

DLC sells more for the console multiplat game it's on...Look at GTA4. Also, it depends on what it is. I expect Fallout 3 to sell more for the 360.

Imagine SF4 devs announced that they will have DLC which will add 4 new characters exclusive to the 360. Which version do you think will sell more?

I guarantee you Sony will be doing the same next year...All MS doing is experimenting with DLC and its looking to be pretty successful.

[juuken]

All Microsoft is doing is making sure they keep the competition buried by paying for every single thing they can wrap around their grubby fingers.

I have no qualms with DLC but when the other platform is screwed, that's bullsh*t right there.

Anyway, I have never played a Tomb Raider game so I don't really care.

[creeping judas]

"All Microsoft is doing is making sure they keep the competition buried by paying for every single thing they can wrap around their grubby fingers. "

can you provide some direct proof of this?? I've asked others before and no one has been able to provide proof that MS paid for anything?? Im hoping that yould be able to shed some truth to the subject.

[juuken]

I don't need proof.

Microsoft has a habit of buying their way through competition. That's why they're making so much money in the computer industry.

[creeping judas]

Well I guess my search for truth goes on. Not one sont fanboy has yet provided proof. So without proof, all youre doing is blowing smoke out of your ***.

I surely wouldn't want to say something and then not have the facts to back myself up.

[KiddyBrownTurd]

lol, poor jewkin :(

[juuken]

Believe what you want to believe judas.

[Killjoy3000]

I love how Microsoft are trying to make the PS2 of this generation. It's pathetic, really.

[mariusmal]

fallout 3 DLC isnt exclusive. they said that it was for PC and x360.

[theEnemy]

Hence, Microsoft Exclusive.

:)

[XboxOZ360]

Errmm Exclusive to the MS platform silly . . . It's like saying if Sony put out Exclusive content for a game that utilised gameplay for the PSP and the PS3 and PS2 . . . It's exclusive to the platform per-se'.

[AllseeingEye]

against sony's first party exclusives. They dont have the internal devs to make good games so they spend their money on dlc. Who really cares about that. Ive long forgotten about gta and tomb raider will be a rental title at best.

[XboxOZ360]

You see, this argument follows no matter whether it is DLC or real world discs . .

Both sides that do not get the exclusive deal feel cheated, when in fact, they are simply getting a better deal through the platform they chose, for whatever reasons.

Most games now are on par with each other, with little of no real differences the average gamer can pick. So to make it different, both Sony and MS and Nintendo will now be looking at offering exclusive DLC as an option to gain followers, rather than Exclusive Disc based games.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it makes perfect business sense. And in the end, both Sony, MS and Nintendo are "in business" to make money, nothing else.

Before it was "That sucks, MS have an exclusive title we don't have" . . "That sucks, Sony has an exclusive title we don't have".

Now it's "That sucks, MS have Exclusive DLC we don't have", and it will be the same when Sony have DLC that MS doesn't have, and they will have it, mark my words.

And if you failed to read, BOTH Sony and MS are removing themselves from owning major in-house dev studios in the upcoming month/year, as they focus on newer initiatives and different ways of delivering content and dealing with a rapidly changing business model.

Both will/are letting go of the major studios they once owned or partt-owned/managed. Allowing those studios to sell their ware openly on the market, BUT - at the same time, the majors own the original IP of those titles the developer made originally, and thuse allow thatdev to come back and build or work on that IP should Sony or MS or Nintendo choose to.

I think many might be missing one major thing here. With studios leaving the Main-House (Sony- MS etc) it is allowing YOU the gamer greater access to more games and greater games. As studios will no longer be held at ransom by those majors to build games to certain levels.

They will be tying up with the likes of EA Partners, Ubisoft, Activison-Blizzard etc who are all allowing those developers the room to build their own games without interference from the publishers - unlike days gone by.

[DiabloRising]

I'm curious as to where you are getting this information about Sony letting go of first party devs? It has long seemed apparent that Sony's gameplan is to foster their OWN studios, since that allows for exclusive and original content that cannot be found elswhere, since they own not only the studio but the IP as well. This is different from MS, who instead of building their own studio group, sees fit to purchase rights to third party games instead.

I don't see Sony selling off IPs that it owns either, such as Resistance, nor dropping studio support left and right. Sure, some studios close or reallocate resources, but thats general business.

So please, could you explain where your reasoning is coming from?

[Cenobia]

@XboxOZ360 - I really don't think it's going to go that way. Microsoft might want people to think that exclusive DLC is the new exclusive games, but its not. Gears 2, for example, will sway far more people into buying a 360 then exclusive fallout DLC will.

Sony makes money on their exclusive games, and those games are an important part of the consumers decision to choose one console over another. Exclusive DLC just makes people with both consoles choose one version of a game over the other. Exclusives still are, and will continue to be important.

And I don't see Sony or Nintendo buying DLC yet. I think they know it won't make a difference in the long run, and are using their resources for different strategies. I also haven't heard of Sony dropping any studios, but if that is true it probably has more to do with those particular studios then an overall strategy of losing exclusives. I think you may be getting Sony's statement that "3rd party exclusives aren't as important any more" confused with their first/second party exclusives, which I believe will always be important.

And I also disagree with your statement that "YOU the gamer [have] greater access to more games and greater games." The PS3 and 360 have different architecture, and I think developers like Konami and Naughty Dog (for example) have already proven that exclusive games look better than multiplatform games. If a game is made for one platform rather than both the developers can focus on that consoles strengths, rather than fight the weaknesses of each system.

Exclusive games will always be important. At the current price points, I think Sony knows this better than anyone. If they didn't have the great games like LBP and R2 coming out, a lot less people would spend the extra cash.

[arngrim229]

i have both 360 and ps3 and i refuse to get those games on 360, i have my 360 for exclusives, i didnt pay for it to play the multiplat games, and no i dont care bout exclusive content, like ooo wow hulk u get to play as red hulk, woooow.

its idiotic and unfair to give exclusive content to one system when we both pay same price for the same game, developers are becoming like microsoft more and more everyday, micro transactions at every corner in order to get full experience

[XboxOZ360]

No, developers are seeingf a shift in purchasing power, and need to change tacktics to fit in with that before it occures, rather than after it occures. if they don't, they face going down the tube really quickly.

It's really easy for you and many others to scoff at what a major company might do, but you do not have the pleasure of knowing what is driving them to make these choice, none of us do. But from reading many plans on how these companies do work, and the every changing states of play within the industry, one only has to look ahead to see where it is headed.

Gamers do NOT like change, but unfortunately, change must occur, or even more developers will fall by the road side, and we'll end up with a handful of mega developers who control the entire gaming industry.

SOny and MS are moving away from having in-house development studios, both have openly stated that. Each week a smaller developer closes its does, or combines with other smaller ones to form a joint venture. You only have to watch the Venture capitalists sections of the industry to see that money is being put into joint development projects now, not single ventures.

Not because they are going broke, or need to, but because there is a shift in how the business model is being worked now. Which is vastly different t=o the business model of even 5 yrs ago.

[arngrim229]

while i agree with what ur saying it still doesnt justify giving 360 exclusive content, ur statement justifies DLC itself and why dev's do it. yes they cud/should do it, heck its optional. but whats unfair is its 360 only, why not both consoles?? they wud make more money that way.

the only one profiting from 360 exclusive dlc is MS, thats it, buuuuuut ur statement is right if MS gives them a crap load of money to get the content ;p

[XboxOZ360]

Because it's the new way of securing more customers for longer.

A TV manufacture makes a new TV, it has movies available that theother TV's do, but they make a deal with one of the Studios to offer Picture in Picture and special features not available through other TV's . . .Is that company a bad company simply because it is wanting to exploit it's options in offering its customer base a better or larger experience than its competition . . no.

I understand the frustration, there's several PS3 games I'd LOVE to have, and most of them are to come out yet, and they will be exclusive. And when Sony do offer special content for some of it's Multiplatform games, which it will, I'll be ticked that I can't have it too. But the thing is, we can not have everything we want in life, otherwise there is no such thing as choice. Everyone simply has the same as everyone else.

[beavis4play]

from the article:
"The two majors, Sony and MS, have both stated publicly that the era of “Exclusive titles is a thing of the past” - especially with regards to 3rd party games and now some 1st party titles that have moved back into the Indie Developer field."

when has sony let go of 1st party titles? right now they have a huge slate of first party games with more set to be announced at TGS.

[XboxOZ360]

Did you read it said some 1st party titles .. both MS and Sony are selling off their 1st [part in-house studios thus allowing those games to be made via the same developer, but out-side the bounds of the main company.

Why is it that so many are blind to what a company states publicly. 3rd party exclusives are a thing of the past to a huge degree, and many once 1st party only titles ill now be made for all platforms or at least the two major ones.

[PirateThom]

Some companies allow their IPs to be made by third parties.

The rumoured Halo by Gearbox
Buzz PS3 by Relentless Software

They're IPs are still held by Microsoft and Sony, so they'll only appear on those platforms, but they're made by outside developers. Doesn't mean you'll see them on another platform.

Last I heard Sony aren't selling their first parties, especially since they recently acquired a few last year...

[SkyGamer]

So true, so true.

[beavis4play]

sure, MS is moving towards less first party games but sony is increasing their 1st party line-up. not decreasing it.
so, what are the companies sony is selling off. and what are the titles?

[sajj316]

Makes it a bit unfair for multiplatform owners. Take this scenario. Say that PS3 was the lead platform for a game. MS pays for exclusive DLC. PS3 is the better edition of the game but MS has DLC. What do you choose? The better core game or an ok core game with DLC? I'd rather choose between the core games. With MS touting exclusive DLC as the 'full' experience, I can see why PS3 owners feel cheated. It can go the other way as well where 360 owners feel cheated.

[Darkiewonder]

Still waiting for GTAIV DLC to come out.

[XboxOZ360]

Exclusive Titles will no longer sell platforms, they might sell games, but not platforms. That has been proven several times already, and both MS and SOny have seen this. MGS4 did not sell the numbers of PS3's it (Sony) expected it to. They expected units to walk off the shelves in just about every region. That did not happen. Both MS and Sony expected GTA:IV to sell hardware as well as software. Gamers chose Software over hardware when you look at the numbers.

SO if you had a company that makes most of its money from software sales, would you not follow the trend to sell more software . . of course you would. If you didn't, you'd have no business being IN business - period.

SOny expected Haze, GTA:IV and MGS4 to sell the platform in HUGE numbers, those games did not. MS expected Too Human, Viva Pinata, etc to sell platforms, and they didn't. So they have to now look at reducing the cost at the counter for the hardware, and make the software more attractive, in order to move the hardware, not the other way round - make sense now.

It matter little if you "like" DLC or not, it is the way things are going in this digital age, and that is the way it WILL go. The question is, how far will it go and how fast will it happen.

Both suppliers are offering bigger HDD . why is that. With even bigger ones in the pipeline for the following year . Why is that . . . ? Because they will be focusing on DLC and Exclusive DLC for their titles, be they 1st party or 3rd party MP titles.

I hate the fact that one day I will have to accept that DLC will be the norm rather than the exception, I love to hold something in my hands, as do many gamers (read people) over the age of 18 and especially those over 30 plus, which I definitely fit into.

One day we won't have a choice, as technology will be in such a space that owning discs will be less popular than they are now. But they will STILL be available. Just like books are still available when they were once thought to become extinct with the advent of the online book and news . . . The medium did not take into account the sheer numbers of ppl around the world that wanted to sit down with a book/paper/mag rather than glue themselves to a screen.

The same will happen with DLC V's Disc-Based games. BUt we have 2 majpor generations and one approaching that will be used to having instant access to both games and online material, where games WILL be delivered straight to their iPhones, iPod Touches, or small PDA's they use in the bus on the way to School/TAFE/College etc.
They will not wantto go home and even sit in the bedroom and download stuff to a HDD on a PC, they'll do it in the loungeroom or entertainment room via their multimedia console or set-top-box that syncs with their mobile and PDA where they can exchange gear they got from their pals at school etc.

While that will happen, there will still be those who will want disc-based property . . just like books and newspapers.

[BigKev45]

Anther slam dunk by Microsoft.

[demolitionX]

DLC is just a pile of cr@p. I never downloaded a DLC till now. The gane is more than enough, who cares about DLC other than people who own a console WITH NO games. (360) :P

[JEDI WOLVERINE]

Although completely unscientific and subject to abuse from the 'multi account' holders it would be intersting to see how many people think that EXCLUSIVE DLC on multi-platform games is important this generation.....

Perhaps click 'Agree' if you think thats its important

Or click 'Disagree' if you think that its a waste of resourses allround.

[Mwaan]

I have both systems, but I usually go 360 because of things like this. If PS3 games got extra content or whatever, I'd pickup the PS3 version in a heartbeat. I'm a huge Tomb Raider fan and I'm going to grab the best version period. In the past, people with one console had to miss out on some great experiences, but now they just miss out on a couple of levels. No big deal.

[gaminoz]

Me, I like to boost my achievement points, so I get 360 titles if they are on both (also I like the 360 controller better)...I'd be restarting my 'trophy' score on PS3 since my completed games wouldn't count.

There isn't enough difference between titles yet to make me shift and buy multi-platform games on PS3. DLC would only affect me if it was significant.

[lord_monkey]

.. my point I'm getting tired of developers announcing DLC for a game that hasn't been released yet ( put it on the disc !!!) then have the "audacity"(brain Regan :P) to make it exclusive to one console .. there basically slapping there fan base just because they don't have a 360 its like saying "you want the full experience well get a 360 and the game on that system" .. plan stupid

even if MS offered money for it they shouldn't accept .. just to show you how some companies are money whores even when its their respect and reputation on the line

ever since MS joined the console market it became a dirty and unfriendly place they want every thing and will do anything to archive their goal

p.s. Gears is the last thing I'll play one the 360 and then farewell .. until Gears 3 or a decent halo .. but thats it

[dale1]

is ms having trouble getting third party timed exclusives now ,just getting dlc content,shutting down studios for this, now ea the biggest game company out there gives sony mirrors edge dlc exclusive but not ms ,is sony getting dead space dlc as well ? spin is wonderful thing i,m more interested in new ips than dlc myself dlc equals rip off unless its free

[XboxOZ360]

You need to check out what is actually happening out there mate.

It's (and Sony will be doing the same btw) shutting down studios as it is no longer a viable business model to do so any longer. The days have passed when having as many in-house dev studios really mattered, and ties to 3rd party dev was also important.

Yes, Major 3rd Party publishers will also be looking at spreading their wings with either times exclusive content or simply exclusive content, as it is the way that many studios will have to go in the future. It will help smaller dev studios get better deals, make more games and game content, and you 9the gamer) will be the one in the winners circle, as everyone ends up with more games and more game content.

Mirrors Edge will still be a great game on both (all) platforms, I'm not fussed if I miss out on some future DLC from it, bit sad, but hey, that is the way it goes, like it - or not. Far too many ppl want everything rather than being satisfied with what they do get, they want more, and it has breed a few generations of gamers that want everything, and want it yesterday if not before.

Which is a shame really, as they are missing out on what gaming is really about. It's NOT about the platform of choice, it's not about the exclusive or when the next big thing arrives next week or the next the week after. It's about ENJOYING the pleasure of gaming for gaming's sake. Having fun and simply relaxing and taking time out to enjoy ones chosen hobby.

[xfrgtr]

dale1
BRAVO!bubble for you

[kingme71]

Tomb Raider doesn't feel like a DLC type of game. RPG's like Oblivion and Fallout make sense. You are building up your character, taking on side missions and all that good stuff, but in something like TR, what would the DLC add to the game? It can't change the basic story. I don't know if I want to go climbing some extra mountain in the game that is not part of the main story.

[PirateThom]

I think this practice of exclusive DLC is completely pointless.

As I said in another thread, it may help fence sitters with both consoles to decide on which platform to buy a game on, but it's not going to determin which console someone with neither buys.

I'm buying Mirror's Edge and Fallout 3 for PS3, just because I prefer playing my PS3. Just as the DLC hasn't affected my decision to get Fallout 3, I doubt someone who favours the 360 will let the DLC affect their decision to get Mirror's Edge.

Frankly, I find the whole process disgusting to begin with. If you've paid for the game, you should have access to every aspect of said game, no matter what platform you buy. It's why I outright refuse to support exclusive "DLC", but will always support exclusive games.

I understand in thiscurrent climate there's less third party exclusives, and platform holders need a way to separate the third party games, but $50 million for GTAIV DLC after it had very little effect on sales either way (the sales ratios matched the install bases, neither party saw a real boost in sales) just said to me that was $50 million that could have been invested in a new IP.

People may use it as a plus point for their console of choice, but as I see it, you'll always have to pay for the exclusive content anyway. So you pay more, you get more - seems only fair. I just really question the impact of DLC, especially if it's like GTAIV where many people have lost interest and there still seems to be no sign of it and its initial sales impact was minimal.

[DiabloRising]

I agree. There's a huge difference between adding content to a game to extend its life... IE, Rock Band, and having DLC ready to go BEFORE the game hits, which should be on the goddamn disc.

[juuken]

Exactly, I agree with you.

[Immortal Kaim]

Agreed. I hate the practice of DLC full stop, unless it is offered to each console that the title is on. I know that there are heaps of PS3 fans here that claim they don't care about DLC, but you have to admit something like the Fallout 3 DLC would be welcome, hell, Im the same with mirror's edge, I have the shiat's that I wont get the DLC. It sucks, no matter how you spin it.

Offer it for each system god dammit.

[pumpkinpunker]

Judging from the comments here.

[JasonPC360PS3Wii]

and only found on the 360

[saucygit]

Yeah I did. The game was fun at first but now I find the game annoying. Waiting for DLC after 5 or 6 months for this title is stupid. Therefore I have gained knowledge.