Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
16 days 18 hours
Dark Souls III
4 days 22 hours
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
4 days 9 hours
Sid Meier's Civilization V
3 days 5 hours
As far as I can tell, the 'random champion' token can only sell you champions you don't own, much the same as the re-roll system could only roll you champions you didn't own. It seems like a pretty good idea, especially for people who'll only want to buy the newest champ, but it's definitely annoying that they've removed re-rolls.
They left a note in the warning panel 2-3 days ago saying they raised the price of the mystery champion token, also raising the minimum IP value of these mystery champions. Whilst I can't remember the exact wording anymore, they said it in such a way as to clarify it's limited to champions you don't own. Good news.
The way league has worked before with these deals (previously if you re-rolled 3 champs when you owned all champs) is to give you an unlocked champion shard of a random champion that you do own. I've assumed it's the same with the mystery champion token in the store now, but after a BE spending spree I don't have enough to mess around buying champ tokens (Riot have previously stated champ tokens and boxes content are decided on moment of purchase, so buying a token now wouldn't get me Zoe come her release).
I feel more confident now that champs will still be cheap enough to keep unlocking on release, but I'll return and say for certain come her release.
I'm just going off that it's all categorised as "DLC" under Steam, and I know I've read news releases that will say "New DLC for [game]" and it's a skin pack (Rocket League is an example of this). I'm not aware that there's been some sort of official categorisation.
As to whether it 'actually' has to be downloaded or not is up to the developer, really, there are plenty of games that download the content regardless of whether you've paid to 'add' it, so I wouldn't think that's a good metric for classification. I believe Forza Horizon 3 does this with its expansions (could be wrong, I'll find out tomorrow), as an example.
Steam often generalize their titles to categorize them together. There's only 1 place for additional transactions in steam games, so you also get micro transaction currency in the DLC tab (see PLEX purchases on EVE Online or Crown purchases in Elder Scrolls Online for examples).
Very valid point about downloads, I'd used a flawed argument myself and completely missed it! Total War series is another example of games that update/download the new content immediately, but then put a paywall behind it so that you can't play 'as' the new content until you pay for it; so I know where you're coming from.
Developers often do this for 2 reasons, 1) it helps increase sales of DLC if(competing against X you keep seeing new content behind the pay wall as you play new race who does Y different to everyone else, of course I want to pay to be able to play as them!), and 2) it avoids multiplayer segregation through patches. If everyone is playing off the same patch in Forza then everyone can race together still. I didn't think the later Forza games had any actual Expansion Passes or sizable DLCs, I thought there were content packs, maybe some skins but almost all (if not every) car was available through in-game currency.
Forza, there's a game that was happy to rip players money from the great grandchildren of their players. With some top-level cars costing hundreds of pounds in micro-transaction currency, it really is a joke. I've never been to much into racing games myself so I've never encountered that kind of price before, but if I were to play I'd rather not pay to unlock the content (even if it was only 10% of its current price) because it removes the feeling of progression. It would be just as bad as paying in Monster Hunter to unlock all of a creatures equipment before you can beat it.
Removes any satisfaction from winning, removing any value (through a sense of achievement) from the purchased car, reducing much of the enjoyment utilizing the car to work towards future vehicles. That's getting back into personal opinion though, so I'll stop there XD
Apologies but I’m not entirely sure if I follow you correctly, I presume when you talk about gameplay-less DLCs you mean patches/updates that add micro-transaction content to the game?
Whilst technically speaking skins or updates are a form of content, I’d argue that these micro-transactions are nothing more than that, places for people to invest into the game. These would include things like Destiny 1 (and 2 I believe)’s Silver, Star Wars: Battlefront 2’s loot boxes, AC Origins shops weapons/armour and League of Legends skins. It’d also argue they’re not DLC, as rarely do you have to download any files to open/use the microtransaction items (instead being locked files already in the game).
I’ve never really worried over these micro-transactions either, as I’ve managed to resist purchasing any packs I regret. There are always prices you look at and question ‘why’, but others who love the game decide they want to invest that much into the title they really enjoy. For purchasable rewards to exist at the higher boundaries makes sense for me, so long as they don’t disadvantage those that don’t pay (something that the community has recently picked up on and started to complain about).
I believed that the community (and gaming companies) had reached a consensus in this decision, and had also adjusted their usage of the term ‘DLC’, reserving it to cover ‘Expansion Packs’ only. Am I wrong in this assumption? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any companies that are happy to name their small updates and skins as DLCs, but I’m all-ears to titles or names.
Cracks bypass features. Being encoded in binary there's no way to literally remove the DRM (short of hacking into Ubisoft's servers and stealing a DRM-free version of the game). Instead it'll do the same as all the rest of the Denuvo-cracked titles, avoid the security switch from picking up the copy is stolen. It'll still run in the background and slow down the PC just as much as it does in a legitimate copy of the game. Whether or not that is the suggested 40% is hard to tell.
Entertainingly Ubisoft replied saying there's no problems for frame-rate when accounting the games goal of a steady 30fps experience (which is true, most CPUs rarely hurt the frame-rate further than an average 30fps). At the same time they posted on the Bugs post that they're researching into the CPU consumption and are looking into/working on a fix.
Not sure why it's setting out to contradict itself, saying there's no problem but we're working on it anyway. Their approach feels like a car mechanic telling the owner that the tire hasn't got a puncture, the car still drives perfectly fine at 30mph. We'll send out a mechanic next week to take a look anyway, but I don't see any problems.
I Guess we have to wait for physical decacore processor, this optimisation is a shame. Ac origin is one of the few recent games that can crash your entire pc (personnally it happened to 4 or 5 times mostly because I was playing a video at the same time) , so Ubisoft's post is a really bad joke
When you say "DLC" are you only including content that adds to gameplay? Because I feel the opposite, that the majority of DLC isn't good, because a lot of it is just skins or minor tweaks or additions and such.
Obviously though it's going to vary by the type of game though.
thanks for intentionally misinforming urself. Their is NOT gonna b any micros in World. They havent said it once! and no Capcom isnt the one tht added the micros, loot boxes, etc. into MH Online, tht was Tencent, the main devs of the spinoff. Capcom only had say on wht is and isnt allowed in the game. Maybe do some research sometime, hm? (source: Ive been playing MH Online for months)