I don’t want dlc to count for my percentage

[DrBloodmoney]

17 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

 

Well yea not all the devs are greedy n some may produce excellent free content on periodic basis as well, like Blizzard (Overwatch) or Digital Extremes (Warframe).

 

We have been talking about trophies and how they're forced into ur completion % and most ppl I think will agree that dlc's in general are overpriced and therefore those devs are greedy, that's why dlc trophies are counted with base game trophies even though you don't own these trophies' dlc.

 

The DLC trophies in a game being 'forced' into your completion percentage isn't greed - it's maths.

 

100% means everything.

Everything mean everything in the game.

DLC is in game.

 

Ergo, game without DLC cannot be 100%.

 

The only alternative would be for people who do the DLC to be above 100%, which is, of course, a mathematical impossibly. 

 

Maths.

[AyeOfReach]

13 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

The DLC trophies in a game being 'forced' into your completion percentage isn't greed - it's maths.

 

100% means everything.

Everything mean everything in the game.

DLC is in game.

 

Ergo, game without DLC cannot be 100%.

 

The only alternative would be for people who do the DLC to be above 100%, which is, of course, a mathematical impossibly. 

 

Maths.

 

Yea I get it, but if don't own it why it's counted against you ? Like the OP said he has completed the game but he gotten A instead of S, that's cheating and in some cases it's also "greedness".

[DrBloodmoney]

9 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

 

Yea I get it, but if don't own it why it's counted against you ? Like the OP said he has completed the game but he gotten A instead of S, that's cheating and in some cases it's also "greedness".

 

Meh - I can't get down with the "greediness" argument - there are some bad DLC's out there, but there are too many good ones to see the whole concept as "greedy".

 

There's simply no world in which something like Minerva's Den, Lair of the Shadow Broker, Mooncrash, The Ballad of Gay Tony, Undead Nightmare from Red Dead, or the Trial's of Fear dlc for Dandara can be derided as 'greed based products', they are too high quality and too good a value-to-gameplay proposition for that to be true - in most of those cases, the cost to enjoyment ratio is actually better than most full priced games.

 

Especially in a world where annualised sports games, or wrestling games, or even CoD games make so little iterative improvements from game to game, and are charging full price at every outing.

Edited May 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[JoesusHCrust]

30 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Meh - I can't get down with the "greediness" argument - there are some bad DLC's out there, but there are too many good ones to see the whole concept as "greedy".

I agree to a point. It's frustrating that our completion percentage is affected by content that we don't own, but those are the rules. Generally, I don't find that DLC really adds much to most games and I dislike having to make a choice between completion percentage and spending money on DLCs I don't necessarily want but PSNP is just following Sony's conventions. 

 

If we want to get really philosophical, then greed is the cornerstone of all capitalist endeavours! DLC is designed to make money, as are games, as are games consoles etc. so there will always be some credibility to the 'it's just greed' argument. I suppose if people dislike 'greed' that much, they should campaign for a socialist planned system where the people's games console is made by the people for the people's entertainment!

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by JoesusHCrust

[DrBloodmoney]

20 minutes ago, JoesusHCrust said:

If we want to get really philosophical, then greed is the cornerstone of all capitalist endeavours! DLC is designed to make money, as are games, as are games consoles etc. so there will always be some credibility to the 'it's just greed' argument. I suppose if people dislike 'greed' that much, they should campaign for a socialist planned system where the people's games console is made by the people for the people's entertainment!

 

Haha , well yes, I suppose if we want to get all Marxist-Leninist about it, but in terms of the way it was framed here, I think I'm on fairly solid ground.

 

Certainly, I'd argue that, in this context, there is less validity to the idea that selling optional dlc for a game is 'greed'...

 

...than to argue that wanting to be recognised as having an S-Rank without actually putting in the time, effort and, yes, modest financial investment,  to get it is...? ?

 

The game is the game - in its final entirety, however much additional to the base game that ends up being, IMO.

 

I mean, at a certain point, wouldn't this just inevitably lead to "Well, i don't like multiplayer trophies, and you need to pay for internet access separate to the game, so the S-Rank should be for only the Single Player trophies..."

Edited May 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Ich1994-1994]

19 minutes ago, JoesusHCrust said:

I agree to a point. It's frustrating that our completion percentage is affected by content that we don't own, but those are the rules. Generally, I don't find that DLC really adds much to most games and I dislike having to make a choice between completion percentage and spending money on DLCs I don't necessarily want but PSNP is just following Sony's conventions. 

 

If we want to get really philosophical, then greed is the cornerstone of all capitalist endeavours! DLC is designed to make money, as are games, as are games consoles etc. so there will always be some credibility to the 'it's just greed' argument. I suppose if people dislike 'greed' that much, they should campaign for a socialist planned system where the people's games console is made by the people for the people's entertainment!

 

i wouldnt 100% agree with that. there is a difference between a fair deal and greed. Look at people that work in the cleaning branche for example. i wouldnt say they do it out of greediness. there are people that want stuff to be clean and they need money to buy food shelter and some extra for pleasure. and in a lot of cases its not even enough to not count as poor in your country. so the idea of exchange your abilities and time for currency has nothing to do with greed.
and game developer do nothing else. they exchange their creative work against my currency. so in alot of cases i wouldnt agree that the "its just greed" agrument is valiable. the witcher 3 is a great example too. they made an incredible amount of money with the base game and i am sure with the dlc as well. but the DLC were damn good. and i am very happy that they made at least a little bit of extra witcher game instead of letting me wait for 10 years for the witcher 4.
Call of duty on the other hand. 2 map packs for the same price that gave you one DLC of the witcher with physical GWENT cards included. and also spread teh zombiemaps across all the map packs so that people that just wat to play the zombiemode still need to spend 60 bucks on 4! extra maps thats a whole different story.
To put these 2 things in the sam epot buy saying "Its just greed" is not fair. at least in my opinion.

[AyeOfReach]

This thread is going

40 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Meh - I can't get down with the "greediness" argument - there are some bad DLC's out there, but there are too many good ones to see the whole concept as "greedy".

 

There's simply no world in which something like Minerva's Den, Lair of the Shadow Broker, Mooncrash, The Ballad of Gay Tony, Undead Nightmare from Red Dead, or the Trial's of Fear dlc for Dandara can be derided as 'greed based products', they are too high quality and too good a value-to-gameplay proposition for that to be true - in most of those cases, the cost to enjoyment ratio is actually better than most full priced games.

 

Especially in a world where annualised sports games, or wrestling games, or even CoD games make so little iterative improvements from game to game, and are charging full price at every outing.

 

This thread goes into a loop where we start repeating what we said earlier n then continuing on repeating the same stuff over n over again, n now it seems that we're going to play this "upvotting" little game for devs own interest.

 

You know games that u have mentioned don't consititue even 0.0001% of total content available on the store, not to mention in most circumstances it doesn't justify the exaggerated high prices of dlc's although all of these "good" dlc's can also be considered a greedness, not for their "quality" but because you're taking people's money against their full satisfaction.

 

I may not want the Undead Nightmare dlc even if it's better n bigger than base game content, why do you miss with my completion % ? [then the loop repeat itself, and once again: sell me a complete game. Don't reduct from my completion percentage then "force" me to buy you product at the price you have sat], Is this really so hard to understand ?

 

No one is forcing me yea right but I want a 100% profile, I want my games to be all completed, how do I achieve that ? [and this is so many people's wish btw] and the only way to do so is to buy the overpriced additional content.

 

[visvoer18]

2 hours ago, Ich1994-1994 said:

i wouldnt call dlc automatically greedness. the lego games for example have pretty fair DLC in my opinion. its real original content that does not feel like it got cut from the game but like something new. 
also burnout paradise i think had very fair dlc.
When you get a game that feels complete and then there is something added i dont really see a problem with that. from a trophy completionists perspective its a bit annoying. also for me but when its done in a fair way i usually also buy the DLC. most times i wait for a 50% sale.

Another thing to keep in mind is that not every developer has a huge budget. sometimes they make a game thats as big as they can afford and when it ends up beein really good they can afford to make more content for it. look at no mans sky for example. that was a 8 people team that created what they could. and with sales they were able to improve the game. in this case even as free DLC

 

paid dlc is always cut content  or the devs didnt think ther game was ready yet so lets just keep it out of the maingame enough  suckers who buy it anyway  for more money

 

that you have an incomplete game  they couldnt care less about in general all paid dlc at the evrry least is nothing more then greed.

 

I never bought it nor never will I buy it  or digital games for that mather that cna be taken away in a moments notice (see playstation mobile)

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, AyeOfReach said:

This thread goes into a loop where we start repeating what we said earlier n then continuing on repeating the same stuff over n over again.

 

Conversations are always cyclical if no one changes their minds.

 

2 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

 n now it seems that we're going to play this "upvotting" little game for devs own interest.

 

...what?

 

2 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

You know games that u have mentioned don't consititue even 0.0001% of total content available on the store, not to mention in most circumstances it doesn't justify the exaggerated high prices of dlc's although all of these "good" dlc's can also be considered a greedness, not for their "quality" but because you're taking people's money against their full satisfaction.

 

Well, yes, I obviously am not going to list enough dlcs in my post to constitute a majority of the PSN store - we'd be here 'till next Julember.

I'm citing examples of good ones, to demonstrate that they are out there, and some are actually better value than the games they are DLC for.

 

3 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

I may not want the Undead Nightmare dlc even if it's better n bigger than base game content, why do you miss with my completion % ? [then the loop repeat itself, and once again: sell me a complete game. Don't reduct from my completion percentage then "force" me to buy you product at the price you have sat], Is this really so hard to understand ?

 

It's not hard to understand.

I am understanding you, I promise.

I am just disagreeing with you.

I'm doing both - I'm multitasking ?

 

It's not possible for me to marry your argument with the pure and simple fact that someone who does do the dlc and get's 100% has done more than a person who doesn't, and therefore, giving the S-Rank to the person who hasn't would devalue the S-Rank of the person who has.

 

It would be like giving the a medal for the 200m sprint to someone who sprinted really fast for 150m, then stopped.

Maybe they didn't want to do the last 50m - which is totally fine and their choice - but they can't expect the medal that those who finished get. 

 

By this point in the trophy game, it is fairly obvious to anyone who is ever peripherally interested in trophy hunting which games are likely to get dlc and which aren't - so even before DLC exists for a game you can very easily make an educated guess whether it will, so you should rarely be actually 'caught-out' by a surprise dlc. 

 

6 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

No one is forcing me yea right but I want a 100% profile, I want my games to be all completed, how do I achieve that ?

 

By buying all dlc and finishing it. 

That's just the cost of doing business if you want the 100%, I'm afraid. 

 

10 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

[and this is so many people's wish btw]

 

Many people wish for a many things.

I would very much like an angry hand-job from Jennifer Lawrence, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it, or ever going to get it.

 

9 minutes ago, AyeOfReach said:

the only way to do so is to buy the overpriced additional content.

 

Again, yes, some DLC might be overpriced, but I haven't personally found it to be exorbitant - and I buy all trophy related dlc for all my games (of which there are a good 600-odd.)

 

Buying a DLC can often be more financially good sense than a new game, in fact, as some dlc (like the ones I mentioned) can take almost as long as a new game to finish, and have the added bonus of being for a game I already enjoyed enough to platinum in the first place ☺️

 

 

[Brawler]

Truetrophies let’s you decide if you want to include DLC or not, last I checked. I like the default format on here but that’s always an option if you wanted to check your potential completion % without DLC. 

[AyeOfReach]

3 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

It would be like giving the a medal for the 200m sprint to someone who sprinted really fast for 150m, then stopped.

Maybe they didn't want to do the last 50m - which is totally fine and their choice - but they can't expect the medal that those who finished get.

 

Give it to who paid more then. Seriously, I've done every free dlc for every game I have n I think people will do the same too.

 

 

7 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I would very much like an angry hand-job from Jennifer Lawrence, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it, or ever going to get it.

 

Really that's an example for our situation here ? That's you dreaming I guess.

[mysticmosh]

There should be a over haul of psn (imo of course), where dlc trophies only appear on your account if you actually buy then play the packs. If you plat a game but don't want any of the dlc released, the packs should not automatically be added to your account. I've played loads of dlc and don't mind those trophy icons appearing on my account. However, if I don't want to play a platted game further, I shouldn't have to have my completion % lowered by packs being added that I didn't purchase. How hard can it be to do?. Sony can add (and takeaway) other stuff at random through system upgrades, so why can't this be implemented?. I mean, they changed the entire trophy leveling system ffs, so don't go saying it would be too hard!!.

[EdinhoN]

2 hours ago, AyeOfReach said:

 

Yea I get it, but if don't own it why it's counted against you ? Like the OP said he has completed the game but he gotten A instead of S, that's cheating and in some cases it's also "greedness".

I don't own many of the hundreds 15 minute plats out there, so I think it's unfair Hakoom is the #1 on the leaderboard and not me ?

[Berendsapje]

On 2-5-2021 at 0:32 AM, SSJJGOD said:

I platinumed a game, but still only have an A rank because of the dlc content. is there any way to get rid of this?

Yes. Play the DLC and earn every trophy on that.

[DaivRules]

I think the only example of greed I can think of related to DLC doesn't come from a company that makes DLC, after all, it's a company, their entire existence is to generate revenue.

 

The greed I see is in the mentality of people who think that whatever they want should come at whatever cost they want. If DLC comes out costing money, then you either want it or you don't. The company created another product that is an extension of their existing product. Just because you gave money for part of the product and "completed" all of the base product, doesn't mean any additional products that come out related to the base are included. They're more products, put out by a company to generate more money, just like they got for their base product.

 

If you're a completionist in 2021, that's the artificial parameter you put on yourself and your issue to deal with. If you think DLC is too expensive, another parameter you put on yourself and your issue to deal with. The companies who are putting out DLC are doing it because they want more products out there to buy and they're telling you, with your self-imposed rules, that you are not their intended customer. No need to bring hurt feelings into it, it's all business. You owe them nothing, they definitely owe you nothing.

 

As far as DLC counting for percentage, DLC is content for a game. It's downloadable (hence the DL), but it's still part of the game. To complete a game (for a completion percentage) it's only logical to include all of the content for a game, not just part of it. Again, if you have personal parameters you put on yourself as to how you spend your money or play games, you put those rules on yourself. Be an informed consumer and know what you're spending your money on. 

[JoesusHCrust]

Here's my fantasy system: Every game gets a platinum, and then extra DLC is counted as a seperate '100%' list. This isn't the system in use though, so for now, like it or not, we have to do all DLC to get the S rank. The reasons for that have been laid out in detai labove. There's plenty about life that I don't like, but for the time being we will have to complete all DLC if we want an S rank for a game. 

[TheSleepyBeauty]

Imagine complaining about the developers adding extra content to a game because it affects your game percentage and rank on psnprofiles. First world problems am i right?! 

[Boomshanks]

Wow, so because some dlc is overpriced now all dlc is greedy and overpriced and should be free? I've played plenty of dlc which has added incredible value for its price. And no, not all dlc was content that was cut from the original game. What a black-and-white view some people have.

 

What is it with all the crybabies on this site recently. When something doesn't go exactly their way or they have to spend some money or actually put some time and effort into a game they cry foul and want the entire system to be changed. Jesus.

 

Oh and I'd also like an angry (and slightly disappointed) handjob from Jlaw please.

[Ich1994-1994]

1 hour ago, visvoer18 said:

 

paid dlc is always cut content  or the devs didnt think ther game was ready yet so lets just keep it out of the maingame enough  suckers who buy it anyway  for more money

 

that you have an incomplete game  they couldnt care less about in general all paid dlc at the evrry least is nothing more then greed.

 

I never bought it nor never will I buy it  or digital games for that mather that cna be taken away in a moments notice (see playstation mobile)

i am sorry but this statement is simply wrong. and to call everybody a sucker who buys dlc is also not a good opinion.
look at games like the witcher. how could this DLC be cut content? the game was a buggy mess when it came out and the DLC added a whole new area. it wouldnt even make sense economically to have this content done when the game releases. these DLC get developed after the game was released. also with cyberpunk now. you really think they took the time to create content that they want to cut for later anyway when the console version is in such a horrible state? no. you pay initially for what the developer is able to create in a given time and with a given budget. then the game gets sold and with the new budget and more time they make the DLC. it may have been the plan in the beginning to make DLC later but that is not necesarily content that could have been in the main game. aso you have to keep in mind that games need to make a profit. you cannot invest infinite time and money into a game.
you have an idea then you can think about how many copies you expect to sell. and when you expect to make 8mio bucks your developementcost cannot be 10mio. so you need to make sure your project is of a certain size.
and the cut content that gets done in DLC is not perfectly finished content that they took out to make more money its often ideas that didnt work in the main game. or stories that didnt make sense in the main storyline. or stuff that was just not good enough for the main game but creative enough for a dlc with a structure thats different
any example would be cyberpunk again and its multiplayer DLC. thats not cut content that makes the game incomplete. with the budget and time they had they were not even able to get the game running on consoles. there is no finished working multiplayer that they took out to sell it to you later.

another great example is pokemon. about half of every generation of pokemon get cut. the first generation has 150 but they created 300. is now every newer generation that uses ideas from the cut 150 pokemon cut content and only suckers buy gen 2 games because it makes gen 1 games incomplete? are in general part 2 games cut content from gen 1?

[B1rvine]

On 5/3/2021 at 7:35 AM, AyeOfReach said:

 

Yea I get it, but if don't own it why it's counted against you ? Like the OP said he has completed the game but he gotten A instead of S, that's cheating and in some cases it's also "greedness".

 

Your grade (S rank, A rank etc) is a comparison of you against every other player tracked for a game, so it's not possible to have the best rank while you're not tied for first.  Sometimes, you can be “A rank” without the platinum... or have the platinum and only be a "B or C" rank.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by B1rvine

[technole]

1 hour ago, TheSleepyBeauty said:

Imagine complaining about the developers adding extra content to a game because it affects your game percentage and rank on psnprofiles. First world problems am i right?! 

 

Never underestimate people's OCDs that don't make sense. There are people who don't support DLC, but will buy and plat 100+ games in a year even if they are 10 minutes and cost $30.

[StraightVege]

2 hours ago, JoesusHCrust said:

Here's my fantasy system: Every game gets a platinum, and then extra DLC is counted as a seperate '100%' list.

 

That's exactly how I've wanted it to be done since trophies became a thing. They'd only appear on your profile if you buy the DLC and earn a trophy for it.

[visvoer18]

50 minutes ago, Ich1994-1994 said:

i am sorry but this statement is simply wrong. and to call everybody a sucker who buys dlc is also not a good opinion.
look at games like the witcher. how could this DLC be cut content? the game was a buggy mess when it came out and the DLC added a whole new area. it wouldnt even make sense economically to have this content done when the game releases. these DLC get developed after the game was released. also with cyberpunk now. you really think they took the time to create content that they want to cut for later anyway when the console version is in such a horrible state? no. you pay initially for what the developer is able to create in a given time and with a given budget. then the game gets sold and with the new budget and more time they make the DLC. it may have been the plan in the beginning to make DLC later but that is not necesarily content that could have been in the main game. aso you have to keep in mind that games need to make a profit. you cannot invest infinite time and money into a game.
you have an idea then you can think about how many copies you expect to sell. and when you expect to make 8mio bucks your developementcost cannot be 10mio. so you need to make sure your project is of a certain size.
and the cut content that gets done in DLC is not perfectly finished content that they took out to make more money its often ideas that didnt work in the main game. or stories that didnt make sense in the main storyline. or stuff that was just not good enough for the main game but creative enough for a dlc with a structure thats different
any example would be cyberpunk again and its multiplayer DLC. thats not cut content that makes the game incomplete. with the budget and time they had they were not even able to get the game running on consoles. there is no finished working multiplayer that they took out to sell it to you later.

another great example is pokemon. about half of every generation of pokemon get cut. the first generation has 150 but they created 300. is now every newer generation that uses ideas from the cut 150 pokemon cut content and only suckers buy gen 2 games because it makes gen 1 games incomplete? are in general part 2 games cut content from gen 1?

its the truth though because people buy it they keep making it

 

dlc and patches make the whole concept of physical games pointless.

 

and sure lets go by your example if the game was that crappy and glitchy when it was releases they shouldnt have released it in that state  in the first place.  they SAY the dlc is developed afterwards if you wanna believe that so naivly thats fine your choice however in most cases  I dont buy for a second that thats the case.

 

and lol you wanna talk about profit?  if a person like boby kotkick can allow himself a bonus of 150 million I have to feel pitty? come on there is no person  on the planet who deserve paychecks  and bonuses that high.

 

then your argument that it didnt make sense in the maingame or story  thats an stupid argument as well because if it didnt work there it should also not work  as dlc  the only difference is that as dlc you pay extra for it if it didnt fit in it wont fit in if you buy it seperatly either  unles you think money can fit  it in. in that case why not add planes in a game about the middle ages then?

 

realy what you are saying here makes no sense at all for the most part

 

saying it doesnt fit in the game but eaperently does fit if you pay for it

using games bought out full of bugs as an argument for dlc makes no sense either and I cna give som more examples

[MrBenosaurus]

PSNP is displaying I don't have 100% of all the trophies in a game because I didn't get 100% of trophies in said game! What the heck?? Bad website!! ?

My lame humour aside, I (and I think most of us in this niche corner of gaming), can absolutely empathize with the position of OP - it can certainly be a frustrating experience when you achieve a perfect completion of a game only to have a dlc release take away that shining 100% marker, and I absolutely think anyone is valid for expressing that frustration. Trophy hunting / game completionism is usually a deeply personal hobby for many rather than a strictly comparative or competitive one. All of the lovely trophy hunters I've met have their own values and reasons not only for hunting trophies, but in deciding what trophies/completions they specifically value and pursue.

That said, I'm somewhat puzzled by the uproar over this since it's pretty clear what the "100%" metric represents. Furthermore, 100% and platinum are two separate statistics. If you as a person do not value dlc content and only have interest in trophies for base game lists, that's what the platinum is for. For those who commit themselves to 100% profiles - a volitional decision, albeit one that can be greatly and stressfully driven by obsessive compulsive tendencies (hence why I really think we ought to be showing folks some compassion here) - dlc and update trophies are just a fact of the matter.

If you want to get comparative about the (subjective) value of this issues, I think the good doctor here has spelled it out quite well  

3 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

...someone who does do the dlc and get's 100% has done more than a person who doesn't, and therefore, giving the S-Rank to the person who hasn't would devalue the S-Rank of the person who has.

 

[Iker_01]

So many ridiculous takes in this thread. DLC isn't inherently "greedy" or "unethical" (might want to check the meaning of that last word...). A DLC can expand the base game without it being cut content. Lair of the Shadowbroker for Mass Effect 2, Blood and Wine for The Witcher 3, Tresspasser for Dragon Age Inquisition, Mooncrash for Prey. They are numerous examples of properly priced DLCs that only enhance their respective games.

 

Trophy hunters represent only a minuscule fraction of the player base. A game developer does not add a DLC in order to intentionally drop your percentage, that's an absurd claim. They add DLC for profit or to generate buzz and goodwill, if the DLC is free. Obsesive people who buy DLC only to raise their completion percentage (I'm one of those) don't even factor in that decision.