I don’t want dlc to count for my percentage

[Guest]

this site only considers a "complete game" when you complete all dlcs, my profile says that it has only 490 complete games and I consider having more than 600 in total, but even having some dlcs I don't have the patience to play some are not worth it, some don't add anything special to the game and are only there for no reason lol, Shadow of Mordor for example I don't intend to play the dlcs anytime soon, so even though I have access to them I often want to play something else. come on, if you have a lot of games you will give preference to different games instead of playing a lot of dlc without any charm, but that goes with how dedicated you are with the appearance of your profile

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

I'd quit my account at this point rather than have one single game at less than 100% and completely accept all dlc's that pop up, to @MrBenosaurus's point. On my old account I didn't, so I couldn't complain when an S turned into an A. 

[TakemetoNarnia4]

On 5/2/2021 at 2:15 AM, OmegaRejectz said:

...unethical? Really? Free DLC for a game adding in cut content from the original is unethical? I can understand for some games, but the N. Sane Trilogy literally includes two free DLC, for Crash 1 & Crash: Warped.

 

 Some dlcs are NOT free.

PSN profiles count dlcs as soon as they get release even if you haven't bought it

IMO the dlc should only be visible on psn profiles AFTER you have bought said dlc and/or AFTER you get the first dlc achievement.

 

[Ich1994-1994]

1 hour ago, visvoer18 said:

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

i dont believe them i see that it is economically the better choice. how would it make sense to finish developement for a DLC when it comes out a YEAR after the maingame? how would that make sense? when a company has the possibility to delay spending money they will always do it. because money can make yuo more money. there is no point in investing money to finish the developement of a DLC buy november when it comes out november next year. 
companies calculate into their spending something called opportunity cost. if you invest 100 bucks into a project that has a profit of 1 buck instead of a project that has a profit of 5 you have opportunity cist of 4 bucks because you missed the chance to earn 5 instead of 1. if you pay someone 100 bucks to finish the DLC until november and you dont release it until november that investment gives you 0 profit over 1 year. thats a horrible investment. 

 

ok i give you one example for ideas that didnt make sense in the main game but did in a dlc
metro exodus is the third part of the metro trilogy and it Has the SAM dlc. its the after story of an NPC that plays in a different time in different levels with different other NPC. it has basically nothing to do with the main game aside from the fact that SAM apears in the maingame and that they happen in the same franchise. how is that cut content? i love the metro games and what i got there was a 4th game. it was shorter than the others an reused assets but it also only costed 10bucks.
so how is that cut content?

 

or the legogames. maingame has a open world with levels that tell a story. DLC (2 bucks each btw) are random levels that display movie scenes from the same franchise but different movies. you also get new characteres. doing everything takes about 1h so you got 2 bucks per hour there.
the legogames without DLC came out for 50 bucks and some of them have content for 10h. thats 5 bucks per h. so you even got a better cost per gameplay ratio in this original content that had setpieces and characters that didnt find a place in the story of the game.

 

another example would be games like smash bros. they release new fighters from time to time. so how many fighters should a fighting game have to not be a ripoff? and what if after the release of smash bros a new IP releases and fans would like to have a character from that IP in the game? do they have to make another full smash bros to add that character? why shouldnt they be allowed to just add it as a DLC? and do you really think every single additional fighter they release now was done in developement 3 years ago? you really think a company would take an investment that doesnt give you any profit for 3! years? thats absud

 

or look at alice madness returns. the dlc there is whole first game. how is this full other game cut content too? i mean in this case i have to admit it was done already when the second game got released.

i dont say you should pitty them. that worker earn almost nothing and managers make millions is a complitley different topic. but keep in mind that not every indie developer pays his manager 150mio. look at no mans sky for example. 8 dudes. i dont think 7 of them make 2000 bucks a month and the 8th one goes home with 100mio.

and btw dont forget that games are pretty much the only thing that didnt get more expensive. in the 90ies you payd 50-60 bucks for games and now they do too. of corse they need additional sources of income. and if its not profitable enough noone will be interested in developing big games. i happiely buy witcher 3 DLC if that makes the whole thing profitable enough to be interesting for companies. if you wait a few months prices fall like rocks anyway

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ich1994-1994

[Shadow_Kisuragi]

35 minutes ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

I'd quit my account at this point rather than have one single game at less than 100% and completely accept all dlc's that pop up, to @MrBenosaurus's point. On my old account I didn't, so I couldn't complain when an S turned into an A. 

 

Good thing you didn't play Borderlands JP GOTY on this account.

[AihaLoveleaf]

I personally like that PSNProfiles is consistent with how Sony deals with DLC, as I like knowing where I stand in terms of completion as far as Sony sees it. If Sony ever revisits how they see completion % in a game then by all means change things up, but it wouldn't feel right to have a higher % here and a lower % on PSN just because of something arbitrary.

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

2 minutes ago, Shadow_Kisuragi said:

 

Good thing you didn't play Borderlands JP GOTY on this account.

Yeah I try to vet games before I play them but in theory any game could be my last!

[Sir_TyroneOBE]

The DLC that's shown on the percentage is always a level of some sort or maybe a full-blown game. Now I don't like DLC as a whole but how it is set up in the percentage makes perfect sense the DLC is part of that game you will not be able to play it if you don't have said game. It's not its own standalone title even if it doesn't need the base game to technically run.

[visvoer18]

2 minutes ago, Ich1994-1994 said:

i dont believe them i see that it is economically the better choice. how would it make sense to finish developement for a DLC when it comes out a YEAR after the maingame? how would that make sense? when a company has the possibility to delay spending money they will always do it. because money can make yuo more money. there is no point in investing money to finish the developement of a DLC buy november when it comes out november next year. 
companies calculate into their spending something called opportunity cost. if you invest 100 bucks into a project that has a profit of 1 buck instead of a project that has a profit of 5 you have opportunity cist of 4 bucks because you missed the chance to earn 5 instead of 1. if you pay someone 100 bucks to finish the DLC until november and you dont release it until november that investment gives you 0 profit over 1 year. thats a horrible investment. 

 

ok i give you one example for ideas that didnt make sense in the main game but did in a dlc
metro exodus is the third part of the metro trilogy and it Has the SAM dlc. its the after story of an NPC that plays in a different time in different levels with different other NPC. it has basically nothing to do with the main game aside from the fact that SAM apears in the maingame and that they happen in the same franchise. how is that cut content? i love the metro games and what i got there was a 4th game. it was shorter than the others an reused assets but it also only costed 10bucks.
so how is that cut content?

 

or the legogames. maingame has a open world with levels that tell a story. DLC (2 bucks each btw) are random levels that display movie scenes from the same franchise but different movies. you also get new characteres. doing everything takes about 1h so you got 2 bucks per hour there.
the legogames without DLC came out for 50 bucks and some of them have content for 10h. thats 5 bucks per h. so you even got a better cost per gameplay ratio in this original content that had setpieces and characters that didnt find a place in the story of the game.

 

another example would be games like smash bros. they release new fighters from time to time. so how many fighters should a fighting game have to not be a ripoff? and what if after the release of smash bros a new IP releases and fans would like to have a character from that IP in the game? do they have to make another full smash bros to add that character? why shouldnt they be allowed to just add it as a DLC? and do you really think every single additional fighter they release now was done in developement 3 years ago? you really think a company would take an investment that doesnt give you any profit for 3! years? thats absud

 

or look at alice madness returns. the dlc there is whole first game. how is this full other game cut content too? i mean in this case i have to admit it was done already when the second game got released.
i dont say you should pitty them. that worker earn almost nothing and managers make millions is a complitley different topic.

people buy it  also if the game is out over a year  so they get their money anyway. you could make an argument by releasing it that much later you actualy make more   because people remember your game better so it cna actualy work in your favour for future sequels.

 

then your metro example  what is the difference? according to you it wouldnt fit the game yet if you buy it SEPERATE from the game it does fit? that makes no sense at all  if it fits it fit if it doesnt it doesnt. if its added later or not is totaly inrelevant either.

 

then your lego example totaly not relevant either for what I am trying to explain if it worth the money or not is an entirely different discussion

 

and about smash bros thats just criminal in a way  keep adding charackters for 5 bucks a  piece  they might as well make the game free with 1 charackter and let people pick which fighters they want for 5 bucks a piece. petty much what capcom did with streetfighter if I remember right  and about them alreay having it planned years ago I doubt it altough I wouldnt put it past them either.

 

still there is no point the buy the game anymore because its not  complete anymore I would feel ripped of if I got that game actualy  lucklily  for me though I think smash is 1 of the worst nitnendo franchises they have.

 

then your final example  thats not dlc  but an whole game

dlc is downloadeble content not an downloadable game

 

 

[DaivRules]

28 minutes ago, TakemetoNarnia4 said:

 Some dlcs are NOT free.

PSN profiles count dlcs as soon as they get release even if you haven't bought it

IMO the dlc should only be visible on psn profiles AFTER you have bought said dlc and/or AFTER you get the first dlc achievement.

 

 

So someone could have 100% on a game by only getting through part of the whole game by getting the Platinum, but someone else can get 100% on the same game by playing the whole game through the Platinum and all the content that is downloaded?

[HoorayForTyler]

Some of you are too funny....you think we should track DLC trophy progress separately here just bc you want your unfinished games to say “100%” on your profile?

 

Wow. Just play the DLC. The game is on your profile for a reason, so play the game in full and earn the 100%. Jesus. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by HoorayForTyler

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

By the way, I know this thread became about more people than just the OP who feel the same way as he does, but the OP has an account that doesn't... Look much like someone who really cares about completion, so why this is even a problem for him or others whose accounts aren't 100% accounts I'm not quite sure. I mean I read about greed and other issues people have with dlc in concept, but that your completion rate goes down if you don't get the trophies, if it's the difference on your account between a 73% and a 71%, why does it matter that much to you? I'm not trying to diminish anyone's care of their own accounts, but if you care about completion you'd just play for completion.

[bosstristan]

15 minutes ago, HoorayForTyler said:

Some of you are too funny....you think we should track DLC trophy progress separately here just bc you want your unfinished games to say “100%” on your profile?

 

Wow. Just play the DLC. The game is on your profile for a reason, so play the game in full and earn the 100%. Jesus. 

I feel the same.

There's a reason why there's the platinum trophy AND the "100%" check mark. 

First hidden trophies, then trophy stacks, and now they want to have the 100% mark while they only have 90%?

 

What's the next step?

Edited May 3, 2021 by bosstristan

[Wesley]

lmao. With your garbage completion rate, I don't know why you are hung up on this. 

[Ich1994-1994]

16 minutes ago, visvoer18 said:

people buy it  also if the game is out over a year  so they get their money anyway. you could make an argument by releasing it that much later you actualy make more   because people remember your game better so it cna actualy work in your favour for future sequels.

 

then your metro example  what is the difference? according to you it wouldnt fit the game yet if you buy it SEPERATE from the game it does fit? that makes no sense at all  if it fits it fit if it doesnt it doesnt. if its added later or not is totaly inrelevant either.

 

then your lego example totaly not relevant either for what I am trying to explain if it worth the money or not is an entirely different discussion

 

and about smash bros thats just criminal in a way  keep adding charackters for 5 bucks a  piece  they might as well make the game free with 1 charackter and let people pick which fighters they want for 5 bucks a piece. petty much what capcom did with streetfighter if I remember right  and about them alreay having it planned years ago I doubt it altough I wouldnt put it past them either.

 

still there is no point the buy the game anymore because its not  complete anymore I would feel ripped of if I got that game actualy  lucklily  for me though I think smash is 1 of the worst nitnendo franchises they have.

 

then your final example  thats not dlc  but an whole game

dlc is downloadeble content not an downloadable game

 

 

yes that metro DLC could easily be a standalone game for 15 bucks. 10 bucks triple A games a just not very common so the only reason for it beeing a DLC is to not confuse people about how much playtime a metro game has
so where is the line for you between content an a game? in witcher the DLC play in seperate areas. they just use the same geralt and you can keep your savefile. in the metro DLC its basically a small game. different character different story, new weapon different NPC just the same assets pretty much. in borderlands DLC you get new areas new characters new story. whats the difference between a new borderlands game and a borderlands seasonpass? 
in enslaved odysee to the west you play a different character in a different time. even combat is different because the new guy plays completley different than the original. also would work as a own little game and has nothing to do with main game other than the NPC that is used as playable character.
in middleearth shadow of war there is also a DLC were you play a new character with new abilities. oh and there is a point system added, and the nemesis system wokrs different. and you got some kind of world domination system or something were your party and the computers fight for areas and stuff also easily would work as seperate little game
assassins creed odysee and origins. new and pretty big open worlds, new story better weapons i think. every single one of the DLC would in theory work as its own game. just smaller and you get to keep your safefile
dying light. here i would really like to hear if you consider this a new game or extra content. a giant new map, new story, driveable cars get introduce. playtime 10h+ maybe 15?

 

in every single one of these games i would have bought the DLC even if it was standalone games. all these DLC would work as standalone games. in some cases i actually prefer them as DLC instead of new game because you can keep using your current character in others i would be no different if they were small standalone games.

 

did you ever even look at what some DLC include? did you never get a complete edition in sale and at least have a look in there?
i even forgot the 2 colonel DLC from metro. It tells the story of another guy that doesnt even show up in the main game. he is just the father of some dude. I wouldnt say no if you told me that DLC is even better than the main game. and it would work as stand alone. 

 

 

 

also "they get their money anyway" is not how buisnesses work. when you invest money into something you want as much profit out of it as possible. you dont lock money into an investment that is guaranted! not not make profit for a year. if i gift you 1000 bucks and i give you the choice to have them now or in 1 year what would you do? wait a year because it doesnt matter? or just take it?

[HoorayForTyler]

1 minute ago, bosstristan said:

I feel the same.

There's a reason why there's the platinum trophy AND the "100%" check mark. 

First hidden trophies, then trophy stacks, and now they want to have the 100% mark while they only have 90%?

 

What's next step?

Trophy stacks are one thing due to region differences, and I can’t say anything on that matter personally as I stack games if I enjoy them enough. But hiding trophies is probably one of the dumbest things Sony ever implemented imo.
 

If you started a game on your profile, I don’t think you should have the ability to hide it after the fact. Plus it gives cheaters more of an incentive to do what they do best and easily get away with being on the leaderboards still.
 

But changing how percentages work with games and their DLC? That would be extra tacky. But alas, that’s just my opinion. 

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

Imagine hiding trophies. Just own whatever you played or did

[DaivRules]

2 minutes ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

Imagine hiding trophies. Just own whatever you played or did

 

I can see my trophies. I'm not hiding them from myself.

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

Just now, DaivRules said:

 

I can see my trophies. I'm not hiding them from myself.

Lol exactly

[Ich1994-1994]

6 minutes ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

Imagine hiding trophies. Just own whatever you played or did

i hide 16 trophies from i think 15 games. they are in fact games that i never "played" and i simply dont identify enough with these games to have them in my profile.
why would i not do that if it makes me more satisfide with my gameslist?

[HoorayForTyler]

2 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

I can see my trophies. I'm not hiding them from myself.

But you’re hiding them from everyone else...? Why hide them? If someone is hiding their games, I’d automatically assume they’re ashamed to show them on their profile, or they cheated in the game. Any other reason would make absolutely no sense.

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

2 minutes ago, Ich1994-1994 said:

i hide 16 trophies from i think 15 games. they are in fact games that i never "played" and i simply dont identify enough with these games to have them in my profile.
why would i not do that if it makes me more satisfide with my gameslist?

Well, my actual answer is because I think hiding trophies looks worse than just having all your games displayed. If you feel like your account was worsened then you really only have yourself to blame or you just make a new account. Just my opinion

1 minute ago, HoorayForTyler said:

But you’re hiding them from everyone else...? Why hide them? If someone is hiding their games, I’d automatically assume they’re ashamed to show them on their profile, or they cheated in the game. Any other reason would make absolutely no sense.

I thought he was being ironic tbh

[DaivRules]

1 hour ago, HoorayForTyler said:

But you’re hiding them from everyone else...? Why hide them? If someone is hiding their games, I’d automatically assume they’re ashamed to show them on their profile, or they cheated in the game. Any other reason would make absolutely no sense.

 

I only use the trophy part of this site as a backlog manager. All my completed games (except the one I wanted in my trophy cabinet) get hidden when I complete them. You can try to blanket everyone under assumptions, but you'll be wrong 100% of the time.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by DaivRules

[visvoer18]

6 minutes ago, Ich1994-1994 said:

yes that metro DLC could easily be a standalone game for 15 bucks. 10 bucks triple A games a just not very common so the only reason for it beeing a DLC is to not confuse people about how much playtime a metro game has
so where is the line for you between content an a game? in witcher the DLC play in seperate areas. they just use the same geralt and you can keep your savefile. in the metro DLC its basically a small game. different character different story, new weapon different NPC just the same assets pretty much. in borderlands DLC you get new areas new characters new story. whats the difference between a new borderlands game and a borderlands seasonpass? 
in enslaved odysee to the west you play a different character in a different time. even combat is different because the new guy plays completley different than the original. also would work as a own little game and has nothing to do with main game other than the NPC that is used as playable character.
in middleearth shadow of war there is also a DLC were you play a new character with new abilities. oh and there is a point system added, and the nemesis system wokrs different. and you got some kind of world domination system or something were your party and the computers fight for areas and stuff also easily would work as seperate little game
assassins creed odysee and origins. new and pretty big open worlds, new story better weapons i think. every single one of the DLC would in theory work as its own game. just smaller and you get to keep your safefile
dying light. here i would really like to hear if you consider this a new game or extra content. a giant new map, new story, driveable cars get introduce. playtime 10h+ maybe 15?

 

in every single one of these games i would have bought the DLC even if it was standalone games. all these DLC would work as standalone games. in some cases i actually prefer them as DLC instead of new game because you can keep using your current character in others i would be no different if they were small standalone games.

 

did you ever even look at what some DLC include? did you never get a complete edition in sale and at least have a look in there?
i even forgot the 2 colonel DLC from metro. It tells the story of another guy that doesnt even show up in the main game. he is just the father of some dude. I wouldnt say no if you told me that DLC is even better than the main game. and it would work as stand alone. 

 

 

 

also "they get their money anyway" is not how buisnesses work. when you invest money into something you want as much profit out of it as possible. you dont lock money into an investment that is guaranted! not not make profit for a year. if i gift you 1000 bucks and i give you the choice to have them now or in 1 year what would you do? wait a year because it doesnt matter? or just take it?

I dont care how long a dlc is it could be 500 hours for all i care if it isnt in the maingame no mather the reason it shouldnt excist plain and simple

 

and with dlc  the line is easy  if a game has paid dlc  its crossing the line  free dlc I am not 100% sure myself but n general I am against that as well  altough there are acceptions.

 

with borderlands same thing the dlc should have been in the maingame  or not excist but at leats you have options to get that dlc physical.

 

also if I considr something a different game or dlc isnt hard at all going back to your earlier example that is another game no wya around it its a fact dlc  is NEVER a full game  because by that logic you would say sly 3 on vita is dlc as well.

 

you buying or not buying the dlc isnt relevant in this case.

 

and to answer your final question yes I do  I have bordeerlands 2 100% for example  altough even thqat isnt complete anymore since gearbox decided to make even more dlc

 

and your final point  thats true but there is also an ethical side to it  take that aids medicine for example  someone bought that company and raised the price like 15 times or so I think it was.

yes he could do that but that doesnt make it right

 

and with your money example I already explained that waiting for longer can actualy   be worth it because you can make more profit of of it.

 

your example would have been better if you said you cna get 900 now or if you wait a year you cna get 1000 instead.

[BGriff1986]

34 minutes ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

By the way, I know this thread became about more people than just the OP who feel the same way as he does, but the OP has an account that doesn't... Look much like someone who really cares about completion, so why this is even a problem for him or others whose accounts aren't 100% accounts I'm not quite sure.

You don’t have to be a hardcore trophy hunter to care about your stats. When you have very few platinums each one is “special” so I can see how it would sting that two of them sit around the 55% mark