Need for Speed: Players Deserve Free DLC

[kidson2004]

Good News?!

 

EA's newly released Need for Speed bucks a major trend in gaming today in that, not only does the racing game not feature any microtransactions, but there are also no plans for paid DLC. Now, creative director Craig Sullivan has shed some more light on why the new Need for Speed took that approach. In an interview with Vice, Sullivan said players "deserve" free DLC, and Ghost Games plans to deliver.

 

 

"Everything we're doing is focusing on listening to what the fans are asking for," Sullivan said. "They're certainly not saying to us, 'Can you build a load of stuff and charge us for it?' They're not saying that, so we're not doing that. I know some people when we do press like this, they say, 'Yeah, but I'm sure it'll all change in a week or two, or six months.' It's not going to. The plan is that there are no transactions in this game. All of the content that we're going to give you--a pretty substantial amount in the future, starting pretty soon--is going to be free. That's what players deserve."

There is no word yet on what form the new Need for Speed content will take, though extra cars seems like a strong possibility.

 

 

 

 

 

Sullivan acknowledged that he can't say with 100 percent confidence that Need for Speed won't someday down the road offer paid DLC or microtransactions. But he stressed that there are no plans at the moment. He also pointed out that Need for Speed does not have an in-game store, so it's not even technically possible for Need for Speed to have paid DLC or microtransactions at this stage.

 

"You can never say never, as if we ended up doing DLC for this game for 10 years, I can't know what's happening in 10 years' time," he explained. "All I can say is, honestly, hand on heart, is there are absolutely no plans to charge for content in this game. We're going to give you everything for free. I've seen the plans for what's going to happen over the next few weeks and months--there's nothing in there, by which I mean, we don't even have the ability to charge you in the game. There's no store to speak of."

 

Need for Speed's approach to extra payments is unique for a AAA game. By comparison. Activision's Destiny shooter offers both paid expansions and microtransactions. These are selling well, the publisher said, and will continue to be supported going forward.

 

 

https://games.yahoo.com/news/players-deserve-free-dlc-speed-123600902.html

Edited November 4, 2015 by kidson2004

[Parker]

Can we get a pause button? 

 

I understand where the man is coming from and certainly appreciate what he is saying but it is kind of silly to say "we're listening to the fans" when a huge percentage of those fans didn't want an online only game yet they still delivered one, and there is no pause button. Of course that could've been (and most likely was) up to EA in the end, not Ghost, so lets take the man for what he is saying and hope more developers and publishers have this attitude. 

 

 

Parker

[TheYuriG]

I understand where the man is coming from and certainly appreciate what he is saying but it is kind of silly to say "we're listening to the fans" when a huge percentage of those fans didn't want an online only game yet they still delivered one, and there is no pause button. Of course that could've been (and most likely was) up to EA in the end, not Ghost, so lets take the man for what he is saying and hope more developers and publishers have this attitude. 

Destiny is also online only and it's quite enjoyable. If this is going to be anything like the online for Midnight Club: Los Angeles, it's going to be a hell of a ride ( ).

 

Since I've heard EA's policies regarding to re-employ laid off personal, I'm not feeling as much to wage war against them. This free DLC business (which they could simply add content through patches instead) is quite nice. I think they saw what happened to The Witcher 3 and they were like "you know what, let's do that too". Hope it works as well for them, I support anyone putting as much content in a game as they can.

Edited November 4, 2015 by TheYuriG

[Parker]

Destiny is also online only and it's quite enjoyable. If this is going to be anything like the online for Midnight Club: Los Angeles, it's going to be a hell of a ride ( ).

 

Since I've heard EA's policies regarding to re-employ laid off personal, I'm not feeling as much to wage war against them. This free DLC business (which they could simply add content through patches instead) is quite nice. I think they saw what happened to The Witcher 3 and they were like "you know what, let's do that too". Hope it works as well for them, I support anyone putting as much content in a game as they can.

 

Oh, there is certainly nothing wrong with an online only game (I even previously posted that this game being online only doesn't bother me) but something like Destiny which is an FPS MMO hybrid of sorts can certainly make the case for being online only whereas something like Need for Speed, which has a single player portion doesn't really have a compelling argument, in my opinion. 

 

 

Parker

[TheYuriG]

Oh, there is certainly nothing wrong with an online only game (I even previously posted that this game being online only doesn't bother me) but something like Destiny which is an FPS MMO hybrid of sorts can certainly make the case for being online only whereas something like Need for Speed, which has a single player portion doesn't really have a compelling argument, in my opinion. 

While you and I can buy games for the SP component, everyday more than the previous, such component is being ditched. BF4 has a campaign pretty much only to say there was one. Since Most Wanted at least, the NFS games are usually bought by the majority of gamers solely for the online, this is actually true for many games lately. One of my friends had 2 copies of The Last Of Us, one for each console. He said he loves the game, but he never finished the campaign, MP is all he plays. I asked him why he chose the faction he was in and the answer was hilarious: had a better symbol.

 

All the bigger companies are shifting toward online only games or at least you lose some components, rather you choose to sign off (I remember you lost the online upgrades in Watch_Dogs, couldn't retrieve locations on AC4). Companies are shifting toward what the gamer masses wants the most, there isn't much we can do, other than not buying. It's a growing trend and there is little we can do about it.

[Sir_Bee]

I am confused about something, do gamers really think that they deserve anything for free?  If we pay 60 dollars, and get a full game experience, who really thinks that they are entitled to extra DLC content that we don't have to pay for?

 

I HATE microtransactions in any game I had to buy, they will never be a good idea in my mind.  No matter how trivial the things you can buy, or how much the developer says you can still get everything in game.  But that being said, DLC and expansions, when they actually provide good content (Borderlands Tiny Tina's Dungeon a perfect example) are things that we as gamers should be happy to support and pay for.  There is no reason that we would ever deserve something like that for free.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Sir_Bee

[Manuelito]

They want to do free DLCs like GTA 5?? Goooood!

To the conversation between Parker and Yuri: I think online is 100x better than offline since I like the competitive side in videogames but making them online-only is stupid IMO especially if there's a campaign.

[Caesar Clown]

Everyone just forget that Mass Effect 3 and Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare had free multiplayer DLC? They added a ton of content to the ME3 multiplayer, for free. New maps, new race/class combos, even new enemies. It's a breath of fresh air considering most of them time, when there's paid multiplayer DLC, you can only play it with other people who have the content (DLC maps). By giving that stuff away for free, you ensure everyone has the DLC and no one gets locked out.

 

Sure, those 2 games I mentioned have microtransactions, but they're 100% optional. A few matches and you'd have enough in-game currency to buy the most expensive packs. It seems they only want to charge money for Battlefield DLC (uh and I guess Battlefront?..).

[xKrAzY_8sx]

The title of this thread is misleading. Made me think that someone was complaining about the quality of the game and that we deserve free DLC. 

[X_RaceKing_X]

You can't pause this game either? Oh my god They delivered the goods and the bad with this game :/

[wtru9]

I am confused about something, do gamers really think that they deserve anything for free?  If we pay 60 dollars, and get a full game experience, who really thinks that they are entitled to extra DLC content that we don't have to pay for?

 

I HATE microtransactions in any game I had to buy, they will never be a good idea in my mind.  No matter how trivial the things you can buy, or how much the developer says you can still get everything in game.  But that being said, DLC and expansions, when they actually provide good content (Borderlands Tiny Tina's Dungeon a perfect example) are things that we as gamers should be happy to support and pay for.  There is no reason that we would ever deserve something like that for free.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

I think they just used 'deserve' to sort of take a shot at other games/companies that don't offer free DLC in their games, and I agree that a sense of entitlement to free DLC for a game is just silly (although I don't think many people feel they have a right to free DLC) so their use of the word is a bit hollow to me.

 

And for the most part I agree with free content being added to the game; the Borderlands 2 DLC and Left Behind are two brilliant examples. I think the problem that most people have with DLC is when they feel content is being left out of the main game, and added as paid DLC in an attempt to get the player to pay more. You know, the kind of game where DLC is announced before the game is released (Didn't Evolve announce it before you could even pre-order... maybe not, I can't quite remember)

[richtayls]

The last Need for Speed I can remember with decent DLC was Hot Pursuit, as that had extra races whereas more recent games have only had extra cars, I'm guessing not many people were willing to pay just for a different car so they may as well give them away for free.

[Malligos]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they're already planning on adding in free DLC and Updates