The games of May 2012

Max Payne 3 is the only thing that I want. The other two games I was thinking about were Diablo III and Dragon's Dogma and over time Diablo III just got less and less appealing and finally they just outright slaughtered it by giving it a 60 Level Cap so they can just make EXPANSIONS TO RAISE YOUR LEVEL CAP BY 10!!. Dragon's Dogma is just a watered-down Monster Hunter.

Never mind don't want Max Payne 3 anymore because they already have fucking $30 dollar DLC pack and years worth of DLC planned Guess I'll just keep my money

Such a narrow minded, stupid reasoning. The game that you're getting now is exactly the same before and after today's announcement. But meh, it's ultimately your loss. ^^

I don't give a shit about the game anymore. Rockstar is trying to cheat me with content already completed and now they're fucking dead to me. They can keep the game. They can rot.

Wait, how do you know it's already MADE and not just PLANNED?

"Planned" is just as bad as "made". That means they have "plans" to take content out of the game you already bought and sell it back to you. Here's how this shit is going to go if people keep blindly defending it and buying it. First they'll come for the multiplayer, and I didn't speak up because I don't play multiplayer. Then they'll come for the preorders, and I didn't speak up, because I'm not a faggot. Then they'll come for the weapon skins and costumes, and I didn't speak up because that shit be cosmetic. Then they came for the single player, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

HAHA AWESOME!

Funny, you also bitch about DRM. But as misguided as DRM might be, it exists only thanks to people like you. you don't want the DLC? fine, don't buy it. But you clearly wanted to play this game, pirating only makes you a thief, using the announcement of DLC is only an excuse. I know I'm never going to change your mind. But it doesn't make it any less true that you are part of the problem you continuously bitch about.

Rockstar never has a set release dates for their games. They had PLENTY of time to put stuff like this into MP3 and instead they cut it out for pure profit. Fallout: New Vegas was rushed and THEY STILL DIDN'T decide to nickle and dime people and the DLC IT DID HAVE came out much later and added a lot to the game - even if it did come out with a predictable GOTY edition. Minerva's Den came out way after the game was actually finished for 10 dollars. This is being announced before the game is even released for 30. Both of the games also had tacked-on multiplayer. Authors never tear out pages from their books and sell them back to you, or if they do, I've never heard of it. What you are referring to is something very common called a "sequel" which have existed for a very long time.

And yet they most certainly were planning to release them either before, or not long after the games were to be released. Besides, did you even bother to read the details of the DLC they are releasing? June 2012 • Local Justice Map Pack Summer 2012 • Disorganized Crime Map Pack • Deathmatch Made In Heaven Mode Pack • Hostage Negotiation Map Pack • New York Minute Co-Op Pack Fall 2012 • Painful Memories Map Pack • Trickle Down Economics Map Pack The soonest they are releasing something is a month after the game is released, and it's multiplayer content, heck, most of those DLC names point to be related for multiplayer only, including those that hit till fall. I thought you didn't give a shit about multiplayer? Tell me, in where here are they exactly releasing single player stuff that was so obviously "cut out" from the main game? hm?

DRM exists because the Publishers are so far separated from the consumer that they think Piracy is a gigantic problem - such a problem that they think that they should alienate everybody and make them not play their game. Piracy =/= stealing. It's copying. Nothing is getting stolen when you pirate something. I was going to purchase the game until they decided to withhold half the game from me - obviously the game is good enough to be worth $90 right? The people who are willing to pay for this kind of thing are the problem. It sets a very bad standard already set by Call of Duty Elite and From Ashes - that will continue to GTA IV.

Nope, DRM exists because piracy exists, and it DOES take away from their profit. Are the DRM methods they use misguided, and do they alienate everyone unfairly? yes. But DRM methods wouldn't even exist to begin with if so many people didn't pirate stuff so much and so often. And piracy IS stealing. You're copying something in order to take that copy without having to pay. You're enjoying something without paying for the privilege, that is the mere concept of stealing, and no crooked or stupid reason you use makes it any less true. If you're pirating a game for the purpose of not paying for it, then you might as well be snatching away the copy from a game store for the same purpose. The result ends up being exactly the same. As for your "They are withholding half the game from me" argument... Are they really? did you read my other response? All the content that they have announced so far is being released periodically and as far as fall, and ALL of that content seems to be multiplayer-related only. You just said before that you didn't give a shit about multiplayer. So what do you care if all the initial DLC they are releasing are just extra maps and such for it? It adds nor subtracts anything from the single player campaign present in the disc. Which is what you were interested on in the first place, no?

They planned it before the release though, as clearly seen by the cameos of Luis Lopez and Johnny Keblitz in the GTA IV campaign. They also announced DLC too before the launch, when Microsoft announced that GTA IV DLC was coming exclusively to 360 first. They just didn't clarify what it was. Despite all this, I still feel like I paid the appropriate price for GTA IV and its two expansions.

I care about what this means for the long run. If this is successful, or if they are even doing it at all, what does it mean for their future games? You see - this is a precursor and there were other precursors before it. RDR had on-disc content - most of the DLC were extremely small downloads. L.A. Noire had a Season Pass that unlocked content that they couldn't put into the game because the release date hit them in the face. So what's the excuse for Max Payne 3? Not enough time to put all this stuff in? Highly unlikely. And what will happen with GTA V? I happen to like GTA. If something were to happen to it - say, if they were to do something like cut some of the single player content out and withhold it for money - I think I would be unhappy. That's a step-up from taking out multiplayer content - since nobody really gives a shit about Rockstar multiplayer - but when they do do it, and they will, they will say "People who want to get a better GTA experience can buy the add-on" or some bullshit like that. And then we'll be stuck. Because people will buy this - because somehow Rockstar is immune to all criticism.

I like how you keep twisting your arguments in order to justify your increasingly apparent idiotic initial outburst. And now you're arguing about tiny details that differ greatly from your initial complaint. And Rockstar has set no precedent whatsoever here with Max Payne 3 that hasn't been done before in their games. The first DLC stuff released for RDR were in essence, the same kind of things they are releasing at first for Max Payne 3: Multiplayer packs and modes. And LA Noire didn't have their release date hit them in the face, at least not in a way that was any different from Max Payne and RDR. LA Noire was slated to be released much earlier than May, and got delayed, exactly the same way MP3 and RDR got delayed. The "hit in the face with the date" argument would only apply had LA noire been released in the exact date they had announced for over a year without changing it, like Skyrim did. And single player DLC cases for LA Noire were released in LESS than a month after the game retailed. And the Season Pass wasn't free, it was a bundle basically, and it was a very good price, but it was not free. So... Your arguments are not only wrong, they prove that if anything, Rockstar has already DONE what you are bitching about with LA Noire, and they are NOT doing it with Max Payne 3. Since there isn't any single Player related DLC coming for the game in the foreseeable future. This proves two things: Rockstar isn't necessarily repeating patterns with their DLC, and just because they did it one way before, doesn't mean they will repeat it for their next game. So basically, you have no fucking way to predict what they will do for GTA V at all. Secondly: Rockstar appears to be following the model used by RDR and not the one used by LA Noire. So if any big single player content is released, it's no doubt going to be way after the game has released, and it's most certainly not going to be anything they could have fit in the retail game in the launch window. So, once again, what the fuck are you complaining about? Why not just admit that you initially overreacted, accusing Rockstar for releasing $30 single player DLC that could have fit in the game, (Which is simply not true.) give this game a chance, and save your conspiracy theories about DLC for when you have actual proof for them? Also, I don't think I've ever said Rockstar's immune to all Criticism. I never was a fan of their decision to put MultiPlayer in MP3. However that doesn't mean I'm going to be a ninny, and deprive myself of a game I was OBVIOUSLY looking forward to play.

It's not a conspiracy, it's the truth. Companies are out of control with DLC and cutting content out of games, and the only way out of it is a second crash. And the next generation of consoles will be worse - it was tame a couple of years ago, now DLC is a catch-all term for Expansions, On-Disc DLC, Pre-Order Content, and actual DLC is somewhere in there. What I'm mad about is when good companies fall into the shitty business of short-changing customers. Rockstar leaped over the Activision boundary and took a seat next to Ubisoft and EA in the "Fuck You" seating. DLC should be an afterthought, after the game is completely finished. Not something you work on while the game is in progress to make some extra money. And DLC seems to be being announced and being released closer and closer to the actual games release date, and if it's getting to the point were DLC is prolific enough to warrant a pre-order (stupid) status then it's obviously something they worked really hard on and something we need to have. Now we're in the state were you can buy a Pass for DLC before it's even out like with Saint's Row 3, Gears of War 3, Max Payne 3, Modern Warfare 3, indicating that they actually said during the development "Instead of putting this into the game we will make them pay extra for this content." And those things did well. What kind of message is that sending to the industry? 1.Fuck our customers, they're all idiots, they will buy this anyway. 2.If we can take THIS out, why would they complain if we take THAT out? 3.Well they didn't complain when we took it out of THIS game, why would they complain with THAT one? 4.Huh - well the people who like Call of Duty/Gears of War eat that shit up, guess we should make our next game more like Call of Duty/Gears of War and add all that. 5.All the other stupid shit CEO's think because they don't play games