• Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As much as I like C:S, the thought of getting a relatively barebones game with $200 in DLC over the next 5-7 years to make the city feel complete makes me feel depressed.

    That was the bummer in the original game. Only two ways to deal with trash, unless you bought $30 of DLC. I'll be waiting to see if the game is good or not, or if they totally gimped certain parts of the game like bridges, ports and transit to resell back as a la carte DLC.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don't understand this attitude that the new game needs to include the DLC of the old one that's never been a thing in games. New versions of an old game never previously included the DLC for the old game apart from anything else because it wouldn't make sense because they've changed so many systems.

      • eluvatar@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the difference now is that DLC adds features, and so people are upset when the new game is missing features from the old DLC. Where in the past, say with Oblivion or Skyrim, it was just more story, maybe some new skills, in one case there was a new feature (house building) and their newer games do include that feature. But people don't expect the story line from the DLC in the new game.

        Features in DLC feel different these days. In the past DLC had a more limited scope, and you looked forward to the new game for new features. But now if the new game comes out with less features it can be a bummer for people used to the old game. There isn't really a great solution because I don't think it always makes sense to add all the DLC features in the new game.