When a Gamer starts getting really annoyed...

[MadeManG74]

With regards to cheats being in games, they were originally only in there for testing purposes. So if you had your QA guys wanting to check a certain level they could punch in the 'Level Select' code and fly straight there. Or if they needed to explore and check a certain bit of the game, they could unlock infinite health so they could get there with ease.

I guess nowadays with more comprehensive beta/alpha code and testing they don't need to have these shortcuts hard-coded into the game.

[crackdude]

@mademan
what about bighead modes? and using other character models as the main guy? Those used to be added in for fun. Now you have to pay for that kind of stuff.

[MadeManG74]

^That's true, big head modes and some secret characters (like Bill Clinton in NBA Jam) would have been in there as easter eggs, I forgot about those.

To be fair though, how often do you see Big Head mode as DLC? Which game had that? I do agree that charging for big head mode is pretty low. The worst was when EA charged for in-game cash cheats, or Namco charging to level up characters instantly for Star Ocean or something like that.

[Nameless 24]

I blame that type of thing on Achievements.

They are the reason why they can't add cheats in any more.

They usually give you a set of achievements to complete by completing a level and the like, so if you used Level Select, you could unlock every single one without any effort.

Although they should be able to get around this by letting the code know to NOT unlock it via cheating...developers will use this as an excuse, sadly.

[max_cady]

To be fair, SEGA is also guilty of doing stuff like this, so we can't leave 'em out. Remember when they charged something like 400 MSP to unlock everything on the original Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing?

Granted that on harder games it's would actually be a welcomed option (namely JRPGs), but something like this is kinda cheap.

Nevertheless, when we talk about games like Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto IV, it sucks that the achievements get blocked as a result of using cheats.

I do agree with you on that, Nameless 24. In theory, achievements are a great incentive to prolongue your enjoyment of the game, but in the back of my mind I think: "What the heck am I going to do with these gamerpoints?". There's something odd about having this controlled enviroment that we see in a lot of stuff like Xbox Live, iTunes, Steam,etc.

[Nameless 24]

To be fair, SEGA is also guilty of doing stuff like this, so we can't leave 'em out. Remember when they charged something like 400 MSP to unlock everything on the original Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing?

I agree with you there, although I think that was for gamers who didn't want to spend time actually playing the game. Cheat codes would have worked in that sense.

Granted that on harder games it's would actually be a welcomed option (namely JRPGs), but something like this is kinda cheap.

I am not so sure, an JRPG isn't that difficult unless you are under-leveled or the best strategy hasn't been discovered yet. Maybe they should add unlockables to RPGs just to see how it works, but I can't see it being very beneficial.

Nevertheless, when we talk about games like Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto IV, it sucks that the achievements get blocked as a result of using cheats.

Eh? Isn't it better we earn those achievements without cheating though? Granted I would use a cheat to do something I could never do anyway, but I wouldn't want an achievement for using the codes.

I do agree with you on that, Nameless 24. In theory, achievements are a great incentive to prolongue your enjoyment of the game, but in the back of my mind I think: "What the heck am I going to do with these gamerpoints?". There's something odd about having this controlled enviroment that we see in a lot of stuff like Xbox Live, iTunes, Steam,etc.

I used to think that you converted them to Microsoft Points and use them on other games, but it turns out they do nothing but it's another way to grow your e-peen.

[SOUP]

On a similar note, I wish some gamers would be more respectful towards video games another person may enjoy. Everyone's taste in video games are different so you shouldn't insult and belittle someone for liking a game you personally don't find entertaining.

I'd second this one.

[max_cady]

@Nameless 24

There are at least two examples of really great DLC for JRPGs.

Magnacarta 2: There was one spot in the game where I am forced to fight several bosses in the game. Sadly, however, the boss is overpowered almost to the point of broken. Thankfully, there was a DLC in there that allowed me to use special weapons and beat said boss. The weapons made it into easy mode, but can't say that it was a walk in the park.

Tales of Vesperia: The best one thus far. 10 levels Ups, extra items and a couple of other things that really helped.

Final Fantasy XIII-2, however, SquareEnix made some very questionable decisions about their DLC.

[Nameless 24]

Interesting examples there...

I didn't buy any of the FFXIII-2 DLC even though I have an LE edition of the game itself...I just didn't think that I'd max myself out to try the DLC, and from what I heard about a DLC ending, I was even more disappointed in how the DLC was treated for that game.

[SOUP]

Interesting examples there...

I didn't buy any of the FFXIII-2 DLC even though I have an LE edition of the game itself...I just didn't think that I'd max myself out to try the DLC, and from what I heard about a DLC ending, I was even more disappointed in how the DLC was treated for that game.

I liked the idea of being able to recruit characters from the first game, but the prices were a little too high.

[max_cady]

Yep, that's true. Plus, it has little to no consequence in the actual game. You can have Snow on the team, but he's there taking the position of a monster's slot. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was curious about trying out other DLC there but... I simply changed my mind on the whole matter.

[CosmicCastaway]

Another thing I'm not a huge fan of are online passes. Particularly those that lock out significant parts of a game. My biggest beef was in Batman: Arkham City, the Catwoman sections are said to take up 10% of the game, but if you bought the game used you don't get to play as Catwoman at all unless you buy the online pass. I guess I can understand the logic of online passes from a business standpoint, but locking out large sections of the game for those who don't buy it new seems really unfair to players.

[MadeManG74]

Another thing I'm not a huge fan of are online passes. Particularly those that lock out significant parts of a game. My biggest beef was in Batman: Arkham City, the Catwoman sections are said to take up 10% of the game, but if you bought the game used you don't get to play as Catwoman at all unless you buy the online pass. I guess I can understand the logic of online passes from a business standpoint, but locking out large sections of the game for those who don't buy it new seems really unfair to players.

I can also understand why they do it, they want to drive more day-one sales. I think it's the wrong way to go about it though, they really should focus on dropping prices to drive sales IMO. Having said that, I understand the cost of games is very high, but I think sales will stagnate if they don't drop prices.

To their credit though, most publishers are dropping their prices, just very slowly.

[Nameless 24]

I think sadly that SEGA are doing it the best way in providing DLC Day One which doesn't really effect those who haven't bought it day one but making it available later on.

Capcpom seems to release the extras as an additional release for stupid, anti-consumer reasons. (I don't like Capcom but they are the worse devs this gen).