I'm pretty sure that the Deathstroke skin won't be his classic suit. I don't think it will even be Slade Wilson. It will be his daughter, Rose. Am I the only one seeing boobs in that picture?
I see it too.
Character » Cyborg appears in 2939 issues.
I'm pretty sure that the Deathstroke skin won't be his classic suit. I don't think it will even be Slade Wilson. It will be his daughter, Rose. Am I the only one seeing boobs in that picture?
I see it too.
Ugh. Does anyone even play as Cyborg?
nope.
I'm pretty sure that the Deathstroke skin won't be his classic suit. I don't think it will even be Slade Wilson. It will be his daughter, Rose. Am I the only one seeing boobs in that picture?
No I see it too, I think it's going to be Rose.
Harley, Deathstroke, and Odyssey Wonder Woman it looks like. And Cyborg skin isn't bad...just doesn't seem spectacular for some reason.
@fodigg said:
It baffles me that game companies dare try to sell character skins as DLC, and it baffles me even more that people will actually pay for them.
I'd much rather companies support themselves with aesthetic add-ons than pay-to-win power-ups in competitive games like shooters or fighters.
I totally agree that pay-to-win is the most heinous form of DLC greed, but that doesn't mean ransoming skins is okay either. Is it so much to expect game developers to actually spend time and resources programing new content if they want to make more money off of DLC? But it seems that these DLC costumes are completely free in the case of Injustice: Gods Among Us, so good for them.
@nappystr8: They actually are going to use the same model that they used in motal kombat, and so every time a new character comes out a compatiblity pack comes out for free with 2 to 4 skins each one, even if you don´t buy the new character with the free compatiblity pack you get the skins for free and you dn´t get to be booted from a fight if the other one is using the new character that you didn´t buy or you buy the new character and as an extra you get the skins. It´s a win-win. =)
I will be so very happy when they release the classic Harley Quinn costume as DLC. I'm very tired of looking at her Arkham Asylum/New 52 look.
I don't play online so yes, I try to play as every character. I hope they keep releasing more skins for everyone.
@fodigg said:
It baffles me that game companies dare try to sell character skins as DLC, and it baffles me even more that people will actually pay for them.
I'd much rather companies support themselves with aesthetic add-ons than pay-to-win power-ups in competitive games like shooters or fighters.
I totally agree that pay-to-win is the most heinous form of DLC greed, but that doesn't mean ransoming skins is okay either. Is it so much to expect game developers to actually spend time and resources programing new content if they want to make more money off of DLC? But it seems that these DLC costumes are completely free in the case of Injustice: Gods Among Us, so good for them.
It sounds like you just don't like DLC then. That's fine, but I think you're underestimating how important add-on purchases are to supporting developers considering how rampant piracy is.
ç@kryptonsabbath said:
Dammit, I never got mine and I voted just about every time. I'm going to send an email to WB and see what they say in response.
The site did tell you you won the arrow skin back in the day, right? Did you check all your e-mail accounts?
@fodigg said:
It sounds like you just don't like DLC then. That's fine, but I think you're underestimating how important add-on purchases are to supporting developers considering how rampant piracy is.
My statement merely claimed that there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to implement paid DLC. And I just think selling character skins is a cash grab and not a legitimate way to produce new content.
But you are correct in your assumption that I don't like DLC of any form. No consumer should. Most of the time DLC is just in game content that has been removed from the game and held back in order to extort more money out of gamers. This is most evident in day one DLC and even more egregiously in the examples where DLC isn't even a seperate file, but rather just unlocks things already on a retail disc. Legitimate DLC has become more common lately. Legitimate DLC includes things like expansion packs like the ones for Skyrim, Fallout 3, the Undead Nightmare DLC for Red Dead Redemption, or the Assassins Creed III alternate history missions. Also legitimate is selling new characters to a game if there move sets are completely different, as Injustice is doing. But even though legitimate DLC is not a ripoff, it takes time and resources away from the development of the main game. That's one of the reasons why games these days have more bugs than in previous console generations. It also means stalling development on their next game, which would likely see improvements in graphics, controls, and new game mechanics.
You need to know something, piracy is not rampant, at least not nearly as much as companies want you to think it is. Profits for films, games, music, comics, etc, remain very strong. When it comes to video games, particularly console games, piracy is even more rare. The average gamer does not have the skills to hack an Xbox 360 or PS3, and even those who do risk not being able to access any online functionality. The main thing hurting gaming developers and publishers is not piracy at all, but are second hand game sales through companies like Gamestop. But do game publisher try to punish Gamestop? Ofcourse not. They give them exclusive pre-order deals. Instead they punish the consumer by adding things like online passes into the box. You don't want to pay for a new copy, you don't get full use of the game, that make sense on some level, but what that really means is that the person who bought the game on the first day brand new sealed now has to sit with a controller and manually type in a sixteen digit code just to make their game work properly. That is called punishing the consumer.
DRM, DLC, online passes, they all claim to be measures to prevent piracy, when in fact all they really do is cause headaches for the people who choose to be honest. When piracy is more convenient than legal purchase, piracy becomes incentivized.
@fodigg said:
It sounds like you just don't like DLC then. That's fine, but I think you're underestimating how important add-on purchases are to supporting developers considering how rampant piracy is.
My statement merely claimed that there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to implement paid DLC. And I just think selling character skins is a cash grab and not a legitimate way to produce new content.
But you are correct in your assumption that I don't like DLC of any form. No consumer should. Most of the time DLC is just in game content that has been removed from the game and held back in order to extort more money out of gamers. This is most evident in day one DLC and even more egregiously in the examples where DLC isn't even a seperate file, but rather just unlocks things already on a retail disc. Legitimate DLC has become more common lately. Legitimate DLC includes things like expansion packs like the ones for Skyrim, Fallout 3, the Undead Nightmare DLC for Red Dead Redemption, or the Assassins Creed III alternate history missions. Also legitimate is selling new characters to a game if there move sets are completely different, as Injustice is doing. But even though legitimate DLC is not a ripoff, it takes time and resources away from the development of the main game. That's one of the reasons why games these days have more bugs than in previous console generations. It also means stalling development on their next game, which would likely see improvements in graphics, controls, and new game mechanics.
You need to know something, piracy is not rampant, at least not nearly as much as companies want you to think it is. Profits for films, games, music, comics, etc, remain very strong. When it comes to video games, particularly console games, piracy is even more rare. The average gamer does not have the skills to hack an Xbox 360 or PS3, and even those who do risk not being able to access any online functionality. The main thing hurting gaming developers and publishers is not piracy at all, but are second hand game sales through companies like Gamestop. But do game publisher try to punish Gamestop? Ofcourse not. They give them exclusive pre-order deals. Instead they punish the consumer by adding things like online passes into the box. You don't want to pay for a new copy, you don't get full use of the game, that make sense on some level, but what that really means is that the person who bought the game on the first day brand new sealed now has to sit with a controller and manually type in a sixteen digit code just to make their game work properly. That is called punishing the consumer.
DRM, DLC, online passes, they all claim to be measures to prevent piracy, when in fact all they really do is cause headaches for the people who choose to be honest. When piracy is more convenient than legal purchase, piracy becomes incentivized.
DLC addresses re-sales just as much as piracy. I don't know why you'd dislike continued development on a game you enjoy.
@fodigg: If you like DLC that's cool with me. For me it feels like a retail game should be a complete product/work of art. And anything added to it is either unnecessary, or is made up of material that should have been included to begin with. Imagine what dlc would look like in other forms of entertainment. Say Marvel releases a $4 comic book, and then the next week releases six extra loose pages for $1 to that same book for you to staple into your existing copy? What if you bought a CD of your favorite band, and there were three additional songs from that same album that you had to buy digitally for $1.29 each? How about a network television show that ends on a cliffhanger and then sells the final 30 minute episode as a stand alone DVD? Or you went to see a movie in theaters only to be told that there is an extended ending if you pay an extra $2. What if you got a Captain America action figure, but the shield came in a separate accessory pack?
If a company wants to sell their game in installments, like The Walking Dead adventure game did. I'm fine with that. But when you release a $60 dollar retail disc, I expect the entire experience to be provided.
@fodigg: If you like DLC that's cool with me. For me it feels like a retail game should be a complete product/work of art. And anything added to it is either unnecessary, or is made up of material that should have been included to begin with. Imagine what dlc would look like in other forms of entertainment. Say Marvel releases a $4 comic book, and then the next week releases six extra loose pages for $1 to that same book for you to staple into your existing copy? What if you bought a CD of your favorite band, and there were three additional songs from that same album that you had to buy digitally for $1.29 each? How about a network television show that ends on a cliffhanger and then sells the final 30 minute episode as a stand alone DVD? Or you went to see a movie in theaters only to be told that there is an extended ending if you pay an extra $2. What if you got a Captain America action figure, but the shield came in a separate accessory pack?
If a company wants to sell their game in installments, like The Walking Dead adventure game did. I'm fine with that. But when you release a $60 dollar retail disc, I expect the entire experience to be provided.
DLC or any other payment model is not about a broad like/dislike. What matters is if you're willing to pay what they're asking for the value they're offering. There are good and bad DLC models just like good or bad products for sale with any other payment model. So with that said, we can recognize that DLC does provide an income stream to developers over the long-term that allows them to continue development on a game. When done right, this is a wonderful thing. When done poorly, this can ruin a game. But vanity character skin DLC is one of the most innocuous and innocent kinds out there.
@jwalser3: Well in that case, I take back my criticism. I assumed the MK business model was the same one used by Arkham City. Although, that begs the question, if the DLC is free, why not just include it on the game disc in the first place and not punish fans who might not have internet access for their gaming devices. I can't imagine skins would take up that much disc memory
To have more time to make them correctly rather than messing them up.
@fodigg: I think for the most part we have come to a point of agreement. But I still don't think that skins/aesthetic DLC is necessarily harmless. Especially when it comes to a licensed superhero game like Arkham City. For at least 10 years, comics games have given alternate skins away for free on the disc as fan service. Because everybody wants to play a character in the costume that they know and love. That has good memories for them. The only unlockable costume in Arkham City was that stupid armored version (I believe, it's been awhile) that was not based on anything in the comics. All the skins that I would have loved to play as, that in any other game before that point in time I would have been able to play as, were held hostage as DLC. Rather pricey DLC at that. Down the line they made a few of those costumes available for free, but by that time I had played the game ad nauseam and was not looking to revisit it.
@fodigg: I think for the most part we have come to a point of agreement. But I still don't think that skins/aesthetic DLC is necessarily harmless. Especially when it comes to a licensed superhero game like Arkham City. For at least 10 years, comics games have given alternate skins away for free on the disc as fan service. Because everybody wants to play a character in the costume that they know and love. That has good memories for them. The only unlockable costume in Arkham City was that stupid armored version (I believe, it's been awhile) that was not based on anything in the comics. All the skins that I would have loved to play as, that in any other game before that point in time I would have been able to play as, were held hostage as DLC. Rather pricey DLC at that. Down the line they made a few of those costumes available for free, but by that time I had played the game ad nauseam and was not looking to revisit it.
I'm not worried DLC vanity skins because, nice as they are to have, they're not necessary and you can buy them if you want.
However, and you reminded me of this by mentioning BAA, "vendor exclusives" are the devil, especially when they aren't available as DLC after the fact. If I buy a collector's edition for the game, I should get everything, all launch DLC. If it's impossible to buy everything because GameStop has one exclusive and Amazon another and Best Buy another then seriously F everyone.
I think it's Harley's animated series, Wonder Woman, Cyborg, and I'm not sure on the last one. It's not Deathstroke. Deathstroke doesn't have boobs.
It's Harley's animated series, Wonder Woman jacket and jeans, Cyborg's retro attire, and the other one?
It's not Deathstroke. Deathstroke doesn't have boobs.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment