I wouldn't bemoan the shelving of the DLC, so far there is the Batgirl DLC and it is apparently a bit crap, one hour in length and nothing of substance gameply-wise.

I thoroughly enjoyed Skyrim however unfortunately I do not own the Legendary edition so I don't have all of the great DLC for it. In theory I'd buy the DLC as it is more expansion-pack like however Bethesda purposefully chooses to sell the game itself at one price that is fairly reasonable when it goes on sale, while selling the Legendary edition which includes all DLC at a different price that is also reasonable on sale all things considered, *BUT* they sell the individual DLC at a ridiculous price that never ever lowers for any reason over time, and when the sales come on and the DLC goes on sale, the cost of buying each one of the 3 DLC together is 30-50% or so more expensive than re-buying the entire Legendary edition of the game. They force you to rebuy the whole game more or less if you want everything, and of course you don't get 2 copies unless you install it into a separate Steam account. So you can't buy the Legendary to get the DLC then gift the game to someone else.

So... I wont buy the DLC unless the entire 3-pack of DLC goes on sale either bundled or added up together for less than $5. That will probably never happen.

Also, since the DLC pricing is ridiculous and many people never bother with the DLC, very few people out there are ever likely to have spare Steam codes to trade or gift or whatever of just the DLC, and they probably want it that way too.

It's one of the things that makes me sick of DLC practices in the industry. DLC itself is not right or wrong or good or bad, but how companies put it out there in certain ways that are blatantly anti-consumer cash grabs is sickening.

So I'm unlikely to ever play the DLC for Skyrim when all is said and done purely on wallet principles. In 2/3/5 years or whatever if they have the game with DLC for $2 on sale or something I might spring for it perhaps but only on my terms.

I have Battlefield 3 as Origin gave it away for free at one point and I scored a copy on Origin. Haven't played it yet, but someday... The Assassin's Creed games all look like I'd enjoy them so they're wishlisted in terms of wanting to play them, but since Ubisoft is on my shitlist I wont ever actually buy them. I might get the one that is here on GOG someday though as it is DRM free so it's an exception to my rule, but no rush.

You know, in some ways I wish every 5 years that one of the biggest game companies would go bankrupt on a horrible business decision that leads to a terrible game that ends up killing them. Then as they spiral down in flames they do various things to try to infuse themselves with cash such as using Bundlestars and similar with rock bottom prices that are a steal, possibly throwing us a few bones here on GOG, etc. then finally cough their last breath and their assets are auctioned off to the next big company whom might throw a few more bones out there too. ;o)

you just described every publishers dream dlc
short
no risk
no overhead or development cost
attach a wel known name to it and a reasonable price tag

and watch the money roll in

Sure, that's a valid choice too. Everyone has their own needs, desires, preferences and some are willing to compromise on certain ideals or preferences if they get something of great enough value to them as an individual in return even if there are aspects of the transaction that they don't care for.

I support people's free will to make that choice, however it does come with the consequence that it essentially validates the anti-consumer behaviour these companies adhere to because they find it profitable. It essentially enables them to keep doing it so long as enough of the people out there will reward them with money for their games no matter what they do that is anti-consumer. Many of us on any side of the equation will become frustrated and/or bitter about it but ultimately no matter what we decide to do with our wallets, the only way that all of this anti-consumer behaviour continues to exist is because there are far more people willing to keep buying into it anyway that it is a profitable venture and the companies have little to no incentive to stop the practice if they're rewarded with money showing a positive ROI.

So I don't fault someone for making decisions that they are comfortable with in this regard, but one can't ignore the role that supporting companies with anti-consumer practices play in perpetuating the industry-wide problem either. I'm comfortable with my own decisions only because there are so many games available out there as a whole that I'm able to always find something else to spend my money on which supports companies that adhere more closely to what I value as a gamer and a consumer. I occasionally make a mistake too though and buy something without doing my research first, then kick myself for it. :)

As long as it's suspended they aren't making any money on it and I doubt they can afford to let the game sit there without selling more copies.

So yeah, I'd expect for it to be fixed.

When I read that I'm left with the strong impression that essentially this game was Early Access but being sold as a final release. The developers probably had a dragon breathing down their neck to shove it out the door or lose their jobs or something. I can only imagine that working on games in this state must be a gut wrenching hateful work environment where they can't wait to get home each night and play Witcher 3 to enjoy life before having to go to work the next day and vomit all day long working on some buggy ass game with a guy in a business suit looking over their shoulder while tapping his watch, with a stock chart in his hand.

iron galaxy is also not an established name developer
they have zero clout
they are not in a position to say no the game isnt rady yet we cant push it out it will be done when its done
like bioware blizzard rockstead and rockstar are \were

its obsidian and kotor II all over again only this time the fallout is humongous and high profile and for once gamers might actually proft from it ( doubt it )

You pretty much described nearly the entire gaming industry during crunch time.

Apparantly, Arkham Knight was a major bitch to create on the new consoles, hence the reason they delayed the game twice already. They just really needed that time, including the final three weeks of the second delay, to make the whole thing stable...on the consoles. And THEN it still had to be ported to PC, which had a completely different way of resource allocation.

It is a Batman game so there will be people buying the game for the next 3 or 4 years if they fix up the game. So I doubt they will abandon it.

ported by a company who already ported origins and bollocksed that up

But they fixed Origins.

no no they didnt
they issues a statement that dlc's are ore important and that they may get to fixing origin
and a huge bug is still in the game

Oh. Well, I'm not that far into the game so that would explain some things. Good thing I recently bought it and haven't played much, I'll refund it and boycot that fucking dev.

actually i am a customer that is their worst nightmare

i dont believe in hype
i dont pre order
i have a long memory ( no bethesda im not forgetting the paid mods for skyrim or that you kick started this dlc bullshit )

i dont buy new
i either buy used or with huge discounts during sales

i dont buy pre alpha's or work in progress or early acces or anything like that
i usually wait till the hype has died down there are mods and the game is actually bug free ( for any platform )

i hate dlc's i never buy them and the only way i ever get dlc's is if they are included with the super ultray hyper game fo the year legendary ultimate edition