Jimquisition: Reasons To Pass On Season Passes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I don't see how Bioshock 3 did anything wrong.

They put the season pass up saying they hadn't even started on it yet and that it will all be release by March 2014 so unless they miss that march 2014 deadline people don't really have much to complain about except they put money down on something that they had little information about which is there fault.

As for Boarderlands 2 they clearly said 4 pieces of DLC only and clarified if you looked it up that is was campaign DLC which they then supplied. Then people complained that it didn't include other pieces that they would of preferred like characters, these are people that should of waited to see what the content was.

As far as season passes go they are optional and unless it's being used to complete a uncompleted game then it's really more up to a customer if they want to blindly throw money at a company.

Lol, I actually said it... And then I laughed.
Thanks Jim, keep it up. And eventually I might even buy YOUR season pass :P

I have only bought 1 season pass, and that was Borderlands 2's during the steam sale. Got it, Mechromancer, and Psycho pack for less than 5 bucks.

That's really the best justification I can see for a season pass. Less about getting the content when it comes out in the future, more a bundle pack to get a bigger discount. Then again, that's essentially a GOTY edition so...yeah.

Thanatos2k:

Pat Hulse:
I can't argue that Season Passes are generally-speaking a bad deal and consumers ought to be wary of them, but I don't think that publishers should stop offering them. Pre-selling DLC ensures that the publishers don't get on the developers asses about releasing the DLC sooner since statistically, DLC sells best right after release (source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/16/eedar-consumers-have-greater-interest-in-dlc-a-month-after-game/ ). This is why on-disc DLC was such a common practice. With Season Passes, the publishers get to maximize DLC sales and the publishers get to take their time and do their DLC right.

You know, it is possible to release a game and not release any DLC. Imagine that, selling the complete game the first time and not having to worry about consumer interest waning in your game a month later - because they were completely satisfied the first time!

Obviously that's possible, but I'd prefer having DLC as a viable business model for a number of reasons:

1) Development time is hell and it's difficult for producers to find the right balance between focusing on fine-tuning the game engine and the mechanics and producing the actual content for the game. All too often a game will ship before it's ready because the developers were focused more on cranking out a large amount of content rather than perfecting the core gameplay. A DLC model makes it more economical to focus on quality over quantity.
2) Too many developers reinvent the wheel even though it's often unnecessary to do so. How many full-priced sequels end up just being recreated copies of the previous game with new assets and content? How many sequels could just as easily be produced as DLC for a fraction of the cost? Imagine instead of rushing out sequels every 2 or 3 years, developers just made one really solid franchise entry per generation and produced seasons of episodic content like "The Walking Dead" does?
3) It theoretically allows developers to take more risks since DLC tends to be lower-investment. They can try out unusual ideas or test out different mechanics or give younger, less experienced (but often more ambitious) developers a chance to cut their teeth on something smaller-scale in the AAA industry, perhaps leading to more innovation in a perpetually stagnating high-budget industry.

Self-contained games are fine, but DLC has benefits beyond simply milking more money from the audience. While I'll certainly admit that DLC hasn't historically done much to benefit the consumer in the majority of cases, there are exceptions that prove that the model can be beneficial for all involved parties, including the consumer. Whereas if we stick to self-contained games, publishers will have to go back to losing out on used game purchases and developers will go back to suffering unforgiving crunch-times and heart-breaking compromises.

Thought the idea of DLC was to replace expansion packs to give you content faster smaller bits taking advantage of digital distribution and extend the life spam of a games single and multiplayer(for pc gamers anyway) then with consoles being able to do this it made good sense for them. But now...... the fuck !? we get unfinished games then the rest being sold to you in the guise of "dlc". And its got to the point now where they dont even give a crap about what DLC they sell you. And they seem to have drifted far away from the idea of extending a games life, a year later they showing you trailers for the sequal and taking the season pass money from you.

Now being a pure PC gamer since the last console I had was a ps1 the only experiences ive had with this DLC was Space Marine. And that is a great example. I followed that game for awhile while in was in the works and went a pre-orderd the limited edition (purity seal lol) And they seem to have cut alot i saw from the early trailers. Dreads, Tyranids, Killa Kanz. But then months later they bring crappy half assed game modes out and the rest out in DLC effectively splitting the player base with the people who could afford to blow 25% of the cost of the dam game dlc and those that could. And now, Space Marine is pretty much dead.

money money money simple ass GREED

Thanatos2k:

Pat Hulse:
I can't argue that Season Passes are generally-speaking a bad deal and consumers ought to be wary of them, but I don't think that publishers should stop offering them. Pre-selling DLC ensures that the publishers don't get on the developers asses about releasing the DLC sooner since statistically, DLC sells best right after release (source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/16/eedar-consumers-have-greater-interest-in-dlc-a-month-after-game/ ). This is why on-disc DLC was such a common practice. With Season Passes, the publishers get to maximize DLC sales and the publishers get to take their time and do their DLC right.

You know, it is possible to release a game and not release any DLC. Imagine that, selling the complete game the first time and not having to worry about consumer interest waning in your game a month later - because they were completely satisfied the first time!

Please.

The only way to go back to them 'good old days' when your average gamer played the same game for months and months on end would be to pass and enforce a new law where everyone is only ever allowed to buy a single game on their birthday and at Christmas.

I think that they can be used right if the developers:

A. include ALL DLC in the season pass

and

B. allow players the ability to buy the season pass even after every piece of DLC has been released, so that they can make an educated decision

The ONLY season pass I have ever bought is for Injustice...as I trusted Neverrealms, especially after the value seen in MK.

I have to say, I am not pleased at having to buy Zatanna and Martian Manhunter, which were not included. Nor do I relish having to buy the myriad of skins which were released BEFORE the "season" was over, but were still not included.

So I am trading the game in, and will buy it again (used) when the GOTY version comes out. Come to think of it, this is what I'll likely do for all fighting games hence.

Also what I'll do for other assinine franchises that do this, such as Batman: Arkham City...so much money wasted that I could have saved by simply waiting 4 months.

What's truly sad is that I no longer like these companies/dev teams as a result. Even though I trust them to make amazing games, I don't trust that I'll get good value for my money.

I can list my last two preorders and my next one
-Dark Souls
-Blood Dragon
-Dark Souls 2

Other than that every game I own, I waited for on sale or for the GOTY. More fool anyone too impatient to wait

Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

If you start working on DLC before the game is released, even when there are legitimate reasons (artists and writers ended their assignments long before the game is ready, and are literally waiting in their desks for some job), people will claim you are cutting stuff out of the game, even when the game is long, and complete, and they haven't even played it.

If you don't start working on DLC until after the game is released, people will complain that they are being charged over an unsatisfying promise, that the content takes a lot to be done and will forget about the game entirely.

I've pre ordered one game ufc 2010. I liked the game but it was the last ufc game i bothered with.

Um, i'm not sure Jim needed to blast season passes. I think most gamers are smart enough to see those as bad ideas.

I only bought 1 season pass; Borderlands 2. And honestly, I don't think I got ripped off. I knew going into it that it was paying for 4 chunks of expansion DLC, and there might be other DLC that would not be included. IMO the content included in it was good enough to justify the price.

Pat Hulse:

Thanatos2k:

Pat Hulse:
I can't argue that Season Passes are generally-speaking a bad deal and consumers ought to be wary of them, but I don't think that publishers should stop offering them. Pre-selling DLC ensures that the publishers don't get on the developers asses about releasing the DLC sooner since statistically, DLC sells best right after release (source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/16/eedar-consumers-have-greater-interest-in-dlc-a-month-after-game/ ). This is why on-disc DLC was such a common practice. With Season Passes, the publishers get to maximize DLC sales and the publishers get to take their time and do their DLC right.

You know, it is possible to release a game and not release any DLC. Imagine that, selling the complete game the first time and not having to worry about consumer interest waning in your game a month later - because they were completely satisfied the first time!

Obviously that's possible, but I'd prefer having DLC as a viable business model for a number of reasons:

1) Development time is hell and it's difficult for producers to find the right balance between focusing on fine-tuning the game engine and the mechanics and producing the actual content for the game. All too often a game will ship before it's ready because the developers were focused more on cranking out a large amount of content rather than perfecting the core gameplay. A DLC model makes it more economical to focus on quality over quantity.

I disagree. It's done the opposite - devs now are being split off from the main teams and shunted onto DLC development INSTEAD of perfecting the main game. Worse, console games are starting to acquire one of the few downsides to PC game development - the "we'll fix it in a patch" syndrome where the initial product is flawed and they'll fix it later (perhaps in a DLC!). Despicable companies like Capcom even have the nerve to include bug fixes and balance changes IN THE DLC, essentially charging you for patches.

2) Too many developers reinvent the wheel even though it's often unnecessary to do so. How many full-priced sequels end up just being recreated copies of the previous game with new assets and content? How many sequels could just as easily be produced as DLC for a fraction of the cost? Imagine instead of rushing out sequels every 2 or 3 years, developers just made one really solid franchise entry per generation and produced seasons of episodic content like "The Walking Dead" does?

Episodic content is episodic content - that's not exactly DLC - that's you buying the actual game in sequential pieces as it gets made, not buying the whole game and then getting extra crap shoved onto it (or pulled from it to sell back to you).

3) It theoretically allows developers to take more risks since DLC tends to be lower-investment. They can try out unusual ideas or test out different mechanics or give younger, less experienced (but often more ambitious) developers a chance to cut their teeth on something smaller-scale in the AAA industry, perhaps leading to more innovation in a perpetually stagnating high-budget industry.

DLC's been around a while now - when has this EVER happened? The closest I can see would be something like Far Cry Blood Dragon which is more of an expansion or mod than DLC. DLC never produces anything that is more innovative than the original game. Modders do - and that's free for everyone.

Paradoxrifts:

Thanatos2k:

Pat Hulse:
I can't argue that Season Passes are generally-speaking a bad deal and consumers ought to be wary of them, but I don't think that publishers should stop offering them. Pre-selling DLC ensures that the publishers don't get on the developers asses about releasing the DLC sooner since statistically, DLC sells best right after release (source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/16/eedar-consumers-have-greater-interest-in-dlc-a-month-after-game/ ). This is why on-disc DLC was such a common practice. With Season Passes, the publishers get to maximize DLC sales and the publishers get to take their time and do their DLC right.

You know, it is possible to release a game and not release any DLC. Imagine that, selling the complete game the first time and not having to worry about consumer interest waning in your game a month later - because they were completely satisfied the first time!

Please.

The only way to go back to them 'good old days' when your average gamer played the same game for months and months on end would be to pass and enforce a new law where everyone is only ever allowed to buy a single game on their birthday and at Christmas.

Why do you need them to play your game for months? You make a game, you sell it, they play it, they finish it. You get money, they get a complete experience, they become your fans if they like it to buy your next game, and they will tell other people who haven't heard of your game how good it is.

What if you know you are going to buy all the DLC? Is it okay then?

A proper smackdown. I don't particularly like DLC, I hate the concept of Season Passes, I hate the concept of preordering, and for some companies to then not include some DLC in that, or to be winging it when it comes to the actual content, is despicable.

I trust DICE enough for me to pre-order Battlefield 4 and its "season pass" (Battlefield Premium). They've always given me a fun game that entertains me for at least a hundred hours a year. The only other season passes I've had were Battlefield 3's premium, and Borderlands 2's season pass. In the case of Borderlands, my buddy gifted it to me as soon as we finished the campaign (after the first 2 DLC's came out). So I can't really complain.

What does surprise me is the lack of Blizzard asking to pre-order Diablo 3's season pass. They must have planned ahead to not support the game post-launch, looking at the lack of fixes and everything else they planned on releasing with the game like a proper versus-mode. Oh, I guess they have that expansion pack planned, but who knows if it's going to include any content. It might just be a purchase of a promise to have an expansion pack made.

Agree with ya point there Mr Jim, never agreed with Season Passes ever, can't see the good in them, mm-hmm.

On to more important matters, does anyone else think he's look thinner? Not to say he looked better/worse in previous videos I just think he looks rather slimming in this video...good job Jim, now I can't stop staring at your manly pex.

I forget who said this, but

When you pre-order a product, you aren't buying the product, you're buying a story.

The only DLC I ever bought as part of a season pass was the one for Borderlands 2, and I got that long after the release of Dragons Keep. There was a good sale going on on Steam, so figured I'd buy the season pass since it was cheaper and wanted all 4 campaigns anyway. I guess that makes it more of a DLC bundle rather than a true season pass, but eh, technicalities :).

I've been very restrictive with pre-ordering lately, but made an exception with Rome II... and immediately regretted it come release. I thought my method of relying on the 3 day US-EU release date discrepancy to both read reviews and get the pre-order bonuses would pay off again, but this time it didn't work out. The game arrived broken as hell and looking like shit, despite the glorious reviews showered onto the internets. Guess I should've waited for the user reviews...

Oh well.

ninjaRiv:
I preordered Arkham Origins and I don't regret a thing. I preordered Splinter Cell Blacklist and loved it. I did this because I researched the product, the companies and people involved and I know I already like the franchises. So preordering can be good for established companies with great names attached. Their products are available for preview, some more than others, and the research can be done.

Problem with Season Passes is, there's no product before you order it. It's all based on faith and trust. Even if you trust the people involved, there's still no product to examine and preview. So... Yeah, good video. Agree with a lot of it.

Arkham Origins has a season pass already? Jeez. When was that announced, I've pre-ordered the game because I'm confident about that purchase, but will wait until all details are revealed on that before getting. I just hope the game isn't having content cut out of it.

I agree with his video too. The only season pass I ever bought was for injustice because I would have got the characters regardless, I like my fighting games and more characters was fine with me in this instance.

EDIT: So the skins I get with my pre-order are part of it, lame. Wasn't the reason I've pre-ordered, want the physical goodies, but still. That's supposed to be ab onus for preordering, at least for a while anyway.

Just looked it up, they say the story bit will be well worth the asking price. All the costumes in it are more like bonuses. In that case, I'll wait and see rather the buy it blind.

Season passes that don't include all the content are the biggest pieces of crap around in terms of DLC. That garbage should be lawsuit worthy.

It isn't, but it should be, and we should sue the pants off of anyone who does it. Especially Gearbox who we should also sue the pants off of for Aliens Colonial Marines.

What I'm trying to say is that season passes that don't give you all the DLC are bullshit and so is Gearbox.

I've bought ONE season pass in my life. Bioshock Infinite... I LOVE that game and and currently slogging my way through in 1999 mode. However, when I saw the first DLC I nearly lost it. I liked the combat well enough, but in a game where you could travel anywhere in time and space thus opening up some amazing options for story based DLC they gave me combat challenges and recycled maps as arenas. It was an insult.

I'm holding out hope for the Rapture return DLC packs, but I thought they had beat that setting to death in Bioshock 2 so I'm still not especially thrilled.

fluxy100:
I stand by the fact that a season pass is an option, it is a show of goodwill from the purchaser to the supplier that they trust that the DLC will be good and they are paying them beforehand because of that belief. If someone doesn't want the season pass and decides that they want to wait then that is all and good, they get the upside of seeing the DLC but the downside of a higher price.

...Wrong. If you don't buy the season pass before DLC is out, you get the upside of seeing the DLC. That's it. There is no downside because they still sell the season pass at the discounted price after all the DLC is out.

Also Borderlands 2 is a season pass done completely the wrong way. They either knew they were going to make more DLC in the first place and intentionally held some of it back so they could still sell even more DLC to people who already paid for what's supposed to be the "get all the DLC" ticket, or they didn't know they were going to make more DLC in the first place but decided "fuck the few loyal fans we have left after the Aliens Colonial Marines fiasco" and made them pay full price for said DLC even though they could have given it for free or sold it at a discounted price to people who already bought the season pass.

I mean shit, look at Rockstar. I remember multiple free MP packs for Red Dead Redemption because they wanted to thank fans for making the game such a success. They COULD have charged for the co-op missions and that one skin pack, but they didn't because they aren't money grubbing assholes like Gearbox. And isn't all the DLC for GTA V's online mode supposed to be free? Before someone puts out that shitty "companies exist to make money" defense for Gearbox, so does Rockstar. The difference, as always, is in the approach. Gearbox is trying to make money by greedily milking their customers for all they possibly can and Rockstar is trying to make money by breeding loyalty among their fans so that they're all the more willing to buy their next game. One approach works better than the other, and it when it comes time that both Gearbox and Rockstar are asking me for $60 for their latest game, I'm going to give it to Rockstar because they haven't tried to brutally fuck me up the butt like Gearbox has between Borderlands 2 and Aliens Colonial Marines.

What was it Jim said in that reply tweet to the Killzone developer? Something about being naively optimistic? I think that's how I would have to describe anyone who sees the Borderlands 2 Season Pass bullshit as a good thing.

MDSnowman:
I've bought ONE season pass in my life. Bioshock Infinite... I LOVE that game and and currently slogging my way through in 1999 mode. However, when I saw the first DLC I nearly lost it. I liked the combat well enough, but in a game where you could travel anywhere in time and space thus opening up some amazing options for story based DLC they gave me combat challenges and recycled maps as arenas. It was an insult.

I'm holding out hope for the Rapture return DLC packs, but I thought they had beat that setting to death in Bioshock 2 so I'm still not especially thrilled.

I've bought two.

The first was the Rockstar Pass for LA Noire (hey fancy that, Rockstar did something right again). They told you right up front what you'd be getting. And I mean they literally told you what you were getting, it wasn't ambiguously telling you what you were getting. They also included ALL of the DLC, the story stuff and the little bits and bobs like an extra suit or a gun which other season passes are so keen on not including.

Which brings me to the second season pass I bought, which was Gears of War 3. First off, it was overpriced at half the cost of the damn game. Second, they didn't really say what content you were getting. Most of it turned out to be map packs that could barely be used due to how few people bought the maps. The only one you could use was one they decided to give away for free to everyone, which was nice because now I could use the maps I paid for, but was bullshit because there was no compensation for people who paid for the maps only to have them go free shortly thereafter. And finally, remember how I just said that games love keeping the little stuff like suits and guns from the season pass? Gears 3 did that, if you wanted weapon or armor skins you had to pay extra even if you already paid half the cost of the fucking game for the season pass. Ultimately there was only one good DLC in the entire season pass for that game.

It was the first and last time I bought a season pass blind just to "support" a game I liked. One blatant ripoff was all I needed to learn my lesson, although I'm still embarrassed that I had to get ripped off even once to see it.

I preordered borderlands 2 and as the first dlc was released I picked up the season pass because I trust gearbox when it comes to borderlands as 1 had amazing dlc content and that's pretty much as far as it goes, no one else gets nothing as no one else deserves it.

A.) I've bought season passes, but it's very rare. I think part of the appeal is it costs the developer nothing to offer season passes since they already have the plan for the dlc. By giving a SLIGHT discount to it, they can offer that dlc upfront and get a certain estimate of the diehard-going-to-buy-it-no-matter what crowd. Only season pass I've bought after checking is Borderlands 2, and I appreciated it, I was going to get the dlc for it anyways. Note, that was a sequel, and I loved the first game and all it's dlc. I also didn't purchase it right away.

B.) Sometimes season passes are offered for quite awhile after the release of the game. I bought mine instead of a game with what I budgeted for entertainment funds when the second dlc for the game came out. Once you know you'll get at least 2 of them, it can be worth it.

C.) Like many things in this industry, my problem isn't necessarily with the option, but with how often the option is pushed. It's very rare that such an option is appealing, but it's pushed on evey god damn game.

Well it all comes down to how much you trust the devs.

The only season pass I've ever bought was for Borderlands 2, and it is a bit disappointing that Gaige and Krieg aren't a part of that package.

But for $20 I did get a significant amount of content. And either way I actually got the base game for free so I don't have many qualms about that decision.

I don't see myself ever buying another season pass ever again. Mostly because the sort of games I play aren't the kind to include those (the only other that comes to mind being BioShock Infinite), and because I only bother with story-based DLC. So buying a season pass and getting, say, a new multiplayer mode or something... it's a waste for me.

mjc0961:

fluxy100:
I stand by the fact that a season pass is an option, it is a show of goodwill from the purchaser to the supplier that they trust that the DLC will be good and they are paying them beforehand because of that belief. If someone doesn't want the season pass and decides that they want to wait then that is all and good, they get the upside of seeing the DLC but the downside of a higher price.

...Wrong. If you don't buy the season pass before DLC is out, you get the upside of seeing the DLC. That's it. There is no downside because they still sell the season pass at the discounted price after all the DLC is out.

Also Borderlands 2 is a season pass done completely the wrong way. They either knew they were going to make more DLC in the first place and intentionally held some of it back so they could still sell even more DLC to people who already paid for what's supposed to be the "get all the DLC" ticket, or they didn't know they were going to make more DLC in the first place but decided "fuck the few loyal fans we have left after the Aliens Colonial Marines fiasco" and made them pay full price for said DLC even though they could have given it for free or sold it at a discounted price to people who already bought the season pass.

I mean shit, look at Rockstar. I remember multiple free MP packs for Red Dead Redemption because they wanted to thank fans for making the game such a success. They COULD have charged for the co-op missions and that one skin pack, but they didn't because they aren't money grubbing assholes like Gearbox. And isn't all the DLC for GTA V's online mode supposed to be free? Before someone puts out that shitty "companies exist to make money" defense for Gearbox, so does Rockstar. The difference, as always, is in the approach. Gearbox is trying to make money by greedily milking their customers for all they possibly can and Rockstar is trying to make money by breeding loyalty among their fans so that they're all the more willing to buy their next game. One approach works better than the other, and it when it comes time that both Gearbox and Rockstar are asking me for $60 for their latest game, I'm going to give it to Rockstar because they haven't tried to brutally fuck me up the butt like Gearbox has between Borderlands 2 and Aliens Colonial Marines.

What was it Jim said in that reply tweet to the Killzone developer? Something about being naively optimistic? I think that's how I would have to describe anyone who sees the Borderlands 2 Season Pass bullshit as a good thing.

First off, I was incorrect in my first point I forgot that for some strange reason Borderlands and other developers sell season passes after the DLC is already out, My mistake.

Secondly, Regardless of whether Gearbox knew they would make more DLC or not They established what they were going to offer from the get go, let people buy that and then delivered on what they said they were going to sell with good quality DLC, that is how a season pass should work. It's buying DLC beforehand, it doesn't matter how much DLC is released as long as the Company upholds their end of the bargain with DLC that is consistent with the quality of the game.

Now onto your comparison with Rockstar, Imagine I go to a restaurant every other day and order a Salad and Burger. Then one day the Chef decides that because I've come to the restaurant so often he wants to add a dessert onto my Salad and Burger for free even though I only payed for the salad and burger. Is that good and nice of the chef? Of course it is, but to then go to any other restaurant I frequent and accuse them of being moneygrubbing assholes because they didn't do the same thing is a stupid thing for me to do. For one company to give something away for free doesn't make their competitors moneygrubbing assholes, it just makes that company nicer, that's all

The best way to discourage the further ruination of the game industry would be not to buy next-gen consoles because everyone knows ahead of time the companies are going to be adding on a bunch of fees, passes, DLC, and DRM to rip gamers off.

I know people don't like to hear it, if you buy next-gen and giving the companies money, you will only be making gaming worse as a result.

Or at the very least, you can't complain about shitty treatment and rip-offs if you do buy it, because you knew what you were getting when you got a next-gen system.

I loved this Jimquisition and I totally agree with Jim. We as consumers should be more careful with our money. Companies will make more games and DLC because it makes them money. There's no need for us to pay in advance and allow them to ship whatever they deem acceptable. I learned my lesson from the Borderlands 2 season pass, and narrowly avoided fucking myself with an Aliens: Colonial Marines preorder.

I never buy season passes. I'd rather wait for the inevitable "Game of the Year" edition. In some rare cases though a season pass will continue to be sold after all the DLC has been released, making it a decent discount pack if it contains all of the DLC you want. Borderlands 2 and Darksiders 2 are good examples of this.

I mean...not that I disagree or anything, but isn't this all on us anyway?
If what most of the people are saying here is true- all of the DLC in those season passes will be available as separate DLC anyway. Therefore, the whole season pass boom is nothing but our fault because we bought into it happily.

To be honest. Half of these practices wouldn't be happening if we as the consumer didn't buy into it all the time.

What about Season Passes for episodic games like Telltale's? It works pretty well there.

The worst part is these passes really aren't aimed at adults who earn their own income. The worst part is honestly that these games are aimed at kids who have easy and unfiltered access to their parents money, who don't know anything about season passes let alone DLC. Honestly if you wanted to end season passes get it on like one of those evening news watch shows like the fox problem solvers or something. I mean a lot of us may by DLC but as a working human being with a job, I haven't even bought the DLC I wanted just because I don't have time.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here