We’ve all been there at one point in our gaming careers. A game company announces the incredibly high price for a hotly anticipated DLC and your heart drops. Your first reaction is to go to the nearest message board or your Twitter account and blast that company for their unfair prices. Surely some DLC coming out this soon after the game releases means they simply held this back just to be able to charge extra for it. In most cases there is no actual download, just a code to unlock the content on the disk; the game you already paid $60 for.
So you vow to never play that game again, not to support that company, and most importantly never to pay for that overpriced horse armor . Why would you support a company that is clearly not looking out for you as a customer? Oh, but on release date all your friends all seem to have it, and that armor is shiny. Just like you, I was able to hold off the DLC for a few days until I broke and bought the overpriced content that was simply locked down on the disk in the first place.
As gamers we are a fickle bunch. Immature, even. Our ideals and standards are only as high as the game company allows them to be. Some do right by us. Valve has been a company that gamers can trust when it comes to extending the life of their games with competitive pricing and strong DLC support. Unfortunately, companies like Valve are few and far between. Some of these steep prices would not occur if the gaming community matured a bit and drew a line in the sand in regards to what we are willing to pay for and what type of services we cared about.
Allow me to state the obvious, game companies are trying to make a profit. While most of them are not evil, we as gamers need to keep those that tread the line, from being dishonest. Last generation the MSRP for most games was $50 and if gamers wanted a few more special features we could pay $10 more for the Collector’s Edition. Guess what? Collector’s Editions are huge sellers and it seemed nearly every release, minor or major, had a “special”, collector”, or “limited” edition tagging along with it.
This as we now know, was just a testing ground for companies to see how much gamers were willing to pay to get their games. Fast forward to present day and the MSRP for games has been raised to $60 and that special, collector’s or limited edition is no less than $70 and can go as high as $150. Who is to blame here? The game companies saw a window of opportunity to make a few extra bucks more on their multimillion dollar investment. There is nothing wrong with that but sometimes they can go a bit overboard. It is up to us to show some maturity and find the will to not buy every bit of entertainment we are offered solely because it’s the next thing to get.
We need to vote with our wallets, we need to create a standard. A map pack for a game should never cost a quarter of the actual game. Extra game modes that come out only weeks after the game releases usually means it’s a cash in, and could have been bundled with the main game in the first place. These are released and priced for the gamer that is willing to buy everything to make sure they are up to date. As gamers and geeks this has been our greatest weakness, but I firmly believe the more we push back against some of these outrageous situations, if stick to our guns on the subject we may begin to truly see some fairness displayed. The game companies will have no choice. Either cater to us- their customers- or cater to no one. With our wallets, have the power choose which games, ideas, and even companies sink or swim. When we finally realize that, we will see how fast these companies begin to play nice.
The video game industry is still relatively young. There is much to learn but it doesn’t mean we as gamers can’t show a little maturity and help it grow along the way.
We’ve all been there at one point in our gaming careers. A game company announces the incredibly high price for a hotly anticipated DLC and your heart drops. Your first reaction is to go to the nearest message board or your Twitter account and blast that company for their unfair prices. Surely some DLC coming out this soon after the game releases means they simply held this back just to be able to charge extra for it. In most cases there is no actual download, just a code to unlock the content on the disk; the game you already paid $60 for.
So you vow to never play that game again, not to support that company, and most importantly never to pay for that overpriced horse armor . Why would you support a company that is clearly not looking out for you as a customer? Oh, but on release date all your friends all seem to have it, and that armor is shiny. Just like you, I was able to hold off the DLC for a few days until I broke and bought the overpriced content that was simply locked down on the disk in the first place.
As gamers we are a fickle bunch. Immature, even. Our ideals and standards are only as high as the game company allows them to be. Some do right by us. Valve has been a company that gamers can trust when it comes to extending the life of their games with competitive pricing and strong DLC support. Unfortunately, companies like Valve are few and far between. Some of these steep prices would not occur if the gaming community matured a bit and drew a line in the sand in regards to what we are willing to pay for and what type of services we cared about.
Allow me to state the obvious, game companies are trying to make a profit. While most of them are not evil, we as gamers need to keep those that tread the line, from being dishonest. Last generation the MSRP for most games was $50 and if gamers wanted a few more special features we could pay $10 more for the Collector’s Edition. Guess what? Collector’s Editions are huge sellers and it seemed nearly every release, minor or major, had a “special”, collector”, or “limited” edition tagging along with it.
This as we now know, was just a testing ground for companies to see how much gamers were willing to pay to get their games. Fast forward to present day and the MSRP for games has been raised to $60 and that special, collector’s or limited edition is no less than $70 and can go as high as $150. Who is to blame here? The game companies saw a window of opportunity to make a few extra bucks more on their multimillion dollar investment. There is nothing wrong with that but sometimes they can go a bit overboard. It is up to us to show some maturity and find the will to not buy every bit of entertainment we are offered solely because it’s the next thing to get.
We need to vote with our wallets, we need to create a standard. A map pack for a game should never cost a quarter of the actual game. Extra game modes that come out only weeks after the game releases usually means it’s a cash in, and could have been bundled with the main game in the first place. These are released and priced for the gamer that is willing to buy everything to make sure they are up to date. As gamers and geeks this has been our greatest weakness, but I firmly believe the more we push back against some of these outrageous situations, if stick to our guns on the subject we may begin to truly see some fairness displayed. The game companies will have no choice. Either cater to us- their customers- or cater to no one. With our wallets, have the power choose which games, ideas, and even companies sink or swim. When we finally realize that, we will see how fast these companies begin to play nice.
The video game industry is still relatively young. There is much to learn but it doesn’t mean we as gamers can’t show a little maturity and help it grow along the way.
I work in Revenue Management and I can tell you that the price for games and DLC's are directly related to the cost of production and the demand for the product. That said, the prices won't go down until either the market is saturated or the demand for the game tapers off. That's why you see the most popular games staying at $60 for months after release while the ones that didn't sell well are already at $20-$30.
As for the DLC's, the developer knows that the people that bought the game are very likely to follow up with another small purchase for something that very well could be on the disk in the first place. Game developers only do this with the games that are in high demand (Dragon Age and Modern Warfare) since the existing demand for these games will carry over to the DLC. Demand still applies to the price of these add-ons as well. Unlike the game itself, the price of the DLC at launch can vary. This variance is also based on Demand. When you look at Modern Warfare, with million of people playing it, there is no way the developer will release something as simple as a map pack for anything less than the maximum they can charge people for it. The reason is that the fans of the game will buy it, no matter how expensive. Any kind of boycott will not work since there will always be people who want to be the first ones to get this map pack just to be that much better than the competition.
Wait, different kind of immatureness. Oh, hey, this discussion again.
Every time this discussion about price and DLC crops up, I say a prayer for all the families who have lost their gaming loved ones because of the murderous Corporations, who force them to buy DLC "or else". A prayer for our same terrible society that said that drinking, drugs or tobacco were cool that pushes DLC / Collector's Editions onto unwitting kids.
Hm, wrong dimension. This is the one where I can actually choose not to buy DLC or games.
Anyway, speaking purely anecdotally, the prices for games have always been around $50 - $60 (incl VAT) in this neck of the woods (being Western Europe). NES cartridges were the same price, SNES cartridges were the same price, etcetera. Of course, these are just rough currency conversion (hi there, Euro, meet Dollar and say your respects for scrap metal) and I can't be bothered to correct for inflation, so yeah, I might be completely wrong here. Nor can I be bothered to compare budgets from that period to today's budgets (also corrected for inflation), nor the estimated size of the gaming population then and now to determine market size / demand.
Though if my previous hunch about the price development of games over time and my guess about budgets and demand is correct, $60 for multi-million dollar projects in a "niche medium" is kind of a steal?
Why the fuck would you be jealous of your friends' horse armor? Oblivion isn't even fucking multiplayer; it isn't like you needed fucking horse armor to play online with them or something.
Also, what makes you think that the people who buy video games are any different than the average consumer?
What you may think is expensive, could be a deal to another gamer. I think it's all based on how much the player enjoyed the game, it has nothing to do with buying it because it's the next thing to get.
I rarely buy DLC, unless it's a very good game (Borderlands).
Sadly the standard for games and dlc is very low. Also gamers happily let themselves be assraped for a reused map pack. I mean bringing back old maps is goddamn ace, but not for 15 euro's!
Only DLC I ever thought was worth the price was General Knox from Borderlands. But look at SC 2, people bought it even tho it's 60. Now you could say that's clever marketing, and to an extent it is. But to me it looks like screwing over your loyal fans, because "they'll buy it anyway".
@TaliciaDragonsong: Most video games are 60 bucks, and Blizz even set a president by charging 60 for WC3. Its not like it was some new scam to charge 60 bucks for SC2. And if you were to play it, you'd realize it was worth it.
I guess that's how capitalism works sometimes (or all the time), if you can't afford it then you can't.
But some companies just sucks, they sell a DLC just a month after release so it's obvious they could have included it in the disc. It sucks, it's not fair but it's legal. They're selling you the game in parts, it just sucks.
Hotly anticipated DLC like you said doesn't go hand in hand with "horse armor" or a map pack for MW2.
Also games have cost more than 60 dollars in the past....take into account the inflation of today and gaming got relatively cheap because of the audience.
Was that material they "stowed away under lock and key" so important that it felt like the main game was missing something? Did the company go to your house and put a gun to your head to pay for that DLC?
It's all about "individual" choices you make. I don't play pay-to-play games with monthly subscriptions nor do I do micro-transaction games, not a knock on those games I just don't feel like paying for it that way. DLC is one of those "judge it case-by-case" deals, RDR came out with Legends and Killers...I skipped it, but I'll buy that online poker pack.
You're seriously against collector's edition? That's not the company's fault if people want an extra special edition of a game they want, seeing as how the retail 60 dollar version doesn't go away...
If you really wanted to help the "videogame market" you wouldn't make these snide topics, you wouldn't try and influence other people what to do with their money on a hobby, you shouldn't buy used games...ever.
Let the almighty dollar and the free market play out. Decide what works for you, what YOU want to do with your money on a fairly extravagant hobby and the companies will accommodate to what you and everybody else does. You think if companies didn't get slammed so hard off the used games stuff they'd be doing stuff like the EA online pass? No it's all about reactions, yes it's a business, yes Kotick is evil, and yes this topic screams of "companies that put out cash and investment to creative people that want to make good games owe me big"
" Why the fuck would you be jealous of your friends' horse armor? Oblivion isn't even fucking multiplayer; it isn't like you needed fucking horse armor to play online with them or something.
Also, what makes you think that the people who buy video games are any different than the average consumer?
Never said anything was not worth it, it's just a very normal rule to sell games for 50 on pc, 60 for consoles, when a company goes over that, I usually mistrust it. Also games are a matter of opinion, not everyone likes the same game so it could be worth 60 to you, but nothing to me.
@Doctorchimp: Not sure what you mean with "just", t'was 2 days ago. *looks up* What I was talking about was your "I stopped reading at" and grammar nazi'ing, which I admit I outdid a little, but I just read your full comment there (somehow I didn't even see your first response, probably didn't get a notification) but may I ask where the hell you are pulling that stuff out?
I have a different opinion than you and you flip out and don't want to see it...that's rational. Then again you're a "real gamer" and your taste knows no bounds! You also scream bloody murder at bad review scores, again stemming from your fear of a different opinion...
That's what you wrote, now I don't know how you can gather all that out of my simple response consisting of "GTFO". You're the one being a very defensive player here, I could care less what you think about me. So in short, I said "GTFO" to the way you were acting, not to Alpha Protocol. I haven't even played the game and have no opinion of it. So could you please not "flip out" and put words in my mouth? I said nothing about Alpha Protocol, it's price or what features it did or didn't have.
@flammverit: Which means the developer usually had about 4 months to make said DLC.
Gamers get angry whenever a game gets DLC shortly after its release, claiming it could have easily been on the disc, which shows just how uninformed the majority of gamers really are about their favorite hobby. Content gets locked down months before the actual release. Not because developers don't want to add more content, but because everything has to go through a whole seperate process after the actual creation process, namely testing, testing, testing. And in the case of console games, certifaction as well.
If content is locked away on the disc, then yes, feel free to get pissed about it because then you actually are getting ripped off. But if a game gets DLC a month after release, please stop all the whining and learn something about the process of developing and publishing games first. People are only making themselves look like uninformed fools by complaining about stuff they know nothing about.
@TaliciaDragonsong: Maybe Blizzard made it a rule that their RTS's will cost 60 bucks? WC3 was 60 when all PC games were 50. And if the game is worth nothing to you, then it wasn't made for you, so you shouldn't care. Also PC games have been 50 bucks for a long time, its only natural that they will increase in price over time. Its not like you can buy a bottle of coke for a nickel anymore.
$60 bucks for a game that provides free online play is acceptable since I assume people who buy it plan on playing it a lot (I've logged nearly 70 hours into BFBC2 for example).
Now if MW3 is $60 and $15 a month to play, you may start seeing people rebel.
@Feanor: This is true, but I can't help but see a decline quality. Yes games have become bigger and better, but it really turns me off when I get a measly 10 hours out of a game. I'm really used to long or replayable games, hence why most of my favorite games are RPG's. Thing's are how thing's are...
@Doctorchimp: Again I ask you, how can you gather such a shitload of bad stuff about me from four simple letters? I also tend to think that here on Giantbomb we have a reasonable amount of common sense and conversations, but also fun and meme's. As I said before in reply to Feanor, a game is really a sense of taste. No experience with AP but what I heard was that it was very buggy, but I also read a lot of good words about it... So yeah, I don't know every gamers opinion, but I do know what I like ;)
I literally just answered you, I promise read my post and you'll see it...
I thought you flipped out on my opinion, so I thought you didn't like other people's opinion.
So because I thought you didn't like other people's opinion I thought you were one of those people who would rag on someone when they didn't like it, like those cats that flipped out at Brad's Lost Planet 2 review or his Final Fantasy XIII review.
@Doctorchimp: I read your post carefully, I always do, as I try to avoid looking like the people you mentioned,which turns out to be hard when you use only 4 letters xD . So yeah, I'm not what you thought, just a normal girl enjoying normal games, nothing more nothing less. And you're a chimp who's a doctor. Crazy how things go right?
movies have been around for a while and they seem to get more immature as the industry moves along. there weren't fart jokes in movies in the 30's when that industry was young. i don't see the corrolation. base humor is base and it attracts a base audience which most of the time happen to be teenagers.
"Valve has been a company that gamers can trust when it comes to extending the life of their games with competitive pricing and strong DLC support. Unfortunately, companies like Valve are few and far between. Some of these steep prices would not occur if the gaming community matured a bit and drew a line in the sand in regards to what we are willing to pay for and what type of services we cared about. "
I'm a little confused about this bit, weren't Valve and Bungie accused to rehashing the same ideas (Halo ODST and Left 4 Dead 2) and still selling them on for full price? Not that I don't love both companies and enjoy the games they produce, but it just seems odd to use them as an example of a company that puts the consumer first.
Hotly anticipated DLC like you said doesn't go hand in hand with "horse armor" or a map pack for MW2.
Also games have cost more than 60 dollars in the past....take into account the inflation of today and gaming got relatively cheap because of the audience.
Was that material they "stowed away under lock and key" so important that it felt like the main game was missing something? Did the company go to your house and put a gun to your head to pay for that DLC?
It's all about "individual" choices you make. I don't play pay-to-play games with monthly subscriptions nor do I do micro-transaction games, not a knock on those games I just don't feel like paying for it that way. DLC is one of those "judge it case-by-case" deals, RDR came out with Legends and Killers...I skipped it, but I'll buy that online poker pack.
You're seriously against collector's edition? That's not the company's fault if people want an extra special edition of a game they want, seeing as how the retail 60 dollar version doesn't go away...
If you really wanted to help the "videogame market" you wouldn't make these snide topics, you wouldn't try and influence other people what to do with their money on a hobby, you shouldn't buy used games...ever.
Let the almighty dollar and the free market play out. Decide what works for you, what YOU want to do with your money on a fairly extravagant hobby and the companies will accommodate to what you and everybody else does. You think if companies didn't get slammed so hard off the used games stuff they'd be doing stuff like the EA online pass? No it's all about reactions, yes it's a business, yes Kotick is evil, and yes this topic screams of "companies that put out cash and investment to creative people that want to make good games owe me big" "
Not the response I thought I'd get. Keep in mind I'm not calling every other gamer but myself immature. I am guilty at being an immature gamer in this regard, I expressed this a few times in the blog. You don't have to agree with my blog which you obviously don't, but I think it's a topic worth talking about constructively, and if what you posted there is your way of addressing it, then good. Have a good day. Maybe I should have changed "immature gamer" to something less offensive.
If you don't agree with a company's policy, vote with your wallet.
The rest is beating around the bush.
@TekZero:
Any kind of boycott will not work since there will always be people who want to be the first ones to get this map pack just to be that much better than the competition.
That is probably true, but still the video game market is ruled mainly, like you said, by " cost of production and the demand for the product", and i at least won't demand which i don't agree with. I can only hope other people will be as conscious. If not, i live according to my own standards, and not according to anyone else's.
@TaliciaDragonsong said:
" @Feanor: This is true, but I can't help but see a decline quality. Yes games have become bigger and better, but it really turns me off when I get a measly 10 hours out of a game. I'm really used to long or replayable games, hence why most of my favorite games are RPG's. Thing's are how thing's are... "
I agree. Games are getting more beefy with content, but ironically less robust where it really matters. About SC 2 there is a multitude of modes, but to a single player guy like me it gets much less impressive.
" @flammverit: Which means the developer usually had about 4 months to make said DLC. Gamers get angry whenever a game gets DLC shortly after its release, claiming it could have easily been on the disc, which shows just how uninformed the majority of gamers really are about their favorite hobby. Content gets locked down months before the actual release. Not because developers don't want to add more content, but because everything has to go through a whole seperate process after the actual creation process, namely testing, testing, testing. And in the case of console games, certifaction as well. If content is locked away on the disc, then yes, feel free to get pissed about it because then you actually are getting ripped off. But if a game gets DLC a month after release, please stop all the whining and learn something about the process of developing and publishing games first. People are only making themselves look like uninformed fools by complaining about stuff they know nothing about. "
I've worked on the software development process many times and I understand the testing and QA and all that stuff but I guess if you tell gamers to hold on a month to get something more for the same price then most of them will say "fine, I can wait if I'm going to get more content or better quality" like when GTAIV was delayed. If the content is gonna take more than one month then offer it later as DLC if you are gonna take the time to make good quality DLC. Red Dead Redemption got its first DLC after release and they gave it for free, that makes gamers love them and be loyal and buy their games, then weeks later they were selling the second DLC and nobody complained because they feel Rockstar is fair about what they deliver (the games they create really worth $60) .
Companies should stop making decision that rip gamers off (or make them feel like that), that's not good for them nor for gamers in the long term, it's the start of the end of a good relationship between a company and their consumers.
Most gamers don't understand a software development process and they don't have to and they have the right to complain if they're feeling like the company is ripping them off because that's another way of giving feedback to the company: "Maybe we (the company) are right about the long and complex development process but what can we do to stop annoying our clients? maybe we're not taking the right approach?"
So no, I'm not an uniformed fool complaining just for the sake of it.
" itt a bunch of dumb babies that don't remember that SNES games used to be like $60-$80 and N64 game were $60
and lol at the idea of gamers organizing and maintaining any sort of boycott
"
If the games in the SNES or N64 eras were at 150$ each, would that really change anything?
That's a fallacy. Just because something happened in the past, doesn't justify or legitimates the present, or even serves as measure of comparison, as we're fairly far from that time period. It's just dumb reassurance.
According to the prices that were practice one or two years before games are getting more pricey and demanding (especially drm-wise), and less substancial.
And boycotts can takes us no where, but your kind of attitude will only worsen the situation.
"Valve has been a company that gamers can trust when it comes to extending the life of their games with competitive pricing and strong DLC support. Unfortunately, companies like Valve are few and far between. Some of these steep prices would not occur if the gaming community matured a bit and drew a line in the sand in regards to what we are willing to pay for and what type of services we cared about. "
I'm a little confused about this bit, weren't Valve and Bungie accused to rehashing the same ideas (Halo ODST and Left 4 Dead 2) and still selling them on for full price? Not that I don't love both companies and enjoy the games they produce, but it just seems odd to use them as an example of a company that puts the consumer first. "
Yeah, maybe so, but besides that one slip up, Valve in general has been a very consumer friendly company.
@TaliciaDragonsong: Decline in quality? Have you played SC2? It has made improvements on everything that SC1 did. The single player campaign is longer too. So if you paid 50 for the first Starcraft when it came out, you shouldn't have a problem paying 60 for a game with more content. People should realize that its a mircale that PC games have been 50 dollars for this long. But you can't get mad at PC game for being 60, its called inflation prices go up. I remember SNES games being 50 bucks back in the day, so paying 60 for better graphics and gameplay seems worth it to me.
" I guess that's how capitalism works sometimes (or all the time), if you can't afford it then you can't. But some companies just sucks, they sell a DLC just a month after release so it's obvious they could have included it in the disc. It sucks, it's not fair but it's legal. They're selling you the game in parts, it just sucks. "
Think about that for a second. At the end of a development cycle there is usually a cut-off point about 2 months before release (maybe longer). This means nothing new can be added to the disc, and they are polishing. This means some of the developers can start working on the DLC. They also have one month of Certification before release, and they have to ship the game to manufacturing. This means that DLC that comes out one month later could easily have at least 2-3 months of effort put into it. I think that's usually worth 10 bucks. Granted, some DLC is just cashing in, but that doesn't mean all DLC is.
EDIT: Just realized some other guy said the exact same thing. Nevermind then.
" $60 bucks for a game that provides free online play is acceptable since I assume people who buy it plan on playing it a lot (I've logged nearly 70 hours into BFBC2 for example). Now if MW3 is $60 and $15 a month to play, you may start seeing people rebel. "
Not sure if you're a hockey fan, but this reminds me a lot of the contract Kovalchuk just got signed to by the devils. It was for 17 years 100 million dollars (which is a lot in the NHL). Everyone in the league went crazy and the NHL rejected the contract. If it went through, everyone would start asking for contracts like that and it would lead to another lockout. Well yeah for your scenario I think we really all really have to rebel and make sure they can't do it like the NHL did, or else before you know it every game will wanna charge a monthly fee.
@Jeust: its adorable you're trying to call me out on an argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, but i don't think the concept of "price generally increases as production costs increase" has changed any.
also, i'd imagine that vast majority of gamers being a group of hypocritical, non-committal children with no impulse control does worse for the "situation" than me calling them out on their bullshit.
" @Jeust: its adorable you're trying to call me out on an argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, but i don't think the concept of "price generally increases as production costs increase" has changed any. also, i'd imagine that vast majority of gamers being a group of hypocritical, non-committal children with no impulse control does worse for the "situation" than me calling them out on their bullshit. "
For once the price of the disks has decreased a lot. Cartridge were a lot more expensive to make than cds and dvds.
Also just because there are worse things, doesn't make you perspective any less harmful.
And i'm not calling you out for an argument, just pointing out that with that condescending attitude nothing good will come.
@Feanor: I have not played SC2, nor SC1, I dislike RTS games with very few exceptions. So I don't really give much for what it does and can, it doesn't pickle my interest. As I said before maybe it's worth it in your eyes, to me it would be a waste of my 60 euro's.
With what I said I didn't mean SC2 or any game in particular, but I just feel that we're losing a lot for what we are gaining, and I rather pay for longlasting content then hyper realistic backgrounds which offer little lasting appeal. But hey, some might like those backgrounds and happily pay full price for it. That's the beauty of taste I suppose.
@TaliciaDragonsong: You act as though every game is shallow and short, and thats just no the case. What exactly are we losing here? We are getting better graphics and better gameplay all around. Sure there are crap games, but there have been and always will be crap games, and they will always cost as much as the good games its up to you to choose, and up to you to decide if its worth the purchase. People make to much of a fuss of a 10 dollar increase of PC games. Especially when only a handful of titles are doing it. I will be playing starcraft for another few years at least, so I will be getting my 60 bucks out of it, as will most people.
I just get annoyed when people act like video games are not what they use to be. People let nostalgia get to them and somehow thing game mechanics were better in the 80's and 90's.
@Feanor: I'll say it again then. It's all about taste! Look at Modern Warfare 2 or God of War 3, both great games but the singleplayer was ungodly short. Now this matters little in MW2's part, but for GoW3 that really bummed me out, I completed it in 1 day worth of playing and returned it for a refund. See to me a game like God of War (Or Bayonetta, which lasted me a lil longer) loses its appeal when it's completed. Some people prefer to run it through 15 times on hard in a bunnysuit to get extra stuff but to me that's not appealing.
Now I never said all games are bad, and I'm also not saying that games were lots better in the past. All I'm saying is that I feel that games are not moving ahead much as a medium, if all we do is focus on graphics or gimmicks which a lot of companies do. I'll admit, gladly, that there's great games out there like Red Dead Redemption that did a wonderful job in creating a world, but it's a open world game that is made to last. I understand some games do not have that luxury and merely want to tell a story, but I personally dislike short games most of the time. But yeah, taste, if you enjoy SC2 my friend, please play it and enjoy! Gaming is all about fun, and I don't care who plays what or how or how long, I just want gamers to have fun, and if possible support the companies they know and love.
And also burn them down to the ground when they offer crap DLC. But where there's a buyers, there's sellers I suppose.
Everything is optional. The primary problem with DLC is when worthwhile content is held back so it can be sold for 5/10/15 dollars eight weeks later. I love Capitalism with all my heart, but I'm not a fan of eviscerating games for the sake of essentially hiding their real price.
Portable and Wii games aside, I am now beginning to adhere to the practice of waiting until the GotY edition of many games, so that I can pay 50/60 dollars for what I feel like is the finished product. Again, it's all optional, but it delays when I invest my money in the game and in some cases discourages me from ever buying it. If more consumers were conscientious about their purchases, this new dishonest practice of releasing a full game through over the course of several months and eighty dollars would not be sustainable.
That said, a few games have put DLC to very good use. This isn't the trend though.
while i am happy to pay for the first, i wont pay for the last.
Its just a video game. The sooner you realise you dont need the "awesome super duper blood dragon special armor", the more you will enjoy the game. But if you need it. Buy it. Simple.
@Famov: Most DLC just adds extra costumes or a sidequest, thats hardly eviscerating a game. The games that I have played that had day 1 DLC (Mass Effect, Dragon Age) did not feel gimped at all without that DLC.
The problem is that when people see DLC, they automatically think they have been ripped off, because it wasn't included at launch. But they don't realize that the DLC was being made after the games launch. Are they suppose to give that away for free? All those man hours to make that DLC are not cheap. People are just entitled now, more than ever.
" I guess that's how capitalism works sometimes (or all the time), if you can't afford it then you can't. But some companies just sucks, they sell a DLC just a month after release so it's obvious they could have included it in the disc. It sucks, it's not fair but it's legal. They're selling you the game in parts, it just sucks. "
Think about that for a second. At the end of a development cycle there is usually a cut-off point about 2 months before release (maybe longer). This means nothing new can be added to the disc, and they are polishing. This means some of the developers can start working on the DLC. They also have one month of Certification before release, and they have to ship the game to manufacturing. This means that DLC that comes out one month later could easily have at least 2-3 months of effort put into it. I think that's usually worth 10 bucks. Granted, some DLC is just cashing in, but that doesn't mean all DLC is. EDIT: Just realized some other guy said the exact same thing. Nevermind then. "
That's right, not all DLC has the only purpose of make money, I didn't say that.
I just think some companies do it that way and they don't even bother in thinking if that's the way they should be doing business to keep a long term relationship with their gamers. if those companies don't care how hard is for gamers to go to work every day to get money for video games then gamers also shouldn't care if the company's development cycles are hard or complex, if they just want gamer's money then gamers just wan't the game worth the money companies are asking for. So companies should start to think how to make it a win-win game, not just giving excuses of how hard is to make a video game.
DLC kind of sucks when companies release it. i do not do to much of DLC just because it's for cash. the ones that suck look at you EA are the ones that release DLC day one. they can release for a patch, which i think they should do. sure, they are looking for more money but people do not like it.
i don't usually buy DLC when it comes out. the only ones that i do buy are the map packs for games like halo 3 and modern warfare 2. i have to say they should have the price of the DLC go down. modern warfare 2's pack is $15, when black ops comes out people are going to move onto that game. the DLC is still going to be $15 even when there is map packs for black ops.
"SNES games used to be like $60-$80 and N64 game were $60 "
I think my mom paid $75 for Street Fighter II for SNES, and my aunt bought Super Mario Bros. 3 for me for $60 when they were new. Let's not get started on Neo Geo games.
Log in to comment