DLC and $, why pay more and more?

[3volvedcombat]

Hello TPU,

I'm a bit worn from playing a couple of games, NFS:Hotpursuit(2010) and Black ops ect ect..

The point of this thread, is more of a opinion sided reflection of basically the quality of games and the re-occurring trends that are copied as we progress further in this day of age. One thing that stand's out more and more is everything involving Downloadable Content, starting to edge its way into everything. Downloadable Content is great, but why is there a price tag after buying a Hard/Digital License of your software? Second of all, I believe sense this trend has caught on that many games are developed with less quality in-mind and end up not being so great in the first place.

I remember 10 year's ago when any and all games that where released were complete and more or less quality insured, because Developers and licensing company's did not want there only possible sale being refunded back to Best Buy or Circuit City(rip).

Now in this day of age, more and more games are starting to show trend's almost like utility company's where you know there's going to be an added charge in the future to hit your wallet.

I'm concerned because I only see this getting worse and worse with future game titles almost like "Moore's Law" with electronics. Also this almost set's a LIMITING bar on the quality of game a developer can TRULY! make, for the simple fact that they could make that extra "commission" for the future.

In my opinion, we could have more 8-10*Star titles if a game had everything it could possible have all in 1 package, with no extra 5-15$ charge's to unlock an available option. If anything were going to command a price tag in the first place, it should be "EXPANSION PACKS" that really give an extra 35-50% extra content to a video game.

How long will people keep dishing out Money, after dishing out more Money, after paying Money originally for a title!?

The economy is getting tuff for some people(me/fellows), and more and more this trend is catching on?

 

[erocker]

It's simple. If it wasn't profitable for them they wouldn't do it. I don't care if the trend is concerning or otherwise. A business will capitolize on what they can and there's nothing you can do about it other than not purchasing the product.

 

[Kwod]

It's simple. If it wasn't profitable for them they wouldn't do it. I don't care if the trend is concerning or otherwise. A business will capitolize on what they can and there's nothing you can do about it other than not purchasing the product.

This is the problem, wombats keep buying crappy games and their crappy DLC, so companies maintain this trend....but me, I've witheld buying Rage and DEHR, and will only buy Skyrim after a few days to ensure there's no show stopping bugs.

 

[erocker]

This is the problem, wombats keep buying crappy games and their crappy DLC, so companies maintain this trend....but me, I've witheld buying Rage and DEHR, and will only buy Skyrim after a few days to ensure there's no show stopping bugs.

The world is run by wombats.

 

[mastrdrver]

I wait for the DLC to go on sale at Steam and then pick it all up for the price of one. That's how I did it with Borderlands and Civ V.

I'm not going to pay full price other wise.

edit: I should add that when I say I'm not going to pay full price, I mean I do not need it.

I almost solely buy my games based on MP gameplay. Do not care enough about SP, though Borderlands has changed my mind to a degree. If Steam wants to do a sale on it that makes it 3 for the price of 1, then I'll probably jump. Otherwise the motivation is not there for me to buy it. It's not really a morality view (in my opinion....yet), I just do not see the need when I'll either a) never use it or 2) it will go on sale anyway. (see what I did there? )

 

[3volvedcombat]

I personally say, there is always a chance that in the future it could turn around. There could be such a gathering, probably beyond the scope anybody would figure that would stand up against what I perceive as immoral business.

"Just purchased a nice corvette!,"

"Comes to find out that theirs a wheel or two missing,"

"run's back to the dealership, only to find out theirs another extra charge."

But, if the wombats are supplying, and they dev's continue profiting theirs nothing in there way, its there freedom.

 

[BumbleBee]

expansion packs take a year to make and cost $29.99+ you may not want to wait or like all the content. games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 have a lot of DLC but only 1 or 2 pieces are worth playing.

 

[3volvedcombat]

expansion packs take a year to make and cost $29.99+ you may not want to wait or like all the content. games like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect 2 have a lot of DLC but only 1 or 2 pieces are worth playing.

The thing is, you never necessarily know if they already had those expansion packs in there mind's and maybe already in development, how long it really took to develop them.

There is room for developers to release a title, and consecutively plan all add-on's for that title for profit, and its very plausible now sense there are trends that have been proven to work.
I wont doubt it took a year of development to create some expansion packs for those title's, but how long could it have really taken when they have already mastered the building blocks of development for that title?

But that's skeptics after that, I still believe personally that this trend of DLC's occurring could be the evil spice for many game developers to really take advantage of now, there's no stopping. Only proven number's of success for them.

 

[John Doe]

If for making new maps/modifiying current guns to make new ones and such, it definately shouldn't take a year. A few months or so...

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I personally say, there is always a chance that in the future it could turn around. There could be such a gathering, probably beyond the scope anybody would figure that would stand up against what I perceive as immoral business.

"Just purchased a nice corvette!,"

"Comes to find out that theirs a wheel or two missing,"

"run's back to the dealership, only to find out theirs another extra charge."

But, if the wombats are supplying, and they dev's continue profiting theirs nothing in there way, its there freedom.

Well I guess it would be easier to say it is like how car companies say 40MPG for a certain vehicle and then give you the higher horsepower quote of the performance engine option as well and say starts at X price when all the features you mention were premium trim in different ways and you can't even get all those features on one vehicle.

 

[Steevo]

Simple, wait for the games price to drop to show them how we really feel about their gouging on first release, and with DLC unable to be resold to help fund the next game......

 

[Kast]

Being able to download patches and DLC is a gift and a curse. Back in the day once a game was released that was it no patches or fixes and you had to deal with whatever bugs and glitches came with the game. Now with the internet it allows devs to release unfinished products and games severely lacking content knowing that they can just patch it up and throw DLC at you and still make money.

 

[3volvedcombat]

Well I guess it would be easier to say it is like how car companies say 40MPG for a certain vehicle and then give you the higher horsepower quote of the performance engine option as well and say starts at X price when all the features you mention were premium trim in different ways and you can't even get all those features on one vehicle.

Yea that's a better example, like getting the SE without power lock door's instead of that limited edition

But, to a person's ear with a good sense of mind it just does not sound right, but apply vise versa to the gaming world, and lower the stakes(cash) a bit, its perfectly fine

 

[mastrdrver]

Being able to download patches and DLC is a gift and a curse. Back in the day once a game was released that was it no patches or fixes and you had to deal with whatever bugs and glitches came with the game. Now with the internet it allows devs to release unfinished products and games severely lacking content knowing that they can just patch it up and throw DLC at you and still make money.

Too true. Some of the stuff that gets released today is just sloppy. ATI (apparently as I've heard/read this but don't remember it) even released a "new" video card that was nothing but an old one with the buggy drivers fixed.

Just thinking about the DLC after reading that BF3 will have 3x as much as BC2 (so what? 3 instead of 1? ), I wouldn't mind that over the rehash that has turned in to the COD series. Pay $10-15 for BF3 DLC or pay $60 for a COD rehash that could have been a $10-15 DLC? Not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other (or that DLC is good at all), just a thought I had when reading the article.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

~Sigh~

Another nostalgic look back at what was once, and never shall be again.

In the days before internet connectivity was assumed, games were less complex and it was easier to not have bugs. There were still games that released with bugs, but they were few and far between. Developers completed a games, pushed it out, and began working on what may be a sequel or a whole new franchise.

Today there are a billion different hardware configurations, multitudes of software, and executives at the top pushing for profit rather than quality (I'm looking at you EA).

The reality is, software can be pushed out the door with glaring bugs. This is justified by the business side, and the gutted development team is told to "fix it with a patch." This pisses off your customer base, but the games are already sold. Having experienced all of the issues possible in Crysis 2, I can honestly say that if I knew what I was getting into I wouldn't have purchased it for several weeks (if at all).

Publishers realized this, and the financial side pushed for pre-order bonuses. When pre-order bonuses lost their appeal the publishers pushed out day-1 DLC to address the "problem" of used game sales.


This is to say nothing of DLC in general. Everyone remembers horse armor... Then you've got Bioware (at the behest of EA) releasing character clothing packs (that do nothing) for Mass Effect 2.

Honestly, publishers are attempting to capitalize on every penny of the market. Origin has made it clear that EA doesn't want to share a penny. EA saying that "consumers wouldn't be able to user our development tools for BF3" to justify not releasing community dev tools smacks everyone in the community. It says "You're stupid, and we can charge whatever we want for the three hours of development time that went into making this new map. Screw it, we don't even need to quality test it."


I will be glad to purchase a new game. If I know it will have DLC then I'm waiting for the game of the year edition. 50 dollars for the game and all the DLC, or 100 dollars for the "privledge" of being a guinea pig to find flaws and pay individually for what can range from useless to shaved off gameplay bits that can be found in DLC.


In short, DLC gets more money for the publisher. It is a short sighted way to nickle and dime consumers. With budgets being tighter, I hope publishers see that shitty DLC will do more to hurt sales than the couple of delays that it may take for a publisher to polish up the games they sell.

 

[techtard]

It's simple, people are consumer whores programmed to buy, buy, buy!
As long as the DLC system is buying executive X a new yacht this year, we will keep getting half games with the rest of the content chopped into affordable, bite sized chunks.

 

[dirtyferret]

one thing i don't like is same day DLC because it obviously been stripped from the game. Bioware has been doing this mostly to have people purchase new games since the DLC is free for new game purchases but costs money to purchase if the game is bought used. I'm fine with that "practice" but you are starting to see other companies charge you even if you purchase a new game. I know it is my choice as a consumer to purchase the $49...$59..or $69 or the $10 DLC but don't tell me the content costs more because it was developed independently when it's obviously been stripped off the game.

 

[DonInKansas]

I personally say, there is always a chance that in the future it could turn around. There could be such a gathering, probably beyond the scope anybody would figure that would stand up against what I perceive as immoral business.

"Just purchased a nice corvette!,"

"Comes to find out that theirs a wheel or two missing,"

"run's back to the dealership, only to find out theirs another extra charge."

But, if the wombats are supplying, and they dev's continue profiting theirs nothing in there way, its there freedom.

This is a horrible analogy, because you can't drive the Corvette without wheels. If you bought the Corvette, then wanted to put on aftermarket parts, you'd expect to pay for it right? Games are sold as a complete entity without DLC. If you don't want the DLC, just like if you don't want aftermarket parts, don't buy it.

 

[Abe504]

Its always optional, nobody ever has to buy it. It's all about choice, if you enjoy the game and they have dlc, go ahead and buy it if you want to extend the experience past the core one. Nobody is ever forced to buy dlc, the core games always work without the dlc. If publishers want to make a few extra bucks by selling add ons, it's their perogative. I think the main issue is just price with people. Gaming isn't a cheap hobby

 

[Black Panther]

Its always optional, nobody ever has to buy it. It's all about choice, if you enjoy the game and they have dlc, go ahead and buy it if you want to extend the experience past the core one. Nobody is ever forced to buy dlc, the core games always work without the dlc. If publishers want to make a few extra bucks by selling add ons, it's their perogative.

Agreed.

I always consider free dlc as a special bonus. After all, dlc aren't patches to the game or something without which the base game won't run. They're just extra content.

I'd prefer a low-priced game without dlc anytime over a hefty-priced game including everything. At least with dlc they give you a choice on whether you want the extra stuff or not.

 

[digibucc]

the bitching about dlc has to stop, are you people children?

i thought it was worth 99c to add a few cool guns to just cause 2. I didn't think it was worth $5 to add horse armor to oblivion. i bought one and not the other. i bought rage, and i won't buy any dlc for it. i bought deus ex and all the dlc, and will continue to buy all the dlc for it.

i am discerning and specific, i don't like day 1 dlc but am willing to buy it the same if what it adds is worth the price they ask. whether it's removed content or not is case by case, and the timing and price of the dlc don't reflect. and if an extra $5-$10 over the life of the game supports the devs i like and gives me more to experience in a world i enjoy- I'm. all. for. it.

generalizing dlc is like generalizing anything else - you're stupid if you do it. it's subjective and relative, and thinking you can sum up in one sentence every dlc available for every game shows the limit of your powers of reasoning.

 

[Arctucas]

Its always optional, nobody ever has to buy it. It's all about choice, if you enjoy the game and they have dlc, go ahead and buy it if you want to extend the experience past the core one. Nobody is ever forced to buy dlc, the core games always work without the dlc. If publishers want to make a few extra bucks by selling add ons, it's their perogative. I think the main issue is just price with people. Gaming isn't a cheap hobby

Succinctly put, I agree.

Except, I believe some companies will see the popularity (for lack of a better word) as an opportunity to deliberately cripple games and then say "Oh, you mean you wanted the full game experience? Well, here are the missing parts, just give us more money."

If the base game was $10-$15, then buying 'add-ons' for $5 apiece would not be so bad, but $60, and then they want another $10 or $20? No thanks!

As a matter of fact, some of the user created mods for Oblivion were better than the 'official' DLC, in my opinion.

EDIT: I did not vote, because I did not like any of the choices.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

created mods for Oblivion were better than the 'official' DLC, in my opinion.

IMO, User created content will always be better then official DLC content. but most of the games today dont come with SDK tools, and thats the major thorn in this whole arguement as it forces us to run the game as is and only buy whatever DLCs they have to offer instead of being able to download community made content.

Not all games are like this. but there are a lot of games out there that lock the game down.

Does anyone remember the later days of CoD1, CoD2 and CoD4???? we had some AMAZING custom maps and mods. Hell... BF1942 and BF2 had some great mods too!! but if the dev dont release SDK tools theres little the community can do about it.

In rare cases modders were able to overcome this and still make custom content. but times have changed.

They dev studios dont seem to understand that by 'locking' the game they reduce the games overall longevity as long as people carry on making custom content for games. people will go and play them. there are LOADs of UT99 and CoD1 servers still running and packed with players.

Dont lock the game down. charge community modders royalties everytime their DLC is downloaded.

Its all give and take. but Devs dont want to give. I garantee that if they allowed the community to come up with their own custom content and charged royalties per-download. they will get more money then just selling re-skinned map packs for £5-8.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

No long winded moaning here.

...most of the games today dont come with SDK tools, and thats the major thorn in this whole arguement as it forces us to run the game as is and only buy whatever DLCs they have to offer instead of being able to download community made content....
The dev studios dont seem to understand that by 'locking' the game they reduce the games overall longevity as long as people carry on making custom content for games...

I think they understand perfectly well. A game that makes money is one that can be reworked every year, and get people to pay full price for.

Where exactly would EA be if they couldn't pump out a new Football game every year. Where would they be if they couldn't pump out a FIFA game?

EA knows that if they released one good game and an SDK then people in the community would create new rosters every year. The 60 dollar game is sold once, and EA cannot sell it again the next year. The sensible business decision is to pump out an endless stream of slightly rehashed games, which amount to little more than a roster change, to minimize development costs and maximize profits.

It doesn't take a genious to see that longevity in a game is bad for a publisher. SDKs increase longevity (yes, unreal tournament and fallout 3 are still frequently used on my computer), so it counter to business good to release them.


Reality=sad

 

[Black Panther]

Base game costs $50
Exp. Pack 1 costs $15
Exp. Pack 2 costs $15
Exp. Pack 3 costs $15

Would you prefer to buy the entire game for $95 and get the expansion packs for 'free'?

Or would you prefer to pay just the $50 and not buy that dlc2 you so much dislike forced on you? And pay a total of $80 by choosing the dlc rather than the full $95 and you get what you don't want?