Monday, June 18th 2018

Lose by a Hundred, Lose by a Thousand: Black Ops 4 DLC Locked for Season Pass Buyers

Well, add this one decision by Activision to either a sensible, forward-thinking, profit-maximizing business decision or as another in a death by a thousand cuts scenario for the Call of Duty series. As big a behemoth as the series is, we doubt this will see the end of it; but whatever the side of that particular fence you're on, the decision to lock all eventually-launched DLC content behind a pay-once, get-it-all paywall seems to have struck the wrong cord with gamers and fans of the series.

Activision has announced that all future DLC releases will only be available and launched for Season Pass holders, and won't be able to be purchased in separate packages. There may be various reasons for this decision; one of them is that gamers are paying the development cost for DLC upfront, and thus, Activision knows exactly how much it can stretch the budget in each of the content releases. They can't change the actual release contents - those are set with the Season pass Announcement - but it's almost guaranteed they will scale back in map and asset complexity according to how many Season Pass bundles they sell - and thus, money they make.
This, however, means gamers will be stuck making a one-time purchase of the Season Pass, being unable to purchase only the select pieces of DLC they find the most alluring. Not only does this game not feature single-player - now even gamers who want to partake in the full multiplayer experience have to pay ahead, or miss out on the post-launch content. Of course, there's always a bright side - at least the multiplayer community won't be fractured around multiple, singular DLC pieces... I guess?
Source: TechSpot
Add your own comment

27 Comments on Lose by a Hundred, Lose by a Thousand: Black Ops 4 DLC Locked for Season Pass Buyers

#1
Vayra86
Option 3: not making a purchase and avoiding this steaming pile of copypaste
Posted on Reply
#2
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
God, what a time to be alive.
Posted on Reply
#3
windwhirl
Lots of people getting pissed off in 3... 2... 1....
Posted on Reply
#4
dj-electric
Googles "Lose by a Hundred, Lose by a Thousand"
No results. Where is this from?
Posted on Reply
#5
Fourstaff
Interesting choice. Did the bean counters take to account of the fact that there are a lot of other shooters out there?
Posted on Reply
#6
Caring1
dj-electric, post: 3857497, member: 87186"
Googles "Lose by a Hundred, Lose by a Thousand"
No results. Where is this from?
I think it's a saying meaning it doesn't matter how much you lose by, you have lost.
Posted on Reply
#7
altcapwn
They need to do the same mistake as EA to understand that they can't just do whatever they want.

What has Call of Duty become?

WWII was not bad at all, and now this? wtf activision?

Just stop doing Call of Duty each year jesus.
Posted on Reply
#8
Prima.Vera
I think is time everybody to STOP giving any more funds to EA, Activision, and other dipshit scumbag companies.
Posted on Reply
#9
Raevenlord
News Editor
dj-electric, post: 3857497, member: 87186"
Googles "Lose by a Hundred, Lose by a Thousand"
No results. Where is this from?
Caring1, post: 3857502, member: 153156"
I think it's a saying meaning it doesn't matter how much you lose by, you have lost.
Indeed. It's a portuguese saying, meaning that losing by a small margin, is exactly the same as losing by a wider one - so why not go all the way, if you can get more (of anything, enjoyment, information, the kicks) out of it?

"Perdido por cem, perdido por mil".

:lovetpu::peace:
Posted on Reply
#10
dozenfury
The SP campaign removal already had it on the skip list for me. So this is just more reason to skip it. The explanations around knowing revenue coming in to match it up to development would make sense more for a new IP just starting out and/or with a small developer. It doesn't make sense as an explanation for Activision and venerable CoD at all.
Posted on Reply
#11
TheMailMan78
Big Member
People still play CoD? I stopped buying after World at War.
Posted on Reply
#12
ShurikN
And I can bet you all it will sell like hotcakes, regardless.
Posted on Reply
#13
Captain_Tom
Good. I think it is idiotic for instance that Battlefield ever sold the packs separately. That just splits up the player base.

Either get all of the maps, or don't bother.
Posted on Reply
#14
Ahhzz
Vayra86, post: 3857489, member: 152404"
Option 3: not making a purchase and avoiding this steaming pile of copypaste
Yup. I'm in that boat. They won't be seeing a purchase for that mess from me :)
Posted on Reply
#15
Slizzo
Look at this the other way however, no more splintering of the player group with different levels of DLC. If you want to play with your friends, either you're playing the base game, or you're all paying for all the DLC. No half measures of some friends bought only one DLC and others bought more.

Makes sense to me.
Posted on Reply
#16
Supercrit
Prima.Vera, post: 3857510, member: 98685"
I think is time everybody to STOP giving any more funds to EA, Activision, and other dipshit scumbag companies.
Let's see if Activision will hit their own Battlefront 2 fiasco and reconsider their strategies. EA got a slap on their wrist and scaled back their greed just a little bit.
Posted on Reply
#17
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted on Reply
#18
Ahhzz
Slizzo, post: 3857581, member: 97498"
Look at this the other way however, no more splintering of the player group with different levels of DLC. If you want to play with your friends, either you're playing the base game, or you're all paying for all the DLC. No half measures of some friends bought only one DLC and others bought more.

Makes sense to me.
More sense to me would be to make a game complete without splitting off "Acts", "Scenes", or whateverthehell you want to call them, and sell that product without gouging players. I'll not pay more than an average price for a game, up front, or in total, with that garbage. Charge me $50-60 for a game, that better be the whole damn game.
Posted on Reply
#19
Vayra86
Slizzo, post: 3857581, member: 97498"
Look at this the other way however, no more splintering of the player group with different levels of DLC. If you want to play with your friends, either you're playing the base game, or you're all paying for all the DLC. No half measures of some friends bought only one DLC and others bought more.

Makes sense to me.
Of course, how could we forget - this is 'for the gamers' :roll:
Posted on Reply
#20
Slizzo
Look, the devs need to make money in order to deliver all this extra content. But they also need to try to ensure that their community doesn't get terribly fractured (like what happened with BF4) which is an issue with a multiplayer focused game.

I'm not saying that this is the most ideal situation, but it IS a business, and this isn't as vile a thing as everyone is trying to make it.
Posted on Reply
#21
Ahhzz
Slizzo, post: 3857738, member: 97498"
Look, the devs need to make money in order to deliver all this extra content. But they also need to try to ensure that their community doesn't get terribly fractured (like what happened with BF4) which is an issue with a multiplayer focused game.

I'm not saying that this is the most ideal situation, but it IS a business, and this isn't as vile a thing as everyone is trying to make it.
Vileness is in the eye of the beholder. Glad you don't have a problem with it. Some of us do.
Posted on Reply
#24
Slizzo
When people complain about the price of a $60 game and the price of it's additional content, it's as if they don't know about inflation.

Games were $60 back in 1999, companies still ask $60 for games in 2018.

https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=60&year=1999

In 1999, $60 today is $90.25. You're getting more for your money now than ever. And also realize that the cost for the developers to create this stuff has increased as well. Any idea on the size of the team working on Black Ops 4?
Posted on Reply
#25
ShurikN
Slizzo, post: 3858102, member: 97498"
When people complain about the price of a $60 game and the price of it's additional content, it's as if they don't know about inflation.

Games were $60 back in 1999, companies still ask $60 for games in 2018.

https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=60&year=1999

In 1999, $60 today is $90.25. You're getting more for your money now than ever. And also realize that the cost for the developers to create this stuff has increased as well. Any idea on the size of the team working on Black Ops 4?
In the '90s a $60 game was the full experience. With a possible $30 expansion pack that was in most cases 50% of the full game. $90 total. No bullshit.
Today you pay $60 for a broken down experience, with content that was made long time ago but cut into segments, dished out to you on a small spoon, loot crates to promote gambling, cosmetic microtransactions that used to come in old games by default and easily just from playing, preorder bonuses, DLCs that separate player base, so called expansions for $10-20 that have less content than half the Soviet campaign in Yuri's Revenge.
If you add everything together, you get a product that costs the consumer more than $100. And still most likely has less content than the game + exp from the '90s or early 2000s.

And let's not get into the fact how with todays software, game making became much much easier. Or the fact, they dish out franchise sequels annually. Do you really think they make every Assassins Creed from scratch. Every year. Or CoD, or BF.
BFV is literally a reskined BF1. In the old days that would have been a $20 expansion.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment