Call of Duty Black Ops II.

Bacon.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/234776/

Or $80 for the game and all the DLC bundled together, and I am sure they go on sale quite often.


These are the kind of games where the DLC is really just an option and doesn't take away from the base game unless you just have to have Katy Perry's Sims DLC. Besides, there are worse offenders *cough Company of Heroes 2 cough*

Gonna point out that Sims 3 has like a gazzilion DLC's sold only through the Sims Store and that never mad it in any expansion/stuff pack. Owning everything Sims 3 would raise the cost to probably a few thousands euro/dollars.

http://store.thesims3.com/

Just like console gamers, the dudes with miniature games "are used to" paying premium for their stuff.

Would be interesting to see how much the train games DLC have sold. Copies that is.

Absolutely. In some cases it's simply ridiculous. Just look at, say, Tomb Raider for example. Emphasis on single player, MP's there mostly just for the extra flavor. Pretty straightforward experience, not really a sandbox. Then look how much friggin' DLC the game has: http://store.steampowered.com/sub/36483/

And that's just the type of DLC I despise almost as much as day-one critical-to-plot DLC's (that are already on disc but you need to pay more to unlock them): they're that very micro type of DLC's that mostly clutter up the game's marketplace: weapons, skins, and something I don't even know what it is (Headshot Reticule? Sooo...is that a new crosshair? Which costs almost an euro?)

They do display your name next to all your posts you know.

The sad thing is that this isn't limited to mainstream games and greedy major publishers. I've been playing Guacamelee on the PS Vita and there are a few places where if you try to enter a door, you end up being cajoled into buying DLC. The way that the "no" option is formulated as "leave in shame" and that part of the main game is shut off as DLC is quite simply insulting.

It astounds me that indie developers like Drinkbox even think that copying the tactics of companies like EA is a good idea. It was bad enough in Dragon Age: Origins.

I did know that actually, what's curious is that you seemed to think I didn't.

To everyone else- great responses so far. I'm glad to see so many share similar views! The reason I started this thread was because I saw that several more packs had been released for Crusader Kings II and another "expansion" on the horizon- which makes me lament what the industry has become.

All this while F.T.L. is getting a free expansion some time in the near future. . .

- Ryan Paul Fialcowitz

The Trains Sim does work on an entirely different mind set than most games, as it's one of those super niche products. They don't expect people outside from a very specific circle to buy the game. And those who buy it are most likely fans of very specific types of trains rather than fans of all the trains.

For their business model it makes a lot of sense to offer the different trains as seperate buys, as that way the enthustiasts can pretty much get only the ones they like.

And for a sim like that it's propably the only substainable business model.

should actually try to find one of those train controllers used someday. kid might like :D

I also like to wait it out, I'm so tired of DLC and Season Pass ridiculousness.

By its very nature, DLC is out of hand, on principle.

$20 for a single train as a dlc just doesn't seem fair to me, no matter how they cut it.
Would be awesome if it at least came with a 3d-printer blue-print you can make a physical 'working' shell you could use in the real world hoppy.

Base game, 25 pounds
2 release day Map Packs, 10 pounds each
Release day Car pack, 10 pounds.
Total cost 55 pounds.

Year? 1989

I don't necessarily mind developers making new content and charging for it (even if I still prefer a model where they'd make a full sequel, instead of new DLC or a small expansion pack), but I'd like them to make it much easier to discern and decide which DLCs I want to buy and which not.

How the heck can I know without trying if a "mere" vehicle or weapon DLC is relevant to the gameplay or not? Maybe it enhances the gameplay a lot, or maybe I couldn't care less. I've seen some people before suggesting that such "item DLCs" can be easily left out, but I am unsure if I agree. Maybe I should check what vehicles and weapons would be missing in e.g. base Far Cry 2, if you don't have the Fortune's Edition. GOG version fortunately had everything in one pack, no need to try to decide upon purchase which items you want into your game.

Or those various Darksiders 2 DLCs that I tried to understand what the heck they actually contain. I tried to read some third-party guides for purchasing DS2 DLCs (the fact that there are such guides implies I am not the only one who was confused by them), but even they were pretty vague. It really seemed that the only way to tell which DLCs are meaningful to have, is to play them yourself. Can't do that before I've bought the DLCs, can I?

Not to mention that certain Saints Row 3 game-altering DLC (I think it changed some special move of certain character, or something), some suggested that it actually makes the game worse, so you are better off without it? Huh? Better write an excel spreadsheet about the various DLCs.

So, if I know which is the "complete" set that is meaningful to me (e.g. dropping away fully cosmetic changes, or multiplayer-specific DLCs), then I could tell better whether I find the price for the complete set agreeable.

In practice, it is just easier to wait until they release a complete GOTY version of it, containing everything.

Micro-transactions are even worse, as there I can't really tell beforehand how much the whole game will end up costing me. I liked the idea someone suggested in those various "anti mobile Dungeon Keeper" articles that such games should estimate beforehand how much the game will end up costing to completely finish it, without having to wait hours. So, will it normally cost $10, or $1000, worth of gems, to finish e.g. Dungeon Keeper mobile?

It is understandable the publishers want to muddle it so that the customers don't know anymore how much they end up paying, but for now I try to oppose that trend. I want to know what I am paying for and signing for.