It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)More of DLC BS(55 posts)(55 posts)
(55 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 05, 2012
The fact is CA/Sega has every right to use this business model.

It's up to consumers to buy or not to buy it. If this proves a successful way to milk the cow, expect some more. And the day WW1 Total War is eventually released, you may well find that you have to buy the guns and the planes one by one ...
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
Phc7006: The fact is CA/Sega has every right to use this business model.

It's up to consumers to buy or not to buy it. If this proves a successful way to milk the cow, expect some more. And the day WW1 Total War is eventually released, you may well find that you have to buy the guns and the planes one by one ...
And WW2 - Total War will only be played by the wealthy because each bullet will be sold as a DLC. :P
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
Phc7006: The fact is CA/Sega has every right to use this business model.

It's up to consumers to buy or not to buy it. If this proves a successful way to milk the cow, expect some more. And the day WW1 Total War is eventually released, you may well find that you have to buy the guns and the planes one by one ...
avatar
macuahuitlgog: And WW2 - Total War will only be played by the wealthy because each bullet will be sold as a DLC. :P
There will also be seperate DLCs for remapping the controls, changing screen resolutions and having the ability to save. Though anyone who pre-orders gets 1 save slot for half price!
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
macuahuitlgog: And WW2 - Total War will only be played by the wealthy because each bullet will be sold as a DLC. :P
avatar
Stevedog13: There will also be seperate DLCs for remapping the controls, changing screen resolutions and having the ability to save. Though anyone who pre-orders gets 1 save slot for half price!
Don't forget the DLC that allows you to quit the game.
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
Stevedog13: I am proud to say that I am a gamer with a very strong sense of entitlement. It comes from the fact that I actually am entitled. When I pay my hard earned money for a product I am entitled to have that product work as it should. When I buy a book I am entitled to be able to read every word on every page. When I buy a CD I am entitled to be able to listen to every song contained on that disc using whatever device I use to listen to any other CD. When I buy a movie I am entitled to have every second of video footage fully viewable. When I buy a game I am entitled to fully play that game. I work too hard for my money to waste it on an inferior product. I value my time too much to waste it jumping through artificial hoops to make a product I bought usable. If you see something wrong with my sense of entitlement then I suggest looking in a mirror and reevaluating your own sense of value you hold for your time and money.
Well said! Also, given the massive number of quality games available, often at fire-sale prices, companies really should be looking to make their new releases the best value they can, not nickel-and-diming customers through DLC. These kinds of DLC shenanigans are a big part of why I consider buying new releases a sucker's game for the vast majority of releases- far better to wait for the GOTY/Ultimate/Complete edition, which includes every bit of DLC, and at half the price of the original release. So I will join in not only saying that I feel entitled, but also that I have enough products vying for my time and money that I can translate that sense of entitlement into being extremely discerning in my purchasing habits, and even when doing so still have more great game deals available to me than I have time to play.

So game companies are free to continue their DLC shenanigans- all it does is ensure that they only get $20 or less from me for their game plus all DLC a year+ after release.
Posted June 05, 2012
So....how about that Dawnguard DLC?
Posted June 05, 2012
Wasn't this kind of thing what ignited some wars a few years ago with Bioshock2? Why are they doing it again?
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
ne_zavarj: And what do you think about this ?
http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-MP3RP/max-payne-3-rockstar-pass
avatar
Stevedog13: This is everything that is wrong with DLC today. They have a game that they are making, they have content for the game already or at least in production phase, they could wait for all the content to be completed and fully tested to release the game but instead they decide to release most of the game and then charge you for the rest.

It used to be that a game would be released and it would be so popular that the developers would go back and add new content to be rleased as an expansion pack. Not every game got an expansion because it would only happen for games with a large fanbase asking for more. Sometimes a studio would decide to move on to their next game and the publisher would contract another development team to produce an expansion.

One requires looking at the players as a fanbase to be satisfied as it grows the other requires looking at the players as an unlimited source of revenue.
I can't speak for Max Payne 3 but holy crap, Rockstar releases a metric ass load of content in their games. They're not "holding stuff back" that's a big game. They're just offering you a fixed price for all DLC so you can decide between waiting for GOTY or knowing exactly how much you need to pay to play with everyone as content comes out. In any game with a multiplayer component like RDR (of which I think MP3 may be similar) that's pretty kick ass.

Now, with that said, I haven't played MP3 but I'm guessing you haven't either. Some of these passes suck ass, but some are actually a good deal, for example there's absolutely no reason to buy Gears of War map packs unless you get them while people are still playing them. If you know you want multiplayer, then yes, you buy the pass. It's another question entirely whether we should be paying for map packs when they used to be free, but since EPIC was the company giving us loads of free maps in days of yore and now they charge for them, I'm going to just accept that ship has sailed, whether I like it or not.

Short version: DLC passes can be an extremely good deal. They can also be bad. It depends, just like the value proposition of DLC "depends".
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
Stevedog13: I am proud to say that I am a gamer with a very strong sense of entitlement. It comes from the fact that I actually am entitled. When I pay my hard earned money for a product I am entitled to have that product work as it should. When I buy a book I am entitled to be able to read every word on every page. When I buy a CD I am entitled to be able to listen to every song contained on that disc using whatever device I use to listen to any other CD. When I buy a movie I am entitled to have every second of video footage fully viewable. When I buy a game I am entitled to fully play that game. I work too hard for my money to waste it on an inferior product. I value my time too much to waste it jumping through artificial hoops to make a product I bought usable. If you see something wrong with my sense of entitlement then I suggest looking in a mirror and reevaluating your own sense of value you hold for your time and money.
I agree completey but the sad truth is exactly what the EA CEO said "games are no longer that thing you buy, but that place you go"
avatar
Stevedog13: This is everything that is wrong with DLC today. They have a game that they are making, they have content for the game already or at least in production phase, they could wait for all the content to be completed and fully tested to release the game but instead they decide to release most of the game and then charge you for the rest.

It used to be that a game would be released and it would be so popular that the developers would go back and add new content to be rleased as an expansion pack. Not every game got an expansion because it would only happen for games with a large fanbase asking for more. Sometimes a studio would decide to move on to their next game and the publisher would contract another development team to produce an expansion.

One requires looking at the players as a fanbase to be satisfied as it grows the other requires looking at the players as an unlimited source of revenue.
avatar
orcishgamer: I can't speak for Max Payne 3 but holy crap, Rockstar releases a metric ass load of content in their games. They're not "holding stuff back" that's a big game. They're just offering you a fixed price for all DLC so you can decide between waiting for GOTY or knowing exactly how much you need to pay to play with everyone as content comes out. In any game with a multiplayer component like RDR (of which I think MP3 may be similar) that's pretty kick ass.

Now, with that said, I haven't played MP3 but I'm guessing you haven't either. Some of these passes suck ass, but some are actually a good deal, for example there's absolutely no reason to buy Gears of War map packs unless you get them while people are still playing them. If you know you want multiplayer, then yes, you buy the pass. It's another question entirely whether we should be paying for map packs when they used to be free, but since EPIC was the company giving us loads of free maps in days of yore and now they charge for them, I'm going to just accept that ship has sailed, whether I like it or not.

Short version: DLC passes can be an extremely good deal. They can also be bad. It depends, just like the value proposition of DLC "depends".
Orcishgamer I also really don't understand the justification of Day 1 DLC what they say is:

the reason they release dlc now instead of later is because no one will buy it because they moved on but I have never seen anyones counter arguement against it
Post edited June 05, 2012 by Elmofongo
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
Elmofongo: Orcishgamer I also really don't understand the justification of Day 1 DLC what they say is:

the reason they release dlc now instead of later is because no one will buy it because they moved on but I have never seen anyones counter arguement against it
This has been covered here ad naseum, but here's the summary:
1) Certification takes time for consoles, they used to put people to work on sequels (which are very risky before sales data is in) and or simply fire people during this time. Now they spend 2 months working on DLC that tends to be available near or at release. This is not a defense of DLC that is entirely on disc (not partially on disc, there can be multiple reasons for that and not all of them are nefarious) which I also generally dislike. But it does cover the vast majority of DLC.

2) We, as gamers, have proven time and again that we will snap up DLC in droves, even if it's mediocre DLC, if it comes out within a few weeks of the game launch. If they wait even 2 months they are financially rewarded much less. It's hard to tell them, "Hey, we'd like you to do X, we know it's the financial equivalent of a kick in the nuts for you, but we'd sure like you better, even if we won't buy your DLC." Yeah, shocker that DLC gets released early in the game lifecycle...

Here's a great Extra Credits on the subject: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

If you can watch that and have a problem with the DLC, I'll be shocked. Now the DLC cross marketed with merch is fucking disgusting, but that's not what we're talking about.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Well said! Also, given the massive number of quality games available, often at fire-sale prices, companies really should be looking to make their new releases the best value they can, not nickel-and-diming customers through DLC.
It's funny, you seem absolutely sure that the one is the direct result of the other. I'm not so sure it's not the opposite (or simply a loose correlation is possible as well). Perhaps we, while demanding games at fire sale prices have caused this because it's literally the only way for these companies to pour this much budget into their games and remain profitable when 90% of their playerbase buys at a cut rate price...
Post edited June 05, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted June 05, 2012
avatar
Elmofongo: Orcishgamer I also really don't understand the justification of Day 1 DLC what they say is:

the reason they release dlc now instead of later is because no one will buy it because they moved on but I have never seen anyones counter arguement against it
avatar
orcishgamer: This has been covered here ad naseum, but here's the summary:
1) Certification takes time for consoles, they used to put people to work on sequels (which are very risky before sales data is in) and or simply fire people during this time. Now they spend 2 months working on DLC that tends to be available near or at release. This is not a defense of DLC that is entirely on disc (not partially on disc, there can be multiple reasons for that and not all of them are nefarious) which I also generally dislike. But it does cover the vast majority of DLC.

2) We, as gamers, have proven time and again that we will snap up DLC in droves, even if it's mediocre DLC, if it comes out within a few weeks of the game launch. If they wait even 2 months they are financially rewarded much less. It's hard to tell them, "Hey, we'd like you to do X, we know it's the financial equivalent of a kick in the nuts for you, but we'd sure like you better, even if we won't buy your DLC." Yeah, shocker that DLC gets released early in the game lifecycle...

Here's a great Extra Credits on the subject: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

If you can watch that and have a problem with the DLC, I'll be shocked. Now the DLC cross marketed with merch is fucking disgusting, but that's not what we're talking about.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Well said! Also, given the massive number of quality games available, often at fire-sale prices, companies really should be looking to make their new releases the best value they can, not nickel-and-diming customers through DLC.
avatar
orcishgamer: It's funny, you seem absolutely sure that the one is the direct result of the other. I'm not so sure it's not the opposite (or simply a loose correlation is possible as well). Perhaps we, while demanding games at fire sale prices have caused this because it's literally the only way for these companies to pour this much budget into their games and remain profitable when 90% of their playerbase buys at a cut rate price...
yeah I saw the Extra Credits episode it is sad that they are selling DLC in merch its only a matter of time until they sell dlc in kid's meals in fast food resturants

and also.......I'm stupid understood a good number things (mostly the first answer you said) but it still did not answered the question that why not many people buys post DLC
Posted June 06, 2012
avatar
Elmofongo: but it still did not answered the question that why not many people buys post DLC
Because it logically follows that no one buys DLC for a game in which they're not actively involved. When games are new on the market, they're fresh in the minds of consumers and players. It's that period, when they're fresh, that is the best time to sell post-launch DLC.

That window is substantially shorter compared to 10 or 15 years ago, simply because there are so many other games out there fighting for our attention.

Put another way, would people be more willing to buy the From Ashes DLC if it were released at the point where Mass Effect 3 were at its maximum level of public exposure (which would be the launch period), or if it were released at the end of the year, when everyone has moved on?

CDPRed is the exception to this with The Witcher and The Witcher 2 EE; the amount of additional content was so substantial (and cost so much more to make) that they're more like traditional full-on expansion packs vs. typical DLC.
Posted June 06, 2012
avatar
Elmofongo: but it still did not answered the question that why not many people buys post DLC
avatar
rampancy: Because it logically follows that no one buys DLC for a game in which they're not actively involved. When games are new on the market, they're fresh in the minds of consumers and players. It's that period, when they're fresh, that is the best time to sell post-launch DLC.

That window is substantially shorter compared to 10 or 15 years ago, simply because there are so many other games out there fighting for our attention.

Put another way, would people be more willing to buy the From Ashes DLC if it were released at the point where Mass Effect 3 were at its maximum level of public exposure (which would be the launch period), or if it were released at the end of the year, when everyone has moved on?

CDPRed is the exception to this with The Witcher and The Witcher 2 EE; the amount of additional content was so substantial (and cost so much more to make) that they're more like traditional full-on expansion packs vs. typical DLC.
And considering some DLC is simply challenge levels and the like (which is not everyone's cup of tea, and that's fine) of course there's more interest when everyone is playing it (competing on leaderboards, friends for co-op, whatever). Consumers aren't always dumb, it does make sense to spend an extra 10 bucks on a game we really loved when it came out. Digging out an old disc to play the Harley's Revenge DLC 9 months later I'll bet will be too much of a chore for many.
Posted June 06, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: It's funny, you seem absolutely sure that the one is the direct result of the other. I'm not so sure it's not the opposite (or simply a loose correlation is possible as well). Perhaps we, while demanding games at fire sale prices have caused this because it's literally the only way for these companies to pour this much budget into their games and remain profitable when 90% of their playerbase buys at a cut rate price...
I was speaking only for my own behavior (which I don't think is typical of most gamers), and wasn't trying to make any general statements about causality. I think companies will price their games and try to arrange their business models in the way that they think will bring in the most money; they're typically not going to say "well, we're making enough money, so no sense trying to extract some additional money from our customers." On the other side of things, I think for the most part low prices are due simply to the massive amount of options available to gamers- in other words good old fashioned competition. I think in general DLC is just another form of price discrimination- extract as much money from those who will pay and pay again right at the beginning, then bundle and drop prices to pick up another set of buyers, then drop prices even further to pick up those who only feel inclined to buy at rock-bottom prices. If this is the most profitable way to do things then I have no problem with it; I just happen to typically fit into that last group under this way of doing things.
Posted June 06, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: I like how in 2012 people think the disc matters, or that they own anything on it.
avatar
Snickersnack: Do you still own the disc though? If so, why is their private proprietary data squatting on my media? Shouldn't they pay rent or something? I doubt Sega would be happy if I stored my files on their servers uninvited.
That is actually some legal complaint that could, with some creativity, create traction. It is not as outlandish as it first sounds.

The problem is, even if the storing of data would be downright illegal, you couldn't do anything about it. As all claims would end nowhere.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)More of DLC BS(55 posts)(55 posts)
(55 posts)