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)Pay less for less(65 posts)(65 posts)
(65 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: It seems that EA might actually understand how people think with respect to this strategy. In general, people are quite bad at recognizing the total cost of something if that cost is spread out over a long period of time. For example, how many people do you think would have bought the iPhone if they were being asked to pay a lump sum upfront of $2500+ for the phone plus two years of service? By segmenting a game into a core plus numerous bits of DLC EA can theoretically charge significantly more for the same amount of content, while getting more people to buy the game because of the lower perceived costs. If this actually ends up working out like this then I can't really fault them from a business perspective. However, at the same time, I have no interest personally in buying a game in pieces. I want what I view as a complete product, in one chunk, with no strings attached. If EA isn't offering that then I'll simply spend my money elsewhere.
avatar
cogadh: Exactly my point (though you explained it with much more clarity)! Unfortunately, just like the sheeple who fell for the iPhone scam, the majority of gamers will very likely fall for this scam, it will end up becoming the new standard for PC games, which will basically mean no more PC gaming for me. At the very least it means I won't be buying any games from EA anymore. There's a reason I don't play MMOs or other piecemeal games like that: when I buy a game, I want a whole game, not just the part of a game that I then have to pay for again in order to complete. I'd like to think I'm not alone in that and I'd really like to think that I am part of the silent majority when comes to that, but I fear that is not the case.

But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
cogadh: Exactly my point (though you explained it with much more clarity)! Unfortunately, just like the sheeple who fell for the iPhone scam, the majority of gamers will very likely fall for this scam, it will end up becoming the new standard for PC games, which will basically mean no more PC gaming for me. At the very least it means I won't be buying any games from EA anymore. There's a reason I don't play MMOs or other piecemeal games like that: when I buy a game, I want a whole game, not just the part of a game that I then have to pay for again in order to complete. I'd like to think I'm not alone in that and I'd really like to think that I am part of the silent majority when comes to that, but I fear that is not the case.

I agree, guess I'm old school but . . .when I buy a game . . . I expect to get a game . . . the whole game. I should be able to sit down and play it thru without any further contact with the publisher. After playing it thru, if it was a good game, I would consider buying more content . . . not dribbled out a few levels at a time but content that would extend the gaming experience enough to make the additional purchase worth while. Oh, wait . . . that would be an expansion . . . sorry.
avatar
Gundato: But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.

Just good ol common sense, if you feel shorted after playing you probably didn't get the whole game . . . it's a DUH thing
Post edited January 05, 2010 by Stuff
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
cogadh: Exactly my point (though you explained it with much more clarity)! Unfortunately, just like the sheeple who fell for the iPhone scam, the majority of gamers will very likely fall for this scam, it will end up becoming the new standard for PC games, which will basically mean no more PC gaming for me. At the very least it means I won't be buying any games from EA anymore. There's a reason I don't play MMOs or other piecemeal games like that: when I buy a game, I want a whole game, not just the part of a game that I then have to pay for again in order to complete. I'd like to think I'm not alone in that and I'd really like to think that I am part of the silent majority when comes to that, but I fear that is not the case.
avatar
Stuff: I agree, guess I'm old school but . . .when I buy a game . . . I expect to get a game . . . the whole game. I should be able to sit down and play it thru without any further contact with the publisher. After playing it thru, if it was a good game, I would consider buying more content . . . not dribbled out a few levels at a time but content that would extend the gaming experience enough to make the additional purchase worth while. Oh, wait . . . that would be an expansion . . . sorry.
avatar
Gundato: But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.

Just good ol common sense, if you feel shorted after playing you probably didn't get the whole game . . . it's a DUH thing

Yes, but what defines that? I feel shorted when I play some games that have perfect resolutions and no cut content, and I feel like I got my money's worth when I play games with blatant "To Be Continued" endings. So if we are going on a purely "how it feels" angle, then the episodic content really has no impact at all, and it still needs to be handled on a game-by-game basis.
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
Gundato: But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.

I disagree, heartily. Patches fix bugs, they don't complete games. An expansion pack should not complete a game, it should expand on an already complete game. That's why its called an "expansion pack" and not a "completion pack".
For example, Call of Duty was a complete game with a beginning, middle and end. The United Offensive expansion pack just expanded on that original game. I didn't have to buy UO in order to finish CoD, the original CoD story (such as it was) and gameplay were complete... it was a whole game. However, because that whole game was actually good, I did buy UO. I didn't have to in order to actually finish CoD, but I did want to.
What EA is proposing is intentionally making incomplete games, not whole games, then nickel and diming over the long term if I want to actually play the whole game; in the end paying more than I would have in the first place if they had just released the whole game at once for a reasonable price. This is not a good thing for anyone except EA's investors.
Post edited January 05, 2010 by cogadh
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
Gundato: But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.
avatar
cogadh: I disagree, heartily.Patches fix bugs, they don't complete games. An expansion pack should not complete a game, it should expand on an already complete game. That's why its called an "expansion pack" and not a "completion pack".
For example, Call of Duty was a complete game with a beginning, middle and end. The United Offensive expansion pack just expanded on that original game. I didn't have to buy UO in order to finish CoD, the original CoD story (such as it was) and gameplay were complete... it was a whole game. However, because that whole game was actually good, I did buy UO. I didn't have to in order to actually finish CoD, but I did want to.
What EA is proposing is making incomplete games, not whole games, then nickel and diming over the long term if I want to actually play the whole game; in the end paying more than I would have in the first place if they had just released the whole game at once for a reasonable price. This is not a good thing for anyone except EA's investors.

No, what EA is proposing is to make shorter games, and to expand on them over time. Obviously it will depend on the game (and the type of game), but this model has room to work. I don't think it will work very well for highly linear games, but at the same time, I can see it possibly working (it did for HL2).
Hell, Wolfenstein 3d and DOOM. They were episodic, and they worked. :p
Let's use Fallout 3 for example, which I think we can all agree is how DLC should be handled (excluding the Broken Steel controversy, and it being traditional buggy Bethesda stuff :p).
The core game was there, the DLC just added sidequests. Now imagine if a few more sidequests were "skipped" for the purpose of speeding up development time. And you could buy packs of sidequest DLC later. For people who just like exploring the Capital Wasteland, those aren't needed. They have the core game, which already contained everything.
Or let's say you want more energy weapons (like more flavors of that mind-control toy, or the gauss gun, or the tesla cannon). You have the basic stuff in game, and most of these are just shinier lights. But if you aren't a fan of energy weapons (they don't have the same "kick"), why bother buying it?
Either way, the core game would be "complete".
Or we can use Half-Life 2, but with a developer capable of meeting a deadline. We buy HL2, and it is complete. Then we buy the episodic games after. Every few months, another two or three hours (or one or two, depending on how fast you play).
Don't think of it as just buying the current game, but over a year. Think of it is buying the current game, buying a bit more, and hopefully getting an expansion pack spread out over a year rather than at the end of the year.
And actually, wasn't United Offensive when you rescued Captain Price? I vaguely recall that he got captured on the boat in CoD, and then someone else freed him in UO. Been years since I played, so I could be wrong. But either way, that is how an expansion pack should be. Expand on the original story. Doesn't mean the core game was incomplete (excluding hinky things like NWN2 not having epic levels ;p).
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
cogadh: I disagree, heartily. Patches fix bugs, they don't complete games. An expansion pack should not complete a game, it should expand on an already complete game. That's why its called an "expansion pack" and not a "completion pack".
For example, Call of Duty was a complete game with a beginning, middle and end. The United Offensive expansion pack just expanded on that original game. I didn't have to buy UO in order to finish CoD, the original CoD story (such as it was) and gameplay were complete... it was a whole game. However, because that whole game was actually good, I did buy UO. I didn't have to in order to actually finish CoD, but I did want to.
What EA is proposing is intentionally making incomplete games, not whole games, then nickel and diming over the long term if I want to actually play the whole game; in the end paying more than I would have in the first place if they had just released the whole game at once for a reasonable price. This is not a good thing for anyone except EA's investors.

I understand your point, VERY clearly stated . . . I agree with your concerns. +1 for effort . . . =)
Post edited January 05, 2010 by Stuff
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
Gundato: No, what EA is proposing is to make shorter games, and to expand on them over time. Obviously it will depend on the game (and the type of game), but this model has room to work. I don't think it will work very well for highly linear games, but at the same time, I can see it possibly working (it did for HL2).
Hell, Wolfenstein 3d and DOOM. They were episodic, and they worked. :p
Let's use Fallout 3 for example, which I think we can all agree is how DLC should be handled (excluding the Broken Steel controversy, and it being traditional buggy Bethesda stuff :p).
The core game was there, the DLC just added sidequests. Now imagine if a few more sidequests were "skipped" for the purpose of speeding up development time. And you could buy packs of sidequest DLC later. For people who just like exploring the Capital Wasteland, those aren't needed. They have the core game, which already contained everything.
Or let's say you want more energy weapons (like more flavors of that mind-control toy, or the gauss gun, or the tesla cannon). You have the basic stuff in game, and most of these are just shinier lights. But if you aren't a fan of energy weapons (they don't have the same "kick"), why bother buying it?
Either way, the core game would be "complete".
Or we can use Half-Life 2, but with a developer capable of meeting a deadline. We buy HL2, and it is complete. Then we buy the episodic games after. Every few months, another two or three hours (or one or two, depending on how fast you play).
Don't think of it as just buying the current game, but over a year. Think of it is buying the current game, buying a bit more, and hopefully getting an expansion pack spread out over a year rather than at the end of the year.
And actually, wasn't United Offensive when you rescued Captain Price? I vaguely recall that he got captured on the boat in CoD, and then someone else freed him in UO. Been years since I played, so I could be wrong. But either way, that is how an expansion pack should be. Expand on the original story. Doesn't mean the core game was incomplete (excluding hinky things like NWN2 not having epic levels ;p).

Here's what I don't get: you do cite a few examples of where this kind of DLC should have worked and for the most part I agree, it has (i.e. Fallout 3 and HL2). What you fail to see is this is not what EA is proposing to do. They are actually proposing to take it in a completely different direction.
They will not be releasing a full fledged game then expanding on it with DLC, they will be releasing one chapter; the beginning of a game without a middle and end, then expecting us to come back again in a few months to buy more and more of it over time.
Using your example of Fallout 3, it would be like buying a single Fallout 3 quest, then buying another and another and another until after several months, perhaps even years, you finally end up with a complete game. Never mind the fact that even if individually each chunk is cheaper than a single game, over time it will add up to significantly more than a single game does now. There is no way I can delude myself into thinking this is in any way a good thing for the future of PC gaming. It's a great thing for EA's bottom line and that's it.
Posted January 05, 2010
Or it would be Half-Life 2.5 (the episodes).
All we really know now is that they plan to release slightly smaller games for less, and then support it through DLC. It will obviously be on a game-by-game basis, and we really don't know how the pricing model is going to work. But the key is: if you don't like the pricing model, wait for a sale, a bundle, or just skip it.
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
Gundato: But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.

Simple: the buyer defines what it is. If they want to buy a "whole" game then they'll decide on a case by case basis whether a game meets whatever standard they consider whole, and buy or not buy accordingly.
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
Gundato: But the problem there is: what defines a "whole game"? Anything with an expansion pack was not "whole". Or anything with a patch, for that matter.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Simple: the buyer defines what it is. If they want to buy a "whole" game then they'll decide on a case by case basis whether a game meets whatever standard they consider whole, and buy or not buy accordingly.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why it has no bearing whatsoever on the type of model used to sell the game.
Posted January 05, 2010
avatar
Gundato: I couldn't agree more. Which is why it has no bearing whatsoever on the type of model used to sell the game.

Not entirely, as the model used (full game and some barely mentioned patches later, game and later expansion, game with loudly trumpeted DLC) affects the perception of whether a game is "whole" or not. So while spreading out the costs will likely work in EA's favor with getting people to buy, the perception that the game is incomplete could end up hurting sales. At this point I'm of the opinion the the pricing perception will win out over the completeness perception (for the gaming community as a whole, not for myself), but it'll still be interesting to watch and see how things actually shake out.
Posted January 06, 2010
Only DLC i bougt was for Mass Efect, because of GfWL regional restriction u cant buy DLC for Fallout, and as for steam DLC for FEAR isn't available for Poland as well. So i as long as region restrictions are in work i cant be sure will i ever be oble to get the full final product.
Posted January 06, 2010
avatar
Gundato: I couldn't agree more. Which is why it has no bearing whatsoever on the type of model used to sell the game.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Not entirely, as the model used (full game and some barely mentioned patches later, game and later expansion, game with loudly trumpeted DLC) affects the perception of whether a game is "whole" or not. So while spreading out the costs will likely work in EA's favor with getting people to buy, the perception that the game is incomplete could end up hurting sales. At this point I'm of the opinion the the pricing perception will win out over the completeness perception (for the gaming community as a whole, not for myself), but it'll still be interesting to watch and see how things actually shake out.

Agreed, but that will be fleeting, at best. People used to fear and loathe Steam because "We don't own the games!". There are still some people who feel that way, but digital distribution is here to stay.
Short-term, there are going to be problems that might kill it. But longterm? I don't see the completeness argument lasting. Pricing? Hell yeah, people are going to scream about that (even if it actually ends up being the same price or cheaper, and we know that won't happen :p). I am not huge on the pricing issues, but I also don't think I'll be buying every chunk of DLC. So it should even out.
Posted January 06, 2010
avatar
Gundato: Short-term, there are going to be problems that might kill it. But longterm? I don't see the completeness argument lasting. Pricing? Hell yeah, people are going to scream about that (even if it actually ends up being the same price or cheaper, and we know that won't happen :p). I am not huge on the pricing issues, but I also don't think I'll be buying every chunk of DLC. So it should even out.

An interesting bit on pricing that just popped into my mind after reading your post: anchoring. Up until just a few years ago video game prices were pretty well anchored in people's minds. Buying a game new was $50, and unless you were willing to wait a while then hunt around in bargain bins that price didn't change much. However, since digital distribution took off you have smaller developers offering their games at lower prices, older games (as in 1-2 year old games) available right beside new games at greatly reduced prices, and at the same time some companies trying to set a new anchor at a higher price point (e.g. with Modern Warfare 2). Previously price wasn't something game companies really needed to compete on with new releases, but I wonder if over the next couple of years we'll see more people become more discerning in their purchases based on price. I'm not willing to make a prediction one way or the other on that one, but it'll be another interesting thing to keep an eye on over the next couple of years.
Posted January 07, 2010
avatar
tb87670: Hmm, but one wonders when a CEO running a business has consumers in mind or himself. I'd like one who thinks about the consumer, but it's his product anyway so it's up to the quality of person to decide how to treat pirates and legit customers.
I am in the boat about reselling games, I learned just to hold onto them forever so I can play them again after I forget them in a few years. With over a thousand games on PC I can cycle through them indefinitely. Reselling would be a nice option to have but is not worth doing anymore. No one wants to buy a used copy of a game like Battlefield 2142 for example.
avatar
Crassmaster: A CEO HAS to think about profits, because the CEO of any publicly traded company is LEGALLY BOUND to focus on company profits.

A company is a monolithic entity whose sole energy is profiteering. It can do nothing else.
avatar
bansama: Personally I don't see a huge problem with this method. It's certainly no worse than forking out monthly fees for an online game in which the content hardly ever changes. And look at how many people gladly stump up the fees for such games. It's also not like anyone is going to force you to buy every little expansion that is released for any given game...

The problem is trust. You trust a publisher to give you a full game for your money. If gamers are forced to purchase the full game over time, it breaks that trust relationship, and the distribution cost is spread out over many pieces, increasing the production cost, which ultimately results in higher prices.
I woudl rather pay $100 up front for a hit title than $40 for the base, and $5 a month for 12 "micro-expansions".
In the snes era, your $100 got you at LEAST 100 hours of gaming if you were smart. Now, you are lucky to get 15.
avatar
Gundato: Let's use Fallout 3 for example, which I think we can all agree is how DLC should be handled

You picked a REALLY bad example there. You *DO* know that the general user consensus regarding the Fallout DLC is EXTREMELY negative, right?
Post edited January 07, 2010 by anjohl
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Pay less for less(65 posts)(65 posts)
(65 posts)