Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Dogbert666, 19 May 2015.
They did before micro transactions and DLC came along.
And people wouldn't do it if they didn't feel like they were being mugged off. Chicken and egg, but in this case I feel comfortable saying the software houses kicked it off.
Day 1 patching , and never finished games , we got your money and are moving on to the next game,
Day 1 DLC, its extra content really and NOT cut from the main game honest.
Who are they trying to fool,
We used to put up with unfinished games as when they where patched the devs would include new maps and extra content as a thank you for putting up with the inconvenience, you know what now passes for DLC and cost you money.
If they want to charge for this stuff they can at least give us a finished game and not one rushed out one for the Christmas rush that is so broken its a joke.
Haven't bought a new game since BF3 and stopped playing that when the DLC map packs came out,
Well I can definitively answer that... the egg came first.
Birds evolved from reptiles who also lay eggs... therefore eggs came long before birds were around.
I am a little confused by a lot of the comments. Some suggest that DLC should not exist at all or at the very least should be free while then saying that they wait for the GOTY editions before buying the games. This doesn't seem to add up.
Isn't a GOTY edition only made available for best selling games? Can I ask (if anyone knows) has a game ever received a GOTY edition while still not in the 'profit' zone and only making a profit through the GOTY editions? I doubt it... So basically a GOTY edition is only available for games where the developers and publishers have made their acceptable profits prior to a released GOTY edition. My point being that isn't the GOTY edition only made possible by the very situation that you are complaining about, of selling the game and then it's DLC?
I think the terms used to describe 'after release' products have also made the situation worse. Everything is now DLC where as before there was a difference between a 'bonus pack' (which was free via download or magazine CD/DVD) or a full on 'expansion pack' (which was chargeable at roughly 25%-50% of the full game).
Age of Empires II was sold as a full game and later had an expansion pack (The Conquerors) which was sold separately, even after the 'Gold Edition' which featured both together, came out. Depending on store sales it often switched as to which was cheaper, between buying the game and expansion separately to buying the Gold Edition.
With the example of Skyrim, I would have said that both Dawnguard and Dragonborn were both valid as additional purchases as they reinvigorate the playing experience, where as Hearthfire, although much cheaper to purchase, I believe should only ever have been a freebie.
Personally I feel the terms should be separated and used accordingly. DLC should be smaller packs and should be released as free improvements or additions where as chargeable content should be described as expansion packs and should offer significant, additional playing experience.
Problem is they're not new releases if you wait that long before playing them.
I don't really think there's an issue with GOTY editions offering "better value". Yes it's cheaper to wait but that's the same for everything. Why get the new iPhone now when you can get it cheaper next year once the next model's out.
The price follows the demand. Early adopters have bought it. A year later, price conscious consumers might be interested in purchasing a good value bundle of the game and all DLC. By then it's a year old and it's old news compared to new releases. That aspect is separate from DLC and Season Passes as far as I'm concerned.
Day 1 patching isn't the end of the world, and it's not new - we had it in the days when you went to the store bought your multiple CD's got home and installed the game - then boom to play on-line you had to download a patch over 56k.
The problem now is that some games are being artificially crippled. It's not early bug fixes and patched its deliberately holding back essential content to drive further revenue.
Not only does this create a 2 tiered system, those who are willing to pay and those not, but creates animosity towards the developers and industry.
Yea but just think of the money.
On a more serious note I agree that it creates animosity, although I'm not sure the publishers care about that as any hard feelings are normally direct at the developers and not the people holding the purse strings.
We have seen it time and time again, publisher X buys developer Y, milks developers IP, closes developers down because they're no longer making money, rinse and repeat.
But if I knew I knew I was getting the full game for a reasonable price then I would buy it on release
Totally agree with the blog and I am with the majority here on this one.
If you pull this crap on me then I simply say "f*** you" and wait for a steep sale.
As games typically release with poor drivers, bugs and performance issues these days, you actually get a far better experience because they have normally had a few patches and driver releases if you pick them up down the road.
If you put ******** DLC on the game, like forcing me to use that god awful Ubisoft service then I will wait for the game to be dirt cheap before I give you a penny - or I will simply refuse to play it at all.
I have a Steam library full of amazing games that I have picked up in various sales and not even played - I can not even imagine what would get me excited enough to buy something on day one.
Not to mention the amazing Indie and small studio titles that are worth supporting like Kerbal.
As far as I am concerned, for anyone with an ounce of self control it is a buyers market and there is no need to support their greed.
Hopefully one day they will get the message.
You state the answer in your article
The problem with that is, if everyone would do this, there'd be no initial sale, and probably no "complete" version later, as the plug would be pulled.
So my style of buyuing games depends on SOMEONE beeing daft enough to buy on day one with all the shenanigans.
These two sum it up perfectly:
Why would they sell it for a flat price when they can make more money doing it like they do now? Seems a pretty naive article. They do what they do because so many gamers are overhyped little kiddies who throw far too much money at stupid stuff. And this site is full of people like that, as are most gaming sites. Look at how hyped up people get about games like Dragon Age 2 and SimCity which a while later once the dust settles, people finally start talking about how short of the mark they are. When a team of 11 with an indie budget can make a far better version of a game like that, you know something is terribly wrong. And I couldn't pass my opinion on it in the thread on this forum without being attacked by the fanboys like pieface telling me SimCity is great blah blah, when I could see very clearly it was inferior even compared to earlier versions of the same series.
I think Elite Dangerous is similar. The FIRST DAY it was announced I started explaining my doubts about it and everyone went ape **** at me. Followed by years of people being so hyped about the greatest space game ever made and a renaissance of the genre etc.. And yet here it is beyond release and I see people finally admitting they got bored in a day and there isn't much to do and it is so repetitive etc.
Pre ordering in general is stupid. People do it on the wrong games and for the wrong reasons. It only makes sense if it is a game in a series that you know will not let you down, and the pre order price is cheaper than what it will be at release, but often that is not the case. And even when it is, often the game will be so bare bones that it isn't worth playing for several months anyway because it needs that time to get developed further by patches and mods. And if you just waited to buy it several months after release, the price is cheaper than even the pre-order price. I'm thinking of Arma3 with this but it happens with lots of games. p.s. Arma3 was £20 pre-order and release with no campaign and lots of stuff missing. Then a few weeks ago I saw the finished game now with a LOT more content and seeming a lot more like a finished game, for about £17 in a Steam sale.
The DLC and microtransactions too, they all exist because stupid people buy them. I remember the exact moment when expansions stopped getting released and DLC started taking over, and I remember thinking... this is going to be expensive and **** and it will not stop unless ALL gamers stand together against it by not paying. But of course, millions of people buy it anyway so now it is a regular thing.
Basically what I'm saying is, gamers brought it on themselves. They are the ones to blame. The devs and publishers are running a business and no business would sell their products for less when people are willing to pay more for the same thing or less.
Also some of the things mentioned in the article are not really bad things entirely. The buying of alphas and crowdfunding are good things, or they were originally. Mount & Blade was all about paying for alpha, and it was great. Gamers were buying it early to help develop it into the game they knew it was going to be. Crowdfunding is the same thing, Pillars of Eternity or whatever would never exist if it wasn't for people trusting their money with a trustworthy team. The only problem is stupid people spending their money on stuff that doesn't deserve it. And people getting so hyped about alpha products that are far from being a good game. I see so much hype for alpha games and when I look into them, they are completely empty bare bones things that are miles from being worthwhile. But if people keep throwing their money at the alpha and then hyping it to convince themselves and others that it is going to be great, then the devs will continue to release crap and sell it as an alpha, and there is no incentive for them to finish the game. Why bother making a well developed product if people are happy with the alpha.
Minecraft told me everything I needed to know about modern gamers and the way this industry is going to become.
I agree with a lot you say, it's a cold hard reality that if people were wiser with their money then things would be very, very different. The only thing I would disagree with is your use of the term 'gamer' but that then opens the much and often argued point of 'Who or what is a gamer?'
Personally for me there are gamers and then there are people who buy/play games and the two are certainly not the same thing.
Yeah it's true, there is a difference between someone buying many expensive games each year, and the people who play candy crush and call themselves gamers. Although a lot of what I said was about even 'real' gamers. I remember hearing so much hype about Kerbal Space Program about 2 years ago and I looked it up and there was just no 'game' there at all. Same went for Prison Architect which was barely any different to a Flash game. I like indie games and see massive potential with these kinds of games, but people should wait and see if the company can actually realise that potential before they get too excited, and especially before they start spending money.
I see it all the time with games. I saw one just the other day called Space Engineers which is like a more grown up version of Minecraft but in space and with more advanced graphics etc. But there is just nothing to really do yet and there is no real 'game' in there yet, it is mostly just floating about looking for asteroids, mining stuff off it, and then crafting it in to various junk. That is not a game, that is a small timesink that was attached to MMO's 17 years ago and called tradeskills. There needs to be a purpose and a goal and just.... more. And if people said this looks promising and bookmarked it to check out again in a year, then the devs would be forced to get busy building a decent combat system and an enemy presence in the world to overcome and maybe a storyline, maybe some other characters to interact with, maybe a meaningful multiplayer component, etc..etc.. But if a million people say ZOMG this is gonna be orsum! and spend £10 on it now, there is no incentive for the company to do anything. That's exactly how I felt about Minecraft. I saw massive hype about it early on, half a million people have bought this alpha game and it got reported on every website. Then it became a million people. Then 2 million people. At some point I tried it for myself and loved the engine, the procedurally generated world, the first person view, etc.. but it felt like an early alpha with nothing to actually do. Yes I can mine millions of rocks and then put them together to make myself a castle or something but why am I doing this? What is the goal? Or what am I striving against? The fanboys told me it is creative and sandbox and I'm supposed to make my own fun but that isn't the case, and I grew out of lego >20 years ago. I was excited because I expected they were going to add some kind of tower defence thing where bigger creatures spawn over time and it gets harder and harder to survive each night, and maybe you need to make money to hire archers and build towers to help defend you. But nothing like that was ever added to the game. If people are content with just running around clicking on rocks and then combining them in to various crap then there is really no need to develop the game further. And here it is years later after release and it is no different. And that's why it is the most popular game in my 7 year old nephew's school and not a game I would ever want to play. And they made a billionaire of Notch for that.
That is something seriously wrong with gaming. Hype makes millionaires and billionaires out of people who got lucky because their creation 'went viral'. Meanwhile there are far better alternatives that get no attention at all and go nowhere as a result. So Notch is a billionaire and the Enderal team work for free.
Aren't the base games of AAA titles priced similarly for the past decade or so whilst requiring a bigger staff and larger budgets and larger startup investment. So bigger overheads and prices that aren't adjusted for inflation. I would think Monetization has to be found elsewhere to keep similar profitability ie dlc microtransactions etc
Also larger investment cost = larger risks = equals higher ROI.
Cheaper, in fact. Games used to be very expensive, then very cheap, then very expensive, now they're relatively cheap - and yet cost way, way more to make. That, though, is tempered by the fact that there's a much larger market.
Figures can be found in this post 'ere, if you're curious.
Im pretty sure that's what I was basing my point on. The question really is what impact the larger market has had and does it justify the level of cash milking that goes on.
This topic has useful,Thanks for sharing.
Steam early access is a good thing as it gives the developer feedback and helps shape the game (providing the developer wants to listen). It can also work out cheaper because some early access games are cheaper in the development phase (ARMA 3). I never put money into expensive early access so you won't find me funding Star Citizen and I avoided funding Planetary Annihilation which as I recall was in the region of £60 during that development phase. Based on reviews the game turned out so bad that I didn't even buy it when it was on sale at £4.50. Imagine my horror last week when a friend game me a steam key and didn't tell me what it was for.... Turns out I now have a copy of Planetary Annihilation. I have now transferred my Supreme Commander from DVD to steam and play that. Anyway... early access is great.
Has useful what? Prawn starter?
Separate names with a comma.