Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

That would be good too.  Maybe start pushing that, guys?

[Flying Dice]

That doesn't help the base problem that if it was a one off purchase (where you could keep the mods updated afterwards) the vast majority of people would want to wait till all the good mods have come out - I'm not going to pay £5 a month just to hope good mods come out that month.

That'd mean that anyone who thought they were going to make money, would have to wait months/years until enough mods came into the ecosystem for it to be worth anyone buying in - if that ever happened, they'd only get one months worth of pay, split between them and a hundred other mods that everyone crash downloaded in case they ever wanted to play them in the future.

Just like how people always wait until games have come out, been thoroughly reviewed, and gone on sale before they buy them, right?

Yeah. It'd tap the usual "pay-to-assuage-impatience" crowd. I guaran-fuckin'-tee you there would be a lot of people who would keep doing it.

Leaving aside that most people do that anyways with free mods, since it usually takes a year or so for the major bugfix comps, graphics overhauls, and QoL mods to come out, that and a lot of people even among those who mod also like to do a vanilla playthrough or two first. The first few months after release are generally just cheat mods, shitty item reskins, and nude mods, with few exceptions.

[Neonivek]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

Inflation has remained steady actually.

The reason for the 60 dollar price tag... was because of the cost of manufacturing.

This cost as all but disappeared but they kept the price.

Not to mention DLC means that most 60 dollar games today cost far more then 60 dollars... and can be upwards of 100 dollars... For example "For Honor" already costs over 100 dollars.

[Flying Dice]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

Inflation has remained steady actually.

The reason for the 60 dollar price tag... was because of the cost of manufacturing.

This cost as all but disappeared but they kept the price.

Not to mention DLC means that most 60 dollar games today cost far more then 60 dollars... and can be upwards of 100 dollars... For example "For Honor" already costs over 100 dollars.

Yeah, digitally distributed games are already massively overpriced at $60. There's no ancillary costs (beyond percentages taken by the sale platform), and as Neo said, most AAA games release for more than that, with $60 being the bare-bones pleb price. If $60 is underpriced, please explain to me how devs can release solid, substantial games and run an acceptable profit selling for $15-20.

All of this shit about wanting paid mods, wanting overpriced games, probably wanting DRM too? That's what causes piracy. If the industry wasn't full of money-grubbing scumbags without a lick of common sense or basic decency, piracy would barely even be a thing, on the level of criminality from consumers in other sectors of business (that is, limited to the selfish sort who will steal just because they can).

[Rolan7]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

Inflation has remained steady actually.

The reason for the 60 dollar price tag... was because of the cost of manufacturing.

This cost as all but disappeared but they kept the price.

Not to mention DLC means that most 60 dollar games today cost far more then 60 dollars... and can be upwards of 100 dollars... For example "For Honor" already costs over 100 dollars.

No, the game For Honor costs $60 ($48 at GMG but that's moot).  If you want some meaningless extras, and what looks like an experience boost to skip ahead, you can pay $100.

To say that For Honor costs $100 is to say TF2 is infinitely expensive (or at least in the thousands).  The games are $60, and free, respectively.  Calling it $100 is doublespeak.

It's just weird how people rail against DLC.  It seems like the argument is that Oblivion would have had horse armor and Shivering Isles on release, if only they didn't have that dang financial incentive.  I don't think that's true, and I don't think there's anything wrong with them charging more for extra development.  I wouldn't buy horse armor, or the $40 of cruft on top of For Honor, but that doesn't mean I hate their existence and claim they're morally wrong or greedy.  How dare my dollar burger not come with free fries, when they have fries right there!

[Jopax]

@ Ispil
Was and still is, tho you can always be a bit patient and grab it on one of the many sales I guess.

[Neonivek]

Sorry Rolan7 but your copy of For Honor is incomplete without expending the extra money.

You have the full version of Team Fortress 2 immediately.

That is how they get you to buy most of this DLC. They dangle it infront of your eyes and go "You will never have the complete experience without this! Don't you want the full game?"

The days where it was always expansion pack content has long since passed.

Just look at Xcom 2s Season Pass. Side Content, Side Content, Side Content, Cosmetics.

[Neonivek]

And Neo, that sounds more like a personal problem than an actual issue with DLC as a whole.

Or it is one of those "Well I don't buy it. Therefor it doesn't count" situations.

As in, it is your personal problem.

Ispil: "Ohh I don't do drugs, so they aren't addictive"
Me: "Yeah thanks professor"

[Neonivek]

I play Paradox games. I think I'm at least a little familiar with the DLC model.

Ahh yes Paradox... the saints of "Intentionally leaving things out of the main game to sell it to you later as DLC"

And I don't mean that in terms of "conspiracy theory" I mean outright.

For example for Tropico 5. Every single food item has some alternative use in your factory... Except one... milk. Guess what one of the DLC is?

Soooo... In terms of refuting me... I am not sure bringing up Paradox... is even slightly a step in your direction.

Your inability to play a game with DLC without being compelled to buy every single content-adding DLC is, as I said, a personal problem

Or you know... it is 100% intentional... and is actively encouraged.

Why don't you just accept money for being their apologist.

[Neonivek]

You claim that I'm wrong because I don't buy DLC.

No I claim your wrong because a "It doesn't apply to me. Therefor it doesn't apply to anyone" argument is silly... atleast to me.

Whether or not you buy DLC or not is moot and is a minor flummox by me that doesn't change the core.

I am not addicted to social games... But I recognize that a large bulk of those games are basically parasites taking advantage of people who have gambling addictions and similar problems.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

People have been saying that the "little stuff" doesnt matter for the DLC models, but I call bullshit on that. That's all stuff that should either have been in the base game when it came out, or been included in larger DLC packs. Polish in video games is extremely important, and it is rather annoying--even if it just graphics or sound related--that you have to pay for them to put the shine on their supposedly finished product.

EDIT: Also, Neon, you have used this exact example before. Tropico is NOT published or developed by paradox. You said the same BS in the paradox thread. In fact, you know what? Stand by. I'm going to find my rant in that thread about it.

EDIT2: For reference:

the kings of nickel and diming.

You say that, but Paradox has always operated in this fashion, they've been operating on the model of lots of DLC and expansions since about EUIII (2007.) There are companies much much much worse than Paradox, and FURTHER MORE, Paradox is one of the most active and responsive development studios--so the fuck are you on about??? Go rant about EA or Ubisoft or Microsoft or even Activision, leave Paradox out of that conversation.

EDIT: Paradox has always updated the game first or included free content updates with DLC when players have felt disenfranchised, btw/

leave Paradox out of that conversation

May I add that Paradox is the company that for one of their games they sold expansions AND the visual assets of that expansion AND the audio assets of that expansion... all separately.

It is also the same company that intentionally leaves content out to resell it to the consumer (Tropico 5).

They certainly are the most prolific. The only thing they haven't done is absolutely useless DLC in everyway possible... which was last done by... Let me check... Monolith studios... Huh.

I guess I wouldn't be on Paradox's case if it wasn't ALWAYS the case with them and they always go overboard... Unlike all those other companies you mentioned.

---

Anyhow I guess I retract my compliment since it seems like it is... completely untrue >_<

I don't know what game you're talking about, and Tropico 5 is neither developed nor published by Paradox studios sooo...

I guess I wouldn't be on Paradox's case if it wasn't ALWAYS the case with them and they always go overboard... Unlike all those other companies you mentioned.

WHAT!?!?!? Dude, you're off the chain! Every call of duty, every assassin's creed, destiny, every EA game EVER IS LOADED TO THE BRIM WITH USELESS DLC!!! Hell, even SEGA is ruining CA and the Total War series with BS DLC models. And ya still think Paradox is the blatantly awful one? Where's your logic?

Anyhow I guess I retract my compliment since it seems like it is... completely untrue >_<

Stop that. If you can't defend your assertion, don't make it. AND FRANKLY, contrary to your point, HOI:IV will probably have the MOST DLC of any of Paradox's games if they intend to develop it to its full potential.

[forsaken1111]

I gotta go with Ispil here Neo. If you can't play a game without owning all of the available DLC that is your own problem. Seems you're projecting it onto the industry as a whole. DLC are additional optional parts of a game you can pay to unlock but are not necessary in any way.

[Neonivek]

Your argument, meanwhile, is "it applies to me; therefore, it applies to everyone."

No my argument is that they are trying to foster it.

I gotta go with Ispil here Neo. If you can't play a game without owning all of the available DLC that is your own problem. Seems you're projecting it onto the industry as a whole. DLC are additional optional parts of a game you can pay to unlock but are not necessary in any way.

And who said that?

[Neonivek]

Still not buying your argument here, Neo.

You don't even know what my argument is.

[forsaken1111]

I gotta go with Ispil here Neo. If you can't play a game without owning all of the available DLC that is your own problem. Seems you're projecting it onto the industry as a whole. DLC are additional optional parts of a game you can pay to unlock but are not necessary in any way.

And who said that?

You did.

Sorry Rolan7 but your copy of For Honor is incomplete without expending the extra money.

You have the full version of Team Fortress 2 immediately.

That is how they get you to buy most of this DLC. They dangle it infront of your eyes and go "You will never have the complete experience without this! Don't you want the full game?"

The days where it was always expansion pack content has long since passed.

Just look at Xcom 2s Season Pass. Side Content, Side Content, Side Content, Cosmetics.

You are saying a game without the DLC is incomplete. This is your own perception, and your problem.