PPKKBB, How can you tell what was removed content and what was actually extra resources set aside during development to create DLC? You can't. This is something you should be judging case by case - "is the amount of the content available in the initial release a good value?" But instead you've decided it is always the case that they're always removing developed content, and that the amount of content in a game will never be of a good value regardless just because DLC is present.
Can't you see how silly and goosey it is?
You're not playing ball, and no one here can possibly reason with you.
Also, this attitude you are haboring is not the rule. The overwhelming majority of people who buy video games are actually much more reasonable, and actually will either buy a game and choose to partake in DLC, or actively embrace it.
Which is extremely bad for consumers, in the long run.
How can you tell what was removed content and what was actually extra resources set aside during development to create DLC? You can't. This is something you should be judging case by case - but you've decided it is always the case that they're removing developed content when DLC is present, and that's silly.
You're not playing ball, and no one here can possibly reason with you. You're being kind of ridiculous.
No, it's not. And I honestly don't understand how games with pre-announced DLC or the kind of things that EA, Sony and THQ are starting to pull can be good for gamers in any way, shape or form.
How can you tell what was removed content and what was actually extra resources set aside during development to create DLC? You can't. This is something you should be judging case by case - but you've decided it is always the case that they're removing developed content when DLC is present, and that's silly.
You're not playing ball, and no one here can possibly reason with you. You're being kind of ridiculous.
It's bad for consumers because they're tolerable and embrace alternate means of service?
DLC is always planned for these day, extra resources are usually set aside for it. This is in order to hit a 3-4 week sales sweet spot where consumer interest is best.
And I don't necessarily agree Sony, EA, THQ might be doing lately, but you've been pretty much talking universally about all forms of download-able-anything being bad and I'm defending that.
edit: I'm not quite sure what referring to when you respond - you quoted me twice and then said different things.
It's bad for consumers because they're tolerable and embrace alternate means of service?
It's bad for consumers because they're charging full price for an incomplete product, selling extra bits of it *on top of* the full price, and punishing anyone who doesn't like their business model.
Well sure. For one thing, you have to pick out the best models and textures out of the junk pile leftover from the design process. It's a tough life.
You don't know this, but everyone who develops games who reads this will probably laugh at you. That's not how modern map development goes down.
Well, I already asked you to explain how it had become hugely difficult as measured against UnrealED which already allowed use of custom textures, objects and models (of which plenty will be unused after a large game is designed) but you skipped answering. Would you like to take the opportunity to do so now, as you are evidently an expert?
Particularly, take time to explain the cost disparity between initial release maps and DLC maps, upon which everyone (but you, I assume) agrees with me.
Well, This is mostly from my own perspective from where I work, which I wont say, I'm trying to be anonymous about it so if we could all respect that, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind this all depends on the nature of the DLC and the nature of the developer and publisher spear heading it.
First things first, you're making an assumption that their is unused art assets. If that's the cast, then that was a very poorly planned project. Unused art is the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't be wasting your budget on something you're not going to use.
Now, maps are the example? so I'm going to tackle this from my perspective of where I work...
- Designer designs the map. Usually, it will be all blocked in ugly and be completely about gameplay.
- There will be play tests and iteration to ensure it's fun and adjust things that aren't. Perhaps peer playtests, or with the help of a internal QA team, or combinations of therof.
- Artists will inevitably be involved to make the maps presentable. If they're working with existing environmental sets, it won't take long, but it's till an involved process. If they're making new environment sets, well, that entail more than a few artists going at it making shit, which is really involved (I doubt a developer would do this for a map pack, though if it was a downloadable single player mission, sure).
- Quality Assurance. This is usually a team of people hitting the DLC and submitting bugs until they're all fixed and the DLC is clean to go.
Some cost disparities you're not considering...
- Planning around what the DLC is actually going to be. Then will be more than a few individuals, and time is money after all. Dates, times, who will work on it, etcetera
- Marketing. Get the word out on your DLC. How much is it going to cost? Advertising? This is usually a few individuals as well.
- Certification. Depending on the nature of the DLC, a submitting to certification to a company like microsoft or sony is usually in order. Certing costs a lot of money, and if you fail cert, you got to spend more money. I'm not sure, but I think it's in the 10's of thousands range (It's one of those details that angers me and I like to forget about when told).
- Do you need to alter your UI to make the DLC accessible from the game menu? Maybe another programmer and artist involved in making that work.
- The vendor usually wants a cut of some sort (MS or Sony). Part of your asking price has to facilitate how much they're going to get versus how much you need.
- Their might be other administrative or licensing fees from that I'm not aware of. Not really my area of expertise.
I had some time to run home today.
So, just to be clear, I wasn't actually far off at all about how easy map making is. Just that you say the work between model making / texture making / map design is split between different people for streamlining. That should actually make it cheaper, not more expensive --or devs wouldn't do things that way in the first place.
I only missed out on marketing and certification (not gonna count 'DLC UI' because I'm pretty sure a competent dev who was planning to sell DLC already had that ready to go for the original release --ditto counting map testing, since, no shit, we all expect devs to actually test the things they put out there.)
Once again, measured against what you get out of the original release of a game, I'm finding DLC very overpriced.
But anyhow, you guys like your DLC, and the primary reason I don't like it is the aforementioned threat it poses to competitive gaming.
So that's cool.
edit: uh, one thing though: you say there's hardly ever any unused art assets in game dev? That's just outright bullshit. There's so much crap that gets unused in game dev. A lot of it sneaks into the final releases if you bother to hunt around game data files. Yes, keeping unused stuff to a minimum is obviously a goal for budgeting, but come on.
It's bad for consumers because they're tolerable and embrace alternate means of service?
It's bad for consumers because they're charging full price for an incomplete product, selling extra bits of it *on top of* the full price, and punishing anyone who doesn't like their business model.
And that's why you're unreasonable. You will insist, regardless of any actually real basis of how long the game and what it's feature set is, that something is an incomplete product because DLC is present.
I like how you go on to say they're punishing you, when the reality is people buy DLC and their goal is to encourage them.
I'm done here.
Matrias on
3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
You should be shopping DLC based on if it's a good value, not wether its DLC or not.
You're spending money to be entertained. If the DLC spending entertains you at the same or better ratio of entertainment per dollar, buy DLC. If it doesn't, don't. Don't overthink the game being/having DLC or not, as though there were morality to the very act of downloading content.
Look at wow - a game that is, essentially, all DLC. but per hour? some of the cheapest entertainment on earth. (and I hate wow, myself, FWIW)
Well sure. For one thing, you have to pick out the best models and textures out of the junk pile leftover from the design process. It's a tough life.
You don't know this, but everyone who develops games who reads this will probably laugh at you. That's not how modern map development goes down.
Well, I already asked you to explain how it had become hugely difficult as measured against UnrealED which already allowed use of custom textures, objects and models (of which plenty will be unused after a large game is designed) but you skipped answering. Would you like to take the opportunity to do so now, as you are evidently an expert?
Particularly, take time to explain the cost disparity between initial release maps and DLC maps, upon which everyone (but you, I assume) agrees with me.
Well, This is mostly from my own perspective from where I work, which I wont say, I'm trying to be anonymous about it so if we could all respect that, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind this all depends on the nature of the DLC and the nature of the developer and publisher spear heading it.
First things first, you're making an assumption that their is unused art assets. If that's the cast, then that was a very poorly planned project. Unused art is the exception, not the rule. You shouldn't be wasting your budget on something you're not going to use.
Now, maps are the example? so I'm going to tackle this from my perspective of where I work...
- Designer designs the map. Usually, it will be all blocked in ugly and be completely about gameplay.
- There will be play tests and iteration to ensure it's fun and adjust things that aren't. Perhaps peer playtests, or with the help of a internal QA team, or combinations of therof.
- Artists will inevitably be involved to make the maps presentable. If they're working with existing environmental sets, it won't take long, but it's till an involved process. If they're making new environment sets, well, that entail more than a few artists going at it making shit, which is really involved (I doubt a developer would do this for a map pack, though if it was a downloadable single player mission, sure).
- Quality Assurance. This is usually a team of people hitting the DLC and submitting bugs until they're all fixed and the DLC is clean to go.
Some cost disparities you're not considering...
- Planning around what the DLC is actually going to be. Then will be more than a few individuals, and time is money after all. Dates, times, who will work on it, etcetera
- Marketing. Get the word out on your DLC. How much is it going to cost? Advertising? This is usually a few individuals as well.
- Certification. Depending on the nature of the DLC, a submitting to certification to a company like microsoft or sony is usually in order. Certing costs a lot of money, and if you fail cert, you got to spend more money. I'm not sure, but I think it's in the 10's of thousands range (It's one of those details that angers me and I like to forget about when told).
- Do you need to alter your UI to make the DLC accessible from the game menu? Maybe another programmer and artist involved in making that work.
- The vendor usually wants a cut of some sort (MS or Sony). Part of your asking price has to facilitate how much they're going to get versus how much you need.
- Their might be other administrative or licensing fees from that I'm not aware of. Not really my area of expertise.
I had some time to run home today.
So, just to be clear, I wasn't actually far off at all about how easy map making is. Just that you say the work between model making / texture making / map design is split between different people for streamlining. That should actually make it cheaper, not more expensive --or devs wouldn't do things that way in the first place.
I only missed out on marketing and certification (not gonna count 'DLC UI' because I'm pretty sure a competent dev who was planning to sell DLC already had that ready to go for the original release --ditto counting map testing, since, no shit, we all expect devs to actually test the things they put out there.)
Once again, measured against what you get out of the original release of a game, I'm finding DLC very overpriced.
But anyhow, you guys like your DLC, and the primary reason I don't like it is the aforementioned threat it poses to competitive gaming.
So that's cool.
edit: uh, one thing though: you say there's hardly ever any unused art assets in game dev? That's just outright bullshit. There's so much crap that gets unused in game dev. A lot of it sneaks into the final releases if you bother to hunt around game data files. Yes, keeping unused stuff to a minimum is obviously a goal for budgeting, but come on.
You're wrong. When more people are involved, it costs more, because there's more salaries to pay. They're not even necessarily making the work go faster, because depending on your tool set, the designer and artist can't work on the same map at the same time. The reason the artist is involved is because they're paid to make things look good. Designers are paid to make things fun.
My point is there are a lot of people involved, more than you think, and that means more salary to pay. That's the cost you're not considering.
As for the prices, I'll say that probably depends on the DLC. Certainly it's up to what yourself consider a good price, I was just trying to illuminate that there's much more costs to DLC development going on that are being unconsidered. I wouldn't consider 5 maps for $10 especially unreasonable, assuming they're decent. $15 is pushing it, depends how much I like the game. $20 is fuck you.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
Alright I'll ask the question, what's a complete product and what's full price?
Well full price is whatever price new games are going for.
As for complete games, look at last gen. Or the Wii.
Part of the reason I finally bought a Wii recently is I can go out and buy games and know I'm not going to have to worry about DLC and have chunks of the game missing. (That and a no tax sale)
Games like Bayonetta and Darksiders I deliberately buy new because I know they're complete. They're a finished product that will stand on their own, for better or worse.
Ironically, I bought Darksiders because it focused on single player, and now it will be the last THQ game I ever buy.
Look chief. You making things up is not evidence. Just because you say 'things were removed from the disk' doesn't make it true. And even if it IS true, it doesn't disprove anything I said. The only reason you're upset at all is because of how other people experience it. .
>And even if it IS true, it doesn't disprove anything I said.
That makes no sense at all.
And no, I'm not upset at how other people experience it. I'm upset at
A) being gouged
being called a thief by publishers, and now Gabe & Tycho when I don't buy a game in the price point and format that publishers want, regardless of my personal preferences.
It makes perfect sense, you're just not thinking about it. Define 'being gouged'. Price gouging is defined in terms of prices relative to OTHER prices. You are only being gouged relative to the prices that OTHER people pay.
You're trying to compare the price you're paying to some kind of independent ideal price you'd LIKE to pay, which is not gouging, it's just you not understanding economics.
Also, nobody called you a thief, unless there's some wacky ass quote going around that's NOT from the PA front page.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Games like Bayonetta and Darksiders I deliberately buy new because I know they're complete. They're a finished product that will stand on their own, for better or worse.
I bought Fallout 3 with no DLC, and it stands on its own.
Does the DLC not exist, or are you completely wrong?
SageinaRage on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Alright I'll ask the question, what's a complete product and what's full price?
Well full price is whatever price new games are going for.
As for complete games, look at last gen. Or the Wii.
Part of the reason I finally bought a Wii recently is I can go out and buy games and know I'm not going to have to worry about DLC and have chunks of the game missing. (That and a no tax sale)
Games like Bayonetta and Darksiders I deliberately buy new because I know they're complete. They're a finished product that will stand on their own, for better or worse.
Ironically, I bought Darksiders because it focused on single player, and now it will be the last THQ game I ever buy.
so you buy...short, basic, games...because they are "complete"...but won't play games that are hours longer and better, like me2 or fallout 3, because you "worry" about dlc?
Can you name a game that legitimatey was released at "full" price and was actually crippled?
did you object to the first games with stories and endings because they represented less theoritical value than infinate waves of defender or space invaders or yar's revenge?
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
To be fair it is perfectly reasonable for him not to want to buy overpriced restaurant soda. Water is free!
How can you tell what was removed content and what was actually extra resources set aside during development to create DLC? You can't. This is something you should be judging case by case - but you've decided it is always the case that they're removing developed content when DLC is present, and that's silly.
You're not playing ball, and no one here can possibly reason with you. You're being kind of ridiculous.
No, it's not. And I honestly don't understand how games with pre-announced DLC or the kind of things that EA, Sony and THQ are starting to pull can be good for gamers in any way, shape or form.
I fail to see how DLC that, absent money being set aside in development (to create that "pre-announced" DLC), would not have existed is bad for gamers in any way, shape, or form. Absent this evil of DLC Fallout 3 would have just been Fallout 3...the content on the disc would probably have been the same. At which point the DLC is, at worst, neutral...and possibly a benefit to gamers since it gives those that want it the option for more content.
Agreed on THQ, though. It's hard to argue that charging more for multiplayer (or hamstringing the used market by slicing it off as a separate feature) is a good thing for gamers.
mcdermott on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
what I find kind of funny about this is my complaint with dlc is that it usually feels way to branched off and not like an integral and real part of the full game.
but, for example, I am really looking forward to patient 0 which seems to be DLC that patches the story from DR 1 to DR 2
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
I only missed out on marketing and certification (not gonna count 'DLC UI' because I'm pretty sure a competent dev who was planning to sell DLC already had that ready to go for the original release
Well you picked on the smallest thing to try and support your position (and ignored all the rest that explained why you were wrong), but you were still wrong.
Your definition of competent is someone who does unneccessary work during the main production of a title for something that may happen in the future?
Err....Nope.
A competent individual developer may make his code easy to hook into and adapt, but if he was messing about with the UI for anything other than the main game everyone else was working on, he'd get a big flea in his ear.
The marketing and certification overheads are actually quite large for everything, even DLC. If the publisher chose to put out DLC to change the colour of the buttons on one of the costumes, the amount of licencing, marketing and other fees mean he'd still have to charge $5 for it to break even.
Patches also cost the publisher money, but they don't charge for them.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
Unfortunately, you decided to jump in to our old discussion just when everyone was arguing with PPKKBB and the... uh... stuff, he was saying. Wires got crossed.
I only missed out on marketing and certification (not gonna count 'DLC UI' because I'm pretty sure a competent dev who was planning to sell DLC already had that ready to go for the original release
Well you picked on the smallest thing to try and support your position (and ignored all the rest that explained why you were wrong), but you were still wrong.
Your definition of competent is someone who does unneccessary work during the main production of a title for something that may happen in the future?
Err....Nope.
A competent individual developer may make his code easy to hook into and adapt, but if he was messing about with the UI for anything other than the main game everyone else was working on, he'd get a big flea in his ear.
The marketing and certification overheads are actually quite large for everything, even DLC. If the publisher chose to put out DLC to change the colour of the buttons on one of the costumes, the amount of licencing, marketing and other fees mean he'd still have to charge $5 for it to break even.
Patches also cost the publisher money, but they don't charge for them.
You misunderstand. I mean that if someone is planning to sell DLC with their product, they're probably going to be ready with "and this is where the boxes go in the UI for downloading DLC so we don't have to recode a big part of the game at great cost to add a 'download DLC' button."
So, just for the record, you seized on something small and completely misunderstood it to support your position. But it's OK. I think Matrias got it, and he's actually worth talking to.
so you buy...short, basic, games...because they are "complete"...but won't play games that are hours longer and better, like me2 or fallout 3, because you "worry" about dlc?
Can you name a game that legitimatey was released at "full" price and was actually crippled?
did you object to the first games with stories and endings because they represented less theoritical value than infinate waves of defender or space invaders or yar's revenge?
Short, basic and hours longer and better are subjective. If I buy an RPG on the PS3 that has DLC, and I buy an RPG on the Wii, which is complete? The Wii version.
Fallout 3's ending was changed by the DLC. That DLC is something that should have been on the disc in the first place. Same with Prince of Persia.
It makes perfect sense, you're just not thinking about it. Define 'being gouged'. Price gouging is defined in terms of prices relative to OTHER prices. You are only being gouged relative to the prices that OTHER people pay.
You're trying to compare the price you're paying to some kind of independent ideal price you'd LIKE to pay, which is not gouging, it's just you not understanding economics.
Also, nobody called you a thief, unless there's some wacky ass quote going around that's NOT from the PA front page.
I'm not talking about price, I'm talking about taking content out of the game and charging extra *on top of* the full price that is already being charged. I understand economics just fine - better than most on here, apparently.
Both THQ and Gabe & Tycho have labeled used gamers as pirates. That is the whole reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
I'll be honest at least once a year I'll go down to Gamestop, dive into the $15 and less bin and pick out a few games.
Yeah, that's the main used market for me. I buy ultra cheap stuff. Generally games that aren't sold new at retail any longer (I do wonder if we go all digital distribution, if ALL games will always be available for purchase new then?). I don't do this because I care about the developer's profits, but just because I'm cheap and for most games don't mind waiting a while. Plus I like digging through bargain bins.
I also have to say, that the day consoles move to digital only is probably basically the end of console gaming for me. It just kills the hobby for me, as the physical product is a big part of what I like. For some reason though, I don't feel quite as strongly about PC games this way, and never have going as far back as the floppy disk era.
so you buy...short, basic, games...because they are "complete"...but won't play games that are hours longer and better, like me2 or fallout 3, because you "worry" about dlc?
Can you name a game that legitimatey was released at "full" price and was actually crippled?
did you object to the first games with stories and endings because they represented less theoritical value than infinate waves of defender or space invaders or yar's revenge?
Short, basic and hours longer and better are subjective.
Fallout 3's ending was changed by the DLC. That DLC is something that should have been on the disc in the first place. Same with Prince of Persia.
Wasn't the ending only changed because of all of the backlash towards the original ending?
Nerdgasmic on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
well, to me, it's a legitimate question. the soda has greater utility to me with my salty chinese - i want one now so i order it for not even 10% of my total cost. it's a negligable extra to me - I have the money to order 15 bucks worth of kung pao, and tip. fuck it, I'm thirsty. if I was worried about gouging, I'd stay home and not go out.
In one case at least DLC - say a map pack for MW2 - is worth it for me because of what it does in terms of keeping people invovled in the only community for MW2. that 10 dollar map pack added six months to the lifespan of my mw2 purchase, saving me a whole new game purchase, so for me - that map pack saved me 50 bucks net. I'm ok with that, even if they make a 50% markup on it instead of a 5% one or whatever. The amount of profit-taking by the comapany has almost no bearing on my evaluation of the cost benefit to me of buying it, in other words. For me that's almost all price vs the use I'll get out of it.
Agreed on THQ, though. It's hard to argue that charging more for multiplayer (or hamstringing the used market by slicing it off as a separate feature) is a good thing for gamers.
They are not hamstringing the used market by doing any such thing. And what they are doing is good for gamers in the long run because when everyone else does it developers will get more of the same amount of money that gamers will pay in the future that they are paying now.
Or are you being deliberately obtuse for effect? Because it's starting to look that way.:?
1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins,Shop loses.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
well, to me, it's a legitimate question. the soda has greater utility to me with my salty chinese - i want one now so i order it for not even 10% of my total cost. it's a negligable extra to me - I have the money to order 15 bucks worth of kung pao, and tip. fuck it, I'm thirsty. if I was worried about gouging, I'd stay home and not go out.
In one case at least DLC - say a map pack for MW2 - is worth it for me because of what it does in terms of keeping people invovled in the only community for MW2. that 10 dollar map pack added six months to the lifespan of my mw2 purchase, saving me a whole new game purchase, so for me - that map pack saved me 50 bucks net. I'm ok with that, even if they make a 50% markup on it instead of a 5% one or whatever. The amount of profit-taking by the comapany has almost no bearing on my evaluation of the cost benefit to me of buying it, in other words. For me that's almost all price vs the use I'll get out of it.
Uh huh, 'free hand of the market' and all that. People buy it so it's worth it. That's super.
To me it's not worth it. I base what I think of DLC on it's cost / entertainment ratio, and I'll compare cost/entertainment against other products. To you, it's worth it. That's great.
Shall we move on, then?
edit: about the soda thing; if I'm paying for an overpriced drink, you can bet it'll have alcohol in it. Utility .
1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins,Shop loses.
1) Publishers release more content digitally
2) Gamers pay more for less content on the disc.
3) Publishers cripple features of games unless they're bought the way publisher wants.
3) Gamers say "I'm not going to bother buying anything because the publishers are being greedy. (Which they are)
4) Market collapses as games sales slide further and further down.
5) Everyone loses.
Can you name a game that legitimatey was released at "full" price and was actually crippled?
Fallout 3's ending was changed by the DLC. That DLC is something that should have been on the disc in the first place. Same with Prince of Persia.
That is not what he asked. Fallout 3 had a perfectly fine ending on the disk, and was not crippled. Just because some later dlc added more to the ending doesn't change that fact.
It makes perfect sense, you're just not thinking about it. Define 'being gouged'. Price gouging is defined in terms of prices relative to OTHER prices. You are only being gouged relative to the prices that OTHER people pay.
You're trying to compare the price you're paying to some kind of independent ideal price you'd LIKE to pay, which is not gouging, it's just you not understanding economics.
Also, nobody called you a thief, unless there's some wacky ass quote going around that's NOT from the PA front page.
I'm not talking about price, I'm talking about taking content out of the game and charging extra *on top of* the full price that is already being charged. I understand economics just fine - better than most on here, apparently.
Both THQ and Gabe & Tycho have labeled used gamers as pirates. That is the whole reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
Ah, apparently you belong to the 'repeat it enough times and it becomes true' school of thought. You have still failed completely and in any way at all to show that any DLC EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF A GAME BEFORE RELEASE.
And even then, it doesn't matter! All of these games you mentioned stand alone (or at least all the ones I've played).
And again, no! Tycho did not label gamers as pirates. He was saying that neither pirates nor used game purchasers are actually giving money to developers. That was the extent of his point!
You have completely failed to have a single fact to base your conclusion, or even your premise on! You are literally making up every single thing you say. You have yet to say even one thing I would consider a truth, or at the very least NOT a lie.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
well, to me, it's a legitimate question. the soda has greater utility to me with my salty chinese - i want one now so i order it for not even 10% of my total cost. it's a negligable extra to me - I have the money to order 15 bucks worth of kung pao, and tip. fuck it, I'm thirsty. if I was worried about gouging, I'd stay home and not go out.
In one case at least DLC - say a map pack for MW2 - is worth it for me because of what it does in terms of keeping people invovled in the only community for MW2. that 10 dollar map pack added six months to the lifespan of my mw2 purchase, saving me a whole new game purchase, so for me - that map pack saved me 50 bucks net. I'm ok with that, even if they make a 50% markup on it instead of a 5% one or whatever. The amount of profit-taking by the comapany has almost no bearing on my evaluation of the cost benefit to me of buying it, in other words. For me that's almost all price vs the use I'll get out of it.
Uh huh, 'free hand of the market' and all that. People buy it so it's worth it. That's super.
To me it's not worth it. I base what I think of DLC on it's cost / entertainment ratio, and I'll compare cost/entertainment against other products. To you, it's worth it. That's great.
Shall we move on, then?
edit: about the soda thing; if I'm paying for an overpriced drink, you can bet it'll have alcohol in it. Utility .
Well, I think DLC is not global. There's DLC I've looked at and snorted (pretty outfits for SfIV) and there's others that i've thought were worth it (Lost and the damned for GTA - a whole new set of characters and storyline that adds several hours to the game? Cool)
The point is, it's not the DLC status that makes or breaks it, it's the value of the content vs its price point.
"DLC is stupid because it means they are doling out content that should be on the disc for extra money " is a really odd outlook for me. I'm in the camp that doesn't understand that invisible border, at least not in the majority of cases.
Both THQ and Gabe & Tycho have labeled used gamers as pirates. That is the whole reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
This thread has has gone from Used to DLC and got stuck.
Used Gamers and Pirates add as much to the bottom line of developers as each other, so in one sense this is true.
All cats have four legs, but that does not mean that all four-legged animals are cats.
But, if Pirates could pay a fee to have their copied discs activated and made legitimate to have online play, then they'd be adding to the companies' bottom line.
Would that be a bad thing or a sensible thing from a business standpoint?
Both THQ and Gabe & Tycho have labeled used gamers as pirates. That is the whole reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
This thread has has gone from Used to DLC and got stuck.
Used Gamers and Pirates add as much to the bottom line of developers as each other, so in one sense this is true.
All cats have four legs, but that does not mean that all four-legged animals are cats.
But, if Pirates could pay a fee to have their copied discs activated and made legitimate to have online play, then they'd be adding to the companies' bottom line.
Would that be a bad thing or a sensible thing from a business standpoint?
Ditto Used gamers.
And you just proved that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Ah, apparently you belong to the 'repeat it enough times and it becomes true' school of thought. You have still failed completely and in any way at all to show that any DLC EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF A GAME BEFORE RELEASE.
And even then, it doesn't matter! All of these games you mentioned stand alone (or at least all the ones I've played).
And again, no! Tycho did not label gamers as pirates. He was saying that neither pirates nor used game purchasers are actually giving money to developers. That was the extent of his point!
You have completely failed to have a single fact to base your conclusion, or even your premise on! You are literally making up every single thing you say. You have yet to say even one thing I would consider a truth, or at the very least NOT a lie.
I have not lied about anything. You not liking what I have to say is not equivalent of it being a lie. Get over yourself.
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
well, to me, it's a legitimate question. the soda has greater utility to me with my salty chinese - i want one now so i order it for not even 10% of my total cost. it's a negligable extra to me - I have the money to order 15 bucks worth of kung pao, and tip. fuck it, I'm thirsty. if I was worried about gouging, I'd stay home and not go out.
In one case at least DLC - say a map pack for MW2 - is worth it for me because of what it does in terms of keeping people invovled in the only community for MW2. that 10 dollar map pack added six months to the lifespan of my mw2 purchase, saving me a whole new game purchase, so for me - that map pack saved me 50 bucks net. I'm ok with that, even if they make a 50% markup on it instead of a 5% one or whatever. The amount of profit-taking by the comapany has almost no bearing on my evaluation of the cost benefit to me of buying it, in other words. For me that's almost all price vs the use I'll get out of it.
Uh huh, 'free hand of the market' and all that. People buy it so it's worth it. That's super.
To me it's not worth it. I base what I think of DLC on it's cost / entertainment ratio, and I'll compare cost/entertainment against other products. To you, it's worth it. That's great.
Shall we move on, then?
edit: about the soda thing; if I'm paying for an overpriced drink, you can bet it'll have alcohol in it. Utility .
Well, I think DLC is not global. There's DLC I've looked at and snorted (pretty outfits for SfIV) and there's others that i've thought were worth it (Lost and the damned for GTA - a whole new set of characters and storyline that adds several hours to the game? Cool)
The point is, it's not the DLC status that makes or breaks it, it's the value of the content vs its price point.
I agree completely, and as mentioned I've even bought the occasional bit of DLC. I simply find that, evaluating it as content vs price point, I find DLC as a whole suffers measured against full releases. Hence, on the whole, nope, I don't like DLC.
Ego on
Erik
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
re fallout 3's ending: I didn't LIKE the original ending, editorially - but it was definately a "complete" ending.
Posts
Can't you see how silly and goosey it is?
You're not playing ball, and no one here can possibly reason with you.
Which is extremely bad for consumers, in the long run.
No, it's not. And I honestly don't understand how games with pre-announced DLC or the kind of things that EA, Sony and THQ are starting to pull can be good for gamers in any way, shape or form.
Because I have a different opinion than you? Meh.
DLC is always planned for these day, extra resources are usually set aside for it. This is in order to hit a 3-4 week sales sweet spot where consumer interest is best.
And I don't necessarily agree Sony, EA, THQ might be doing lately, but you've been pretty much talking universally about all forms of download-able-anything being bad and I'm defending that.
edit: I'm not quite sure what referring to when you respond - you quoted me twice and then said different things.
It's bad for consumers because they're charging full price for an incomplete product, selling extra bits of it *on top of* the full price, and punishing anyone who doesn't like their business model.
I had some time to run home today.
So, just to be clear, I wasn't actually far off at all about how easy map making is. Just that you say the work between model making / texture making / map design is split between different people for streamlining. That should actually make it cheaper, not more expensive --or devs wouldn't do things that way in the first place.
I only missed out on marketing and certification (not gonna count 'DLC UI' because I'm pretty sure a competent dev who was planning to sell DLC already had that ready to go for the original release --ditto counting map testing, since, no shit, we all expect devs to actually test the things they put out there.)
Once again, measured against what you get out of the original release of a game, I'm finding DLC very overpriced.
But anyhow, you guys like your DLC, and the primary reason I don't like it is the aforementioned threat it poses to competitive gaming.
So that's cool.
edit: uh, one thing though: you say there's hardly ever any unused art assets in game dev? That's just outright bullshit. There's so much crap that gets unused in game dev. A lot of it sneaks into the final releases if you bother to hunt around game data files. Yes, keeping unused stuff to a minimum is obviously a goal for budgeting, but come on.
I like how you go on to say they're punishing you, when the reality is people buy DLC and their goal is to encourage them.
I'm done here.
You're spending money to be entertained. If the DLC spending entertains you at the same or better ratio of entertainment per dollar, buy DLC. If it doesn't, don't. Don't overthink the game being/having DLC or not, as though there were morality to the very act of downloading content.
Look at wow - a game that is, essentially, all DLC. but per hour? some of the cheapest entertainment on earth. (and I hate wow, myself, FWIW)
I host a podcast about movies.
My point is there are a lot of people involved, more than you think, and that means more salary to pay. That's the cost you're not considering.
As for the prices, I'll say that probably depends on the DLC. Certainly it's up to what yourself consider a good price, I was just trying to illuminate that there's much more costs to DLC development going on that are being unconsidered. I wouldn't consider 5 maps for $10 especially unreasonable, assuming they're decent. $15 is pushing it, depends how much I like the game. $20 is fuck you.
Sorry, I just like saying shit like that
Less people involved than the original game. You can try to cut it up any way you want (even by saying 'devs do this even though it costs more, though I've previously said things are all about getting costs down,') but any way you do the math, maps (at least the rare packs I've bought) cost far too much, proportionately to original game content.
Well full price is whatever price new games are going for.
As for complete games, look at last gen. Or the Wii.
Part of the reason I finally bought a Wii recently is I can go out and buy games and know I'm not going to have to worry about DLC and have chunks of the game missing. (That and a no tax sale)
Games like Bayonetta and Darksiders I deliberately buy new because I know they're complete. They're a finished product that will stand on their own, for better or worse.
Ironically, I bought Darksiders because it focused on single player, and now it will be the last THQ game I ever buy.
It makes perfect sense, you're just not thinking about it. Define 'being gouged'. Price gouging is defined in terms of prices relative to OTHER prices. You are only being gouged relative to the prices that OTHER people pay.
You're trying to compare the price you're paying to some kind of independent ideal price you'd LIKE to pay, which is not gouging, it's just you not understanding economics.
Also, nobody called you a thief, unless there's some wacky ass quote going around that's NOT from the PA front page.
It's kind of blunt to say it that way, I apologize.
And I'll admit you do have a point - there's some over costing going on, and the price is being assigned based on the value it adds and smaller audience of people buying DLC. The whole idea of DLC is to recoup some of the rampant developer costs associated with developing a new product with some alternate forms of income. The unfortunate truth is a lot of games need to be sold at more than $60 based on what they actually sell, and DLC helps alleviate this.
Just saying, there's more to it.
I bought Fallout 3 with no DLC, and it stands on its own.
Does the DLC not exist, or are you completely wrong?
so you buy...short, basic, games...because they are "complete"...but won't play games that are hours longer and better, like me2 or fallout 3, because you "worry" about dlc?
Can you name a game that legitimatey was released at "full" price and was actually crippled?
did you object to the first games with stories and endings because they represented less theoritical value than infinate waves of defender or space invaders or yar's revenge?
I host a podcast about movies.
Do you also refuse to buy soda at a restaurant, because the amount of resources they spend to buy the soda has a disproportionate cost ratio when compared with your meal? Not every product sold perfectly matches the investment to produce it. DLC does not use the same ratio.
Yes, actually, I do (refuse to buy soda.)
Sorry if you find that shocking. Some people like their money.
To be fair it is perfectly reasonable for him not to want to buy overpriced restaurant soda. Water is free!
I fail to see how DLC that, absent money being set aside in development (to create that "pre-announced" DLC), would not have existed is bad for gamers in any way, shape, or form. Absent this evil of DLC Fallout 3 would have just been Fallout 3...the content on the disc would probably have been the same. At which point the DLC is, at worst, neutral...and possibly a benefit to gamers since it gives those that want it the option for more content.
Agreed on THQ, though. It's hard to argue that charging more for multiplayer (or hamstringing the used market by slicing it off as a separate feature) is a good thing for gamers.
but, for example, I am really looking forward to patient 0 which seems to be DLC that patches the story from DR 1 to DR 2
I host a podcast about movies.
so you feel there is a 'golden markup' past which it's ...unethical to sell things? And new games meet this, but dlc doesn't, an entree meets this but soda doesn't?
I host a podcast about movies.
Well you picked on the smallest thing to try and support your position (and ignored all the rest that explained why you were wrong), but you were still wrong.
Your definition of competent is someone who does unneccessary work during the main production of a title for something that may happen in the future?
Err....Nope.
A competent individual developer may make his code easy to hook into and adapt, but if he was messing about with the UI for anything other than the main game everyone else was working on, he'd get a big flea in his ear.
The marketing and certification overheads are actually quite large for everything, even DLC. If the publisher chose to put out DLC to change the colour of the buttons on one of the costumes, the amount of licencing, marketing and other fees mean he'd still have to charge $5 for it to break even.
Patches also cost the publisher money, but they don't charge for them.
They were obvious extensions to the retail product, and their timing would indicate they were worked out after the retail product was finished.
No. I stated I didn't like DLC. People asked me to explain why. I explained, then expounded. What the heck would ethics have to do with it?
I see you're typing in English. So you feel that English imperialism was a good thing? What a fucker!
You misunderstand. I mean that if someone is planning to sell DLC with their product, they're probably going to be ready with "and this is where the boxes go in the UI for downloading DLC so we don't have to recode a big part of the game at great cost to add a 'download DLC' button."
So, just for the record, you seized on something small and completely misunderstood it to support your position. But it's OK. I think Matrias got it, and he's actually worth talking to.
Short, basic and hours longer and better are subjective. If I buy an RPG on the PS3 that has DLC, and I buy an RPG on the Wii, which is complete? The Wii version.
Fallout 3's ending was changed by the DLC. That DLC is something that should have been on the disc in the first place. Same with Prince of Persia.
I'm not talking about price, I'm talking about taking content out of the game and charging extra *on top of* the full price that is already being charged. I understand economics just fine - better than most on here, apparently.
Both THQ and Gabe & Tycho have labeled used gamers as pirates. That is the whole reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
Yeah, that's the main used market for me. I buy ultra cheap stuff. Generally games that aren't sold new at retail any longer (I do wonder if we go all digital distribution, if ALL games will always be available for purchase new then?). I don't do this because I care about the developer's profits, but just because I'm cheap and for most games don't mind waiting a while. Plus I like digging through bargain bins.
I also have to say, that the day consoles move to digital only is probably basically the end of console gaming for me. It just kills the hobby for me, as the physical product is a big part of what I like. For some reason though, I don't feel quite as strongly about PC games this way, and never have going as far back as the floppy disk era.
Wasn't the ending only changed because of all of the backlash towards the original ending?
well, to me, it's a legitimate question. the soda has greater utility to me with my salty chinese - i want one now so i order it for not even 10% of my total cost. it's a negligable extra to me - I have the money to order 15 bucks worth of kung pao, and tip. fuck it, I'm thirsty. if I was worried about gouging, I'd stay home and not go out.
In one case at least DLC - say a map pack for MW2 - is worth it for me because of what it does in terms of keeping people invovled in the only community for MW2. that 10 dollar map pack added six months to the lifespan of my mw2 purchase, saving me a whole new game purchase, so for me - that map pack saved me 50 bucks net. I'm ok with that, even if they make a 50% markup on it instead of a 5% one or whatever. The amount of profit-taking by the comapany has almost no bearing on my evaluation of the cost benefit to me of buying it, in other words. For me that's almost all price vs the use I'll get out of it.
I host a podcast about movies.
They are not hamstringing the used market by doing any such thing. And what they are doing is good for gamers in the long run because when everyone else does it developers will get more of the same amount of money that gamers will pay in the future that they are paying now.
Or are you being deliberately obtuse for effect? Because it's starting to look that way.:?
1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.
Geddit now?
Uh huh, 'free hand of the market' and all that. People buy it so it's worth it. That's super.
To me it's not worth it. I base what I think of DLC on it's cost / entertainment ratio, and I'll compare cost/entertainment against other products. To you, it's worth it. That's great.
Shall we move on, then?
edit: about the soda thing; if I'm paying for an overpriced drink, you can bet it'll have alcohol in it. Utility
1) Publishers release more content digitally
2) Gamers pay more for less content on the disc.
3) Publishers cripple features of games unless they're bought the way publisher wants.
3) Gamers say "I'm not going to bother buying anything because the publishers are being greedy. (Which they are)
4) Market collapses as games sales slide further and further down.
5) Everyone loses.
That is not what he asked. Fallout 3 had a perfectly fine ending on the disk, and was not crippled. Just because some later dlc added more to the ending doesn't change that fact.
Ah, apparently you belong to the 'repeat it enough times and it becomes true' school of thought. You have still failed completely and in any way at all to show that any DLC EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF A GAME BEFORE RELEASE.
And even then, it doesn't matter! All of these games you mentioned stand alone (or at least all the ones I've played).
And again, no! Tycho did not label gamers as pirates. He was saying that neither pirates nor used game purchasers are actually giving money to developers. That was the extent of his point!
You have completely failed to have a single fact to base your conclusion, or even your premise on! You are literally making up every single thing you say. You have yet to say even one thing I would consider a truth, or at the very least NOT a lie.
Well, I think DLC is not global. There's DLC I've looked at and snorted (pretty outfits for SfIV) and there's others that i've thought were worth it (Lost and the damned for GTA - a whole new set of characters and storyline that adds several hours to the game? Cool)
The point is, it's not the DLC status that makes or breaks it, it's the value of the content vs its price point.
"DLC is stupid because it means they are doling out content that should be on the disc for extra money " is a really odd outlook for me. I'm in the camp that doesn't understand that invisible border, at least not in the majority of cases.
I host a podcast about movies.
This thread has has gone from Used to DLC and got stuck.
Used Gamers and Pirates add as much to the bottom line of developers as each other, so in one sense this is true.
All cats have four legs, but that does not mean that all four-legged animals are cats.
But, if Pirates could pay a fee to have their copied discs activated and made legitimate to have online play, then they'd be adding to the companies' bottom line.
Would that be a bad thing or a sensible thing from a business standpoint?
Ditto Used gamers.
And you just proved that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I have not lied about anything. You not liking what I have to say is not equivalent of it being a lie. Get over yourself.
I agree completely, and as mentioned I've even bought the occasional bit of DLC. I simply find that, evaluating it as content vs price point, I find DLC as a whole suffers measured against full releases. Hence, on the whole, nope, I don't like DLC.
I host a podcast about movies.