This doesn't really bother me. It means I can get the content regardless of when I buy the game. You know what I don't like? When in-game content is only available by preordering (ie. Batman: Arkham Asylum's extra maps). No. Go back to t-shirts and soundtracks and shit. Or at the very least change it so preordering only gives you access to it earlier and it's eventually put up for everyone to download for a cost or something. I don't like giving my money to Gamestop, so why are you making me do so if I want to play as Soundwave in the upcoming Transformers game?
What's worse is when there are multiple preorder bonuses at different retailers (ie. Ghostbusters, though I'm okay with something like a golden proton pack being preorder/collector's edition exclusive, but stuff like playable Brian Doyle Murray and the GB2 uniform should have been dlc available to all, at least eventually).
Of course, none of that is as bad as "timed dlc" (I'm looking at you, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2, even though that was probably just a cover story and it really got yanked because of Disney). I'm pretty sure if timed dlc ever becomes a norm, I'm probably going to be done with (current gen) gaming.
I asked about that elsewhere, and the idea is that game companies would kill for Gamestop to promote their game, even though Gamestop is the problem when it comes to undercutting their sales.
You know what I don't like? When in-game content is only available by preordering (ie. Batman: Arkham Asylum's extra maps). No. Go back to t-shirts and soundtracks and shit. Or at the very least change it so preordering only gives you access to it earlier and it's eventually put up for everyone to download for a cost or something. I don't like giving my money to Gamestop, so why are you making me do so if I want to play as Soundwave in the upcoming Transformers game?
You mean Shockwave, right? I'm pretty sure Soundwave is in no matter where/when you get the game.
I asked about that elsewhere, and the idea is that game companies would kill for Gamestop to promote their game, even though Gamestop is the problem when it comes to undercutting their sales.
Good point, why is everyone so up in arms over this, but just kind of shrug to gamestop exclusive pre-order bonuses which are only available if you not only buy from gamestop, but are never available anywhere else after launch?
Ok, I think a lot of people's arguments about stuff 'being withheld from the game' because it is ready for download day 1 is bullshit for one reason, they are two different products. Alright, lets take Halo for example: ODST and Reach were being worked on simultaneously (AFAIK) now does that mean that because ODST didn't include whatever was finished of Reach at the time it was released that Bungie didn't ship a complete game? No, of course not, they are different products. Same product line, and closely associated, but different.
DLC is a product, unique and separate from the original game despite being closely associated.
Example 2: Lets say I film a movie and its sequel and release them simultaneously. These movies share a story line but both include a complete story arc. You buy the first movie, and are thoroughly satisfied with it as a movie, and then find out about the second. Are you horribly offended that I didn't include the next segment of the story in the first movie?
Basically what I'm saying is, if you're buying a game buy it because its a game you think you will be satisfied with. If you think $60 for a new copy is too much to ask for, and can be satisfied without the extra whatever it is they're throwing in, go for the used copy. If you don't think the game is worth $60 new, and don't think the game is worth $x used without the extra content, don't buy it. End of story, this isn't something anyone can complain about. If they overprice their product, then do with it as you would with any other overpriced product.
I asked about that elsewhere, and the idea is that game companies would kill for Gamestop to promote their game, even though Gamestop is the problem when it comes to undercutting their sales.
Good point, why is everyone so up in arms over this, but just kind of shrug to gamestop exclusive pre-order bonuses which are only available if you not only buy from gamestop, but are never available anywhere else after launch?
Why shrug? lol... because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.... so why discuss/cry over it?
I don't care to buy from GameStop because a) I like to preorder titles so I can kind of lay-away pay for them until launch, b) get preorder goodies, and c) the people at my local store are pretty friendly and don't try to bullshit me.
All 3 are winning situations, I guess people have horrendous stories or whatnot, but it's more or less a store-to-store issue with most people.
I asked about that elsewhere, and the idea is that game companies would kill for Gamestop to promote their game, even though Gamestop is the problem when it comes to undercutting their sales.
Good point, why is everyone so up in arms over this, but just kind of shrug to gamestop exclusive pre-order bonuses which are only available if you not only buy from gamestop, but are never available anywhere else after launch?
Why shrug? lol... because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.... so why discuss/cry over it?
I don't care to buy from GameStop because a) I like to preorder titles so I can kind of lay-away pay for them until launch, b) get preorder goodies, and c) the people at my local store are pretty friendly and don't try to bullshit me.
All 3 are winning situations, I guess people have horrendous stories or whatnot, but it's more or less a store-to-store issue with most people.
Which is different from this situation...how?
I don't know, maybe I'm still nursing a grudge from the runaround I got trying to (unsuccessfully) get the mirror's edge bonus which I ordered from their website specifically to avoid the whole store issue, but I still have a game informer subscription, so maybe I'm just a silly goose
It's fine by me as long as that content is also available for purchase, since I pretty much don't buy any game until it's $10-15 clearance or used. I really don't like DLC that was available but no longer is.
While it seems companies don't usually abuse the DLC model, let's not forget companies who routinely abuse it because they can.
I'm looking at you Capcom. I'm looking so hard some might call it glaring.
Also, some other implications should be discussed. The terminus gun from gamestop came awfully close to actually giving a competitive edge over others who bought the game elsewhere. If you know what I'm talking about, you know that muthafucker makes swarms of enemies trivial. That ended up being balanced by the low ammo amount and that it doesn't insta-kill bosses (although damn close), but consider if it had moved over just slightly.
Day 1 DLC okay even if it gives an in-game edge to those players?
In the realm of single player?
Multiplayer?
For example, what if only day 1 purchases of MW2 had access to the nuke?
What if day 1 purchases were given access to the AK from level 1?
So there's definitely things to consider with the DLC model that I'm sure will get abused (at least be borderline questionable). Ethically, how far is too far?
Or since it's a luxury and 'just a business' there's no such thing as too far? It's as far as the company wants it to go?
The only real unreasonable thing I can recall is RE5's Vs., and the Street Fighter costumes.
Other than that Capcom seems to be one of the better companies in my opinion. Putting out RE5 Gold as DLC is an awesome move, and all the costumes for Dead Rising were free.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
The only real unreasonable thing I can recall is RE5's Vs., and the Street Fighter costumes.
Other than that Capcom seems to be one of the better companies in my opinion. Putting out RE5 Gold as DLC is an awesome move, and all the costumes for Dead Rising were free.
Protoman in Megaman 9 was pretty lame. A REAL retro-make shouldn't make you pay for unlockables.
As someone who buys exclusively used BECAUSE stuff is already too damn expensive, I give this a very wary eye.
I understand that they want to make a profit off of their game, and if I had a steady connection for my consoles I'd probably buy more DLC, but they gotta be honest and upfront about where the content is coming from.
This plan pretty much goes to pot the moment that it's revealed that companies are holding content back in order to make people buy the DLC. That's not fair to consumers, and would only make me continue to buy exclusively used and skip whatever games had this magical DLC in it.
ravensmuse on
READ MY BLOG - Web Serial Fantasy - Tabletop Gaming Snips & Reviews - Flea Market Hunting
I've always bought new out of principle and definately support the practice of including day one dlc 'coupons' with new copies. The brick-and-mortar industry is nigh on parasitic and the more money that goes into producer/developer pockets rather than theirs the healthier the industry will be. I'm not saying I love the practice, but I definately understand and endorse it. Ideally it wouldn't be neccessary, and I don't deny there are casualities (people without internet connections who buy new) but unfortunately it's progressed to a point where such people are a minority that the companies feel they can afford to overlook - much like capcom feel about people with SD TV's.
What I don't support is pre-order bonuses, especially different ones at different shops, and special edition specific content - mainly when it's multiplayer maps or gamemodes. I can be a bit of a sucker for special editions at times but (for instance) sectioning off *half* the co-op maps for AvP and the four player co-op game-modes for Army of Two: 40th Day and Splinter Cell: Conviction makes me a sad panda. Sure I could spend the extra dough to get them but who the hell am I going to play them with? None of my usual partners anyway, this kind of stuff just creates a schism in the playerbase when not done well.
I was going to discuss the importance of when content was made and whether it resides locked on the disc or not but I feel Wezoin's metaphor did it better than I could. You have to take a game on it's own merits and decide if it's worth the price point to you.
However I do understand that completionist slightly OCD bent that some people have. Seeing a blank space in the party selection screen in Mass Effect 2 would set my teeth on edge as well but at the same time I'd hesitate to argue that this is a reasonable complaint. If it bothers you that much then it probably is worth the extra cash to you to experience the 'full' game.
I also understand how it could lower the perceived value of a game for some people, and hopefully developers do too. It means for completionists the investment just got higher and some people are all or nothing types. I mulled over purchasing Army of Two: The 40th Day and it may have been the preorder only 4 player co-op mode that swayed me to the side of skipping it. If I saw it on the shelves during the first week while bumming about town I may have impulse purchased, but I'd missed the window on one of the most interesting game modes and by the time the 'timed bonus' period expired and the game mode was available to all it was old hat and I'd moved on. I'm fickle like that.
The only thing that really worries me about the Mass Effect 2 day one DLC* is that they've really sold us the promise of additional content and everyone is going to have different expectations of what that means. That's a very dodgy proposition to me. The Left4Dead situation is good example, people expected TF2 levels of new content and got a truncated campaign. In ME2 it's a slightly different proposition, the promise is slightly more codified considering you have the paid-for / new-purchase DLC delivery system for further DLC. As it stands I buy new all the time and it matters little to me, but what is up there at the minute isn't worth 1200 mspoints and if they just trickle feed us a couple more ugly ass armours and shotgun variants and call it a day then anyone who bought used and paid for the content will probably feel shafted.
* On the other hand I do like the way it's integrated, I'm near the end game for my first playthrough and you just get an e-mail from the IM about this new armour they've sent you etc. Seems to be a decent effort to tie it in with the fluff. Better than the dragon age fellow who asks you for a favour and then quickly follows it up by asking for your credit card details if you want to do him this favour. Is the 'daily news' report that has been updating in real-ish time about Belan the preamble to some DLC or just a little extra fluff I wonder?
Retailers make barely any profit from selling a game. Probably around 10%. This is why places like Gamestop invest so much time into the used market. They can pay someone $20 for a used title, then turn around and put it back on the shelf for $54.99 and people will buy it because "hey, 5 dollars is 5 dollars!" Now, they've most likely made their 10% from the original sale, and have now added another $35 profit by reselling it.
I see this as an attempt to widen the gap in the used market by making that $5 off for buying used less appealing. If $10 of DLC is included for $59 then why spend $54 and then another $10 later?
Granted, if you know the DLC isn't something you'd want anyway, then $5 is still $5.
Here's a twist I'd be down for:
Lock the last 2/3 of the game in DLC and sell the game for $20. If you like it, buy the DLC for $40 to unlock it and finish the game.
I've bought sooo many games and only played into them a couple hours before deciding they weren't what I was hoping for.
Thats kinda what they softly rolled out with Fable 2 and the 'episodes' online.
Chapter 1 was free for download, and then you can purchase the additional chapters.
The only thing is, after they launched that - a TON of my friends who I never could convince to buy Fable 2 tried chapter 1 for free, and saved thier game when it ended, and when they were prompted to buy Chapter 2 -- went to Gamestop and bought it used.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
The only real unreasonable thing I can recall is RE5's Vs., and the Street Fighter costumes.
Other than that Capcom seems to be one of the better companies in my opinion. Putting out RE5 Gold as DLC is an awesome move, and all the costumes for Dead Rising were free.
I'm not sure either, I just don't like them because they sacked two of the best game designers in the industry (Kamiya and Mikami) and it's obvious they've got no-one creative enough to take their place. Also, Inafune's a dick.
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
is anyone else sad to hear that EA's CEO has been losing money for 11 quarters but the quality of EA games has dramatically risen for about as long? Especially given that obviously the ability to make money is more important than the ability to make a quality product. . .
Mass Effect 2 barely fit on 2 disks? If I remember correctly they made you switch disks to help curb piracy or something and if you install the game, both disks install the same thing. I don't see what would make Mass Effect 2 any larger then Dragon Age, considering it has less dialogue and no super intensive cgi movies.
Retailers make barely any profit from selling a game. Probably around 10%. This is why places like Gamestop invest so much time into the used market. They can pay someone $20 for a used title, then turn around and put it back on the shelf for $54.99 and people will buy it because "hey, 5 dollars is 5 dollars!" Now, they've most likely made their 10% from the original sale, and have now added another $35 profit by reselling it.
I see this as an attempt to widen the gap in the used market by making that $5 off for buying used less appealing. If $10 of DLC is included for $59 then why spend $54 and then another $10 later?
Granted, if you know the DLC isn't something you'd want anyway, then $5 is still $5.
Here's a twist I'd be down for:
Lock the last 2/3 of the game in DLC and sell the game for $20. If you like it, buy the DLC for $40 to unlock it and finish the game.
I've bought sooo many games and only played into them a couple hours before deciding they weren't what I was hoping for.
Didn't some guy in 'the biz' say that he'd like to see a sort of a la carte pricing? Make the game 30 bucks but have 30 bucks of DLC. Don't want multiplayer? Don't buy it.
Retailers make barely any profit from selling a game. Probably around 10%. This is why places like Gamestop invest so much time into the used market. They can pay someone $20 for a used title, then turn around and put it back on the shelf for $54.99 and people will buy it because "hey, 5 dollars is 5 dollars!" Now, they've most likely made their 10% from the original sale, and have now added another $35 profit by reselling it.
I see this as an attempt to widen the gap in the used market by making that $5 off for buying used less appealing. If $10 of DLC is included for $59 then why spend $54 and then another $10 later?
Granted, if you know the DLC isn't something you'd want anyway, then $5 is still $5.
Here's a twist I'd be down for:
Lock the last 2/3 of the game in DLC and sell the game for $20. If you like it, buy the DLC for $40 to unlock it and finish the game.
I've bought sooo many games and only played into them a couple hours before deciding they weren't what I was hoping for.
Except the shareware model generally gives you a significant portion of the game for free, and then you just pay if you want to play the rest of it. Look at id, who made the shareware model the success that it was - Wolfenstein shareware was one fifth of the entire game. Doom shareware was one third.
Not like this example, which would be you pay some money for part of the game, and then pay some more money for the rest of it.
The demo had you running and jumping on shit...and fighting bad guys...what was misleading about that?
UnbreakableVow on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
While I understand why Gamestop does what it does when it comes to game sales, folks should realize that Gamestop is effectively turning around and kicking publishers in the gonads whenever they take a new $60 game, put it back up for $55, and pocket all the cash from the used sale. It hurts new sales, thus increasing the profit of Gamestop while making the publisher's efforts less worthwhile. Gamestop may only make 10-15 bucks off that initial sale, but the publishers make no profit off of the used sales.
The used game market is a big reason why digital downloads of games are becoming more and more prevalent. But then one of the biggest obstacles is going to be companies like Gamestop who have no intention of letting publishers take away used game sales by giving major discounts with digital downloads.
I think this $10 DLC stuff is a great idea. If Gamestop wants people to keep buying the used copies, they'll have to cut further down on the price to something actually reasonable for a used copy (because people won't want to buy something used for 55 and then another 10 on DLC) or else people will just buy a new game with the free $10 DLC. And the market will force the DLC provided to be worthwhile; if a publisher/dev starts releasing games with crappy DLC, nobody will care and the whole effort would be useless.
Also, paid shareware would be a horrible and company-wrecking idea; nobody wants to drop 20 bucks on a game just to see what it's like and then later find out it's a piece of garbage. And the the regular shareware model is basically just the demo system which we already have, just with a more reasonably-sized chunk of the game which can't be modified into allowing the player to play the full game without playing. Piracy is bad enough without publishers basically handing pirates the full game on their own dollar.
Well, right now you drop $60 on a game to find out it's garbage.
Plus, the garbage titles usually never have a demo...
I never said it wasn't a flawed method, just that it would be one I would favor if the world was a perfect utopia where everyone had broadband access and there were no pirates and hackers.
All you have to do is look at what a horrible flop DIVX was to see that we've got a long way to go for something like that to be viable in any medium.
While I understand why Gamestop does what it does when it comes to game sales, folks should realize that Gamestop is effectively turning around and kicking publishers in the gonads whenever they take a new $60 game, put it back up for $55, and pocket all the cash from the used sale. It hurts new sales, thus increasing the profit of Gamestop while making the publisher's efforts less worthwhile. Gamestop may only make 10-15 bucks off that initial sale, but the publishers make no profit off of the used sales.
The used game market is a big reason why digital downloads of games are becoming more and more prevalent. But then one of the biggest obstacles is going to be companies like Gamestop who have no intention of letting publishers take away used game sales by giving major discounts with digital downloads.
....snip
I've never understood why game developers apparently feel they have some right to the second hand market. They don't. Does Gibson Guitars have a right to skim off of a seller's profits when a music store sells a vintage Les Paul Gold Top for $20K? No, and neither does Fender, and nor do they have any right to the kind of sales a place like Music Go Round makes, which is almost entirely based off of selling used instruments. Game developers don't get to make an end run around the first sale doctrine, and neither should any other software makers, though on the PC, most use a licensing loop hole and have enough money and lawyers to get away with it.
Dark_Side on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I've never understood why game developers apparently feel they have some right to the second hand market. They don't. Does Gibson Guitars have a right to skim off of a seller's profits when a music store sells a vintage Les Paul Gold Top for $20K? No, and neither does Fender, and nor do they have any right to the kind of sales a place like Music Go Round makes, which is almost entirely based off of selling used instruments. Game developers don't get to make an end run around the first sale doctrine, and neither should any other software makers, though on the PC, most use a licensing loop hole and have enough money and lawyers to get away with it.
Oh, I completely agree that they don't have a right to the market. But look at it from their end: millions of dollars development and months or years of time for a single sale. Then Gamestop sells the game new, buys it back for dirt, cuts five bucks off the price, and undercuts the publisher out of a new sale. Gamestop doesn't just sell used games, they've built an entire company around sticking it to the publishers. Gamestop inflates the value of used games and makes selling new games less profitable. In that regard, publishers have every right to find a business model to prevent those used sales and keep the new sales coming. However, until digital distribution becomes the standard, publishers will continue to be reliant on and crippled by companies like Gamestop.
And musical instruments use a different business model anyway. A publishers has to sell thousands upon thousands of copies of something to make a profit; the profit comes from volume, not margin. For musical instruments, the builders already know how to make them and just end up using new looks, better tech, etc. Their profit margin is also much higher. So when a game developer makes a new game, they're essentially building an entirely new kind of instrument every time and trying to sell thousands if not millions of them.
The second hand market has been in existence for every product ever manufactured since the dawn of time, I don't see how this has changed at all. Every used product ever bought takes money away from the people who manufacture new ones.
This just seems to me to be a lot like "Buy a brand new Toyota and get a roof for free, or buy a used one and get a roof for $5,000, and this is justified because Toyota loses millions of dollars every year because people buy used cars instead of new ones".
SmokeStacks on
0
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
and that would be a great idea. . . provided the consumer wanted a convertible :P
also, it annoys me that convertibles generally cost more than their non-convertible counterpart even though you're getting less of a car.
Posts
What's worse is when there are multiple preorder bonuses at different retailers (ie. Ghostbusters, though I'm okay with something like a golden proton pack being preorder/collector's edition exclusive, but stuff like playable Brian Doyle Murray and the GB2 uniform should have been dlc available to all, at least eventually).
Of course, none of that is as bad as "timed dlc" (I'm looking at you, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2, even though that was probably just a cover story and it really got yanked because of Disney). I'm pretty sure if timed dlc ever becomes a norm, I'm probably going to be done with (current gen) gaming.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
You mean Shockwave, right? I'm pretty sure Soundwave is in no matter where/when you get the game.
It'll be just like counterstrike with real money.
bet ea all
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Good point, why is everyone so up in arms over this, but just kind of shrug to gamestop exclusive pre-order bonuses which are only available if you not only buy from gamestop, but are never available anywhere else after launch?
DLC is a product, unique and separate from the original game despite being closely associated.
Example 2: Lets say I film a movie and its sequel and release them simultaneously. These movies share a story line but both include a complete story arc. You buy the first movie, and are thoroughly satisfied with it as a movie, and then find out about the second. Are you horribly offended that I didn't include the next segment of the story in the first movie?
Basically what I'm saying is, if you're buying a game buy it because its a game you think you will be satisfied with. If you think $60 for a new copy is too much to ask for, and can be satisfied without the extra whatever it is they're throwing in, go for the used copy. If you don't think the game is worth $60 new, and don't think the game is worth $x used without the extra content, don't buy it. End of story, this isn't something anyone can complain about. If they overprice their product, then do with it as you would with any other overpriced product.
Why shrug? lol... because there's not a damn thing you can do about it.... so why discuss/cry over it?
I don't care to buy from GameStop because a) I like to preorder titles so I can kind of lay-away pay for them until launch, b) get preorder goodies, and c) the people at my local store are pretty friendly and don't try to bullshit me.
All 3 are winning situations, I guess people have horrendous stories or whatnot, but it's more or less a store-to-store issue with most people.
I don't know, maybe I'm still nursing a grudge from the runaround I got trying to (unsuccessfully) get the mirror's edge bonus which I ordered from their website specifically to avoid the whole store issue, but I still have a game informer subscription, so maybe I'm just a silly goose
I'm looking at you Capcom. I'm looking so hard some might call it glaring.
Also, some other implications should be discussed. The terminus gun from gamestop came awfully close to actually giving a competitive edge over others who bought the game elsewhere. If you know what I'm talking about, you know that muthafucker makes swarms of enemies trivial. That ended up being balanced by the low ammo amount and that it doesn't insta-kill bosses (although damn close), but consider if it had moved over just slightly.
Day 1 DLC okay even if it gives an in-game edge to those players?
In the realm of single player?
Multiplayer?
For example, what if only day 1 purchases of MW2 had access to the nuke?
What if day 1 purchases were given access to the AK from level 1?
So there's definitely things to consider with the DLC model that I'm sure will get abused (at least be borderline questionable). Ethically, how far is too far?
Or since it's a luxury and 'just a business' there's no such thing as too far? It's as far as the company wants it to go?
As much as I don't like Capcom these days, they're saints compared to Namco.
haha, so fucking true. Good lord the DLC for SCIV was such a ripoff. That is a prime example of content already on the disc and then released via $$$.
And I love how this plan was enacted with Mass Effect 2
The only real unreasonable thing I can recall is RE5's Vs., and the Street Fighter costumes.
Other than that Capcom seems to be one of the better companies in my opinion. Putting out RE5 Gold as DLC is an awesome move, and all the costumes for Dead Rising were free.
Protoman in Megaman 9 was pretty lame. A REAL retro-make shouldn't make you pay for unlockables.
I understand that they want to make a profit off of their game, and if I had a steady connection for my consoles I'd probably buy more DLC, but they gotta be honest and upfront about where the content is coming from.
This plan pretty much goes to pot the moment that it's revealed that companies are holding content back in order to make people buy the DLC. That's not fair to consumers, and would only make me continue to buy exclusively used and skip whatever games had this magical DLC in it.
What I don't support is pre-order bonuses, especially different ones at different shops, and special edition specific content - mainly when it's multiplayer maps or gamemodes. I can be a bit of a sucker for special editions at times but (for instance) sectioning off *half* the co-op maps for AvP and the four player co-op game-modes for Army of Two: 40th Day and Splinter Cell: Conviction makes me a sad panda. Sure I could spend the extra dough to get them but who the hell am I going to play them with? None of my usual partners anyway, this kind of stuff just creates a schism in the playerbase when not done well.
I was going to discuss the importance of when content was made and whether it resides locked on the disc or not but I feel Wezoin's metaphor did it better than I could. You have to take a game on it's own merits and decide if it's worth the price point to you.
However I do understand that completionist slightly OCD bent that some people have. Seeing a blank space in the party selection screen in Mass Effect 2 would set my teeth on edge as well but at the same time I'd hesitate to argue that this is a reasonable complaint. If it bothers you that much then it probably is worth the extra cash to you to experience the 'full' game.
I also understand how it could lower the perceived value of a game for some people, and hopefully developers do too. It means for completionists the investment just got higher and some people are all or nothing types. I mulled over purchasing Army of Two: The 40th Day and it may have been the preorder only 4 player co-op mode that swayed me to the side of skipping it. If I saw it on the shelves during the first week while bumming about town I may have impulse purchased, but I'd missed the window on one of the most interesting game modes and by the time the 'timed bonus' period expired and the game mode was available to all it was old hat and I'd moved on. I'm fickle like that.
The only thing that really worries me about the Mass Effect 2 day one DLC* is that they've really sold us the promise of additional content and everyone is going to have different expectations of what that means. That's a very dodgy proposition to me. The Left4Dead situation is good example, people expected TF2 levels of new content and got a truncated campaign. In ME2 it's a slightly different proposition, the promise is slightly more codified considering you have the paid-for / new-purchase DLC delivery system for further DLC. As it stands I buy new all the time and it matters little to me, but what is up there at the minute isn't worth 1200 mspoints and if they just trickle feed us a couple more ugly ass armours and shotgun variants and call it a day then anyone who bought used and paid for the content will probably feel shafted.
* On the other hand I do like the way it's integrated, I'm near the end game for my first playthrough and you just get an e-mail from the IM about this new armour they've sent you etc. Seems to be a decent effort to tie it in with the fluff. Better than the dragon age fellow who asks you for a favour and then quickly follows it up by asking for your credit card details if you want to do him this favour. Is the 'daily news' report that has been updating in real-ish time about Belan the preamble to some DLC or just a little extra fluff I wonder?
I see this as an attempt to widen the gap in the used market by making that $5 off for buying used less appealing. If $10 of DLC is included for $59 then why spend $54 and then another $10 later?
Granted, if you know the DLC isn't something you'd want anyway, then $5 is still $5.
Here's a twist I'd be down for:
Lock the last 2/3 of the game in DLC and sell the game for $20. If you like it, buy the DLC for $40 to unlock it and finish the game.
I've bought sooo many games and only played into them a couple hours before deciding they weren't what I was hoping for.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
Chapter 1 was free for download, and then you can purchase the additional chapters.
The only thing is, after they launched that - a TON of my friends who I never could convince to buy Fable 2 tried chapter 1 for free, and saved thier game when it ended, and when they were prompted to buy Chapter 2 -- went to Gamestop and bought it used.
I'm not sure either, I just don't like them because they sacked two of the best game designers in the industry (Kamiya and Mikami) and it's obvious they've got no-one creative enough to take their place. Also, Inafune's a dick.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
And advertise. Wait, fuck that.
Demos you pay for? Fuck that.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
It's not too different from the shareware model.
Twitter
Demos aren't always a good gauge of what a game will be.
Remember the Mirror's Edge demo?
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
Not like this example, which would be you pay some money for part of the game, and then pay some more money for the rest of it.
......Fair enough!
Twitter
The used game market is a big reason why digital downloads of games are becoming more and more prevalent. But then one of the biggest obstacles is going to be companies like Gamestop who have no intention of letting publishers take away used game sales by giving major discounts with digital downloads.
I think this $10 DLC stuff is a great idea. If Gamestop wants people to keep buying the used copies, they'll have to cut further down on the price to something actually reasonable for a used copy (because people won't want to buy something used for 55 and then another 10 on DLC) or else people will just buy a new game with the free $10 DLC. And the market will force the DLC provided to be worthwhile; if a publisher/dev starts releasing games with crappy DLC, nobody will care and the whole effort would be useless.
Also, paid shareware would be a horrible and company-wrecking idea; nobody wants to drop 20 bucks on a game just to see what it's like and then later find out it's a piece of garbage. And the the regular shareware model is basically just the demo system which we already have, just with a more reasonably-sized chunk of the game which can't be modified into allowing the player to play the full game without playing. Piracy is bad enough without publishers basically handing pirates the full game on their own dollar.
I'm assuming he means to the change in pacing later in the game, where a few areas can feel easier if you shoot guards down.
Twitter
Plus, the garbage titles usually never have a demo...
I never said it wasn't a flawed method, just that it would be one I would favor if the world was a perfect utopia where everyone had broadband access and there were no pirates and hackers.
All you have to do is look at what a horrible flop DIVX was to see that we've got a long way to go for something like that to be viable in any medium.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I've never understood why game developers apparently feel they have some right to the second hand market. They don't. Does Gibson Guitars have a right to skim off of a seller's profits when a music store sells a vintage Les Paul Gold Top for $20K? No, and neither does Fender, and nor do they have any right to the kind of sales a place like Music Go Round makes, which is almost entirely based off of selling used instruments. Game developers don't get to make an end run around the first sale doctrine, and neither should any other software makers, though on the PC, most use a licensing loop hole and have enough money and lawyers to get away with it.
Oh, I completely agree that they don't have a right to the market. But look at it from their end: millions of dollars development and months or years of time for a single sale. Then Gamestop sells the game new, buys it back for dirt, cuts five bucks off the price, and undercuts the publisher out of a new sale. Gamestop doesn't just sell used games, they've built an entire company around sticking it to the publishers. Gamestop inflates the value of used games and makes selling new games less profitable. In that regard, publishers have every right to find a business model to prevent those used sales and keep the new sales coming. However, until digital distribution becomes the standard, publishers will continue to be reliant on and crippled by companies like Gamestop.
And musical instruments use a different business model anyway. A publishers has to sell thousands upon thousands of copies of something to make a profit; the profit comes from volume, not margin. For musical instruments, the builders already know how to make them and just end up using new looks, better tech, etc. Their profit margin is also much higher. So when a game developer makes a new game, they're essentially building an entirely new kind of instrument every time and trying to sell thousands if not millions of them.
This just seems to me to be a lot like "Buy a brand new Toyota and get a roof for free, or buy a used one and get a roof for $5,000, and this is justified because Toyota loses millions of dollars every year because people buy used cars instead of new ones".
also, it annoys me that convertibles generally cost more than their non-convertible counterpart even though you're getting less of a car.
This'd be like "Hey, buy a new Toyota and get a free gas card!"
You don't need the free gas card to drive the car. You can buy it at any gas station. But it certainly helps.