[Dyno]

I noticed that Max Payne 3's $30 season pass is now up on PSN. This is something that we have seen from most major North American developers over the past year or so. I watched some of the videos for Max Payne 3 and it mentions that the multiplayer ships with only two modes.

So this is how the companies are softening the market to accept paying more than $60 for a game. It started with baby steps of $5 and $10 DLC but now were up to the true intention all along : a price point of $90 to receive all of the content that has been planned and mostly developed before launch.

The season pass model seems to have gained traction with game companies and they all seem to be working together to normalize it by offering similar packages at the same price point. They have to release a $60 version of the product to avoid consumer revolt but when a game ships with just two multiplayer modes it feels like they are only grudgingly doing so.

When this practice began an argument can and was made that the $60 version of the game was complete or complete enough and the DLC was merely extras. After all the vanilla game still has to score well on Metacritic and the like. I can see this changing however, changing as much as the DLC has changed since the start of this console generation. Multiplayer modes tend to not get the same level of scrutiny in a review as the quickly played single player portions. In time I would not be surprised if some of the most interesting and innovative game modes are saved for the season's pass in order to further boost their sales.

Do you feel that 90 is the new 60? I'm interested in NeoGAF's thoughts on this matter.

[Curufinwe]

You left "some" out of your thread title, but games with a huge multiplayer focus that also have tons of DLC planned are a big turnoff for me.

[Santiako]

No, the game is the same price. The DLC is an option.

[LiK]

nah, if you wait for it to drop to $30, it's still $60 ;)

[sn00zer]

PC gaming man.... its the only way to go...havent spent more than $20 on a game in years

[Parallax Scroll]

You could always just not buy the extra stuff.

[jsnepo]

If this happens to all games then I won't be buying new or I'll wait for a significant price drop. Maybe the GOTY version too.

[Sho_Nuff82]

Stop buying DLC that isn't full fledged expansions. Problem solved.

[The_Darkest_Red]

I don't think it's nearly as extreme as the game having a $90 price-tag on store shelves and this certainly isn't the case with most games presently but yes, I am sick of DLC in general.

The kind of stuff that really bothers me is when the "true" ending of a game is sold as DLC (see: Asura's Wrath).

[Senoculum]

The day games are 90 bucks at the local game store is the day I will forever purchase only used games.

[bluedeviltron]

Your definition of 'full game' is different than mine.

The comically easy answer to this is don't buy season passes and don't buy games that aren't worth $60 in the box.

[Psy-Phi]

PC gaming man.... its the only way to go...havent spent more than $20 on a game in years

Then you still don't buy new games. Spending that kind of money is not exclusive to PC games..unless you're talkin Indie downloadable only games, in which case...still not exclusive to PC games.

[HomerSimpson-Man]

I simply stopped paying day one prices for games years ago. I built myself a gaming rig and with crazy Steam, and now constant Amazon and other digital media sales, I'm in a constant backlog so when I have time to get to said games (PC or console), it's already discounted and/or released a complete "GOTY" edition.

[Fireye]

PC gaming man.... its the only way to go...havent spent more than $20 on a game in years

But then there's stuff like RDR, which will never come to PC :(

[Deadly Cyclone]

No, the game is the same price. The DLC is an option.

Pretty much this. I want my favorite games to be supported post launch. I like having new maps for multiplayer games. No, I don't like when those maps are done before launch, but most aren't.

[EuropeOG]

No, the game is the same price. The DLC is an option.

Unless you're Gears of War 3 where you get punished for not having the DLC's ( i.e. no dedicated servers :( )

[BolognaSoup]

I buy maybe 1 game a year at $60 and I will never buy season passes so...

In fact if a game is going to have a season pass, I'm less likely to buy it at all.

[Ace Harding]

Here we go...

The game costs $60. There is going to be DLC available, just as it has been for years now for lots of games. You don't have to buy it (or the $60 game).

And I wouldn't expect many devs/pubs to "save" the best features of games for DLC. They want you to buy the $60 game first.

Also, would you rather they charged $90, or give you the option of buying the season pass for an additional $30? Personally, I'm not forking over cash for a "season" of DLC until I know what it is. By then, I will have decided that I love the game, trust the developer, and that another $30 for the content they've promised is well worth it. Hasn't happened yet.

[DR3AM]

Madden 12 I think would cost around $450 including all the DLC crap.

[OldJadedGamer]

I picked up Gears of War 3 used for $20 bucks and there is all kinds of paid DLC but I'm having fun playing what shipped with the game. As long as there is good original content, I don't mind the charge for the people who want more. Just don't makemthe game unplayable without it.

Unless you're Gears of War 3 where you get punished for not having the DLC's ( i.e. no dedicated servers :( )

You can still play on dedicated servers, just not on as many.

[Dyno]

You left "some" out of your thread title, but games with a huge multiplayer focus that also have tons of DLC planned are a big turnoff for me.

Yeah I went for the more sensational title. When you look at the games that have done this however: Uncharted, Gears of War, Max Payne, Mass Effect and of course Call of Duty - these are the giants of the industry. They lead the way and others hope to follow. It seems that if your game is big enough and popular enough to justify a $30 DLC package then you do it, wrap it in a bow, and hope to make as many $90 sales as possible.

[Dorfdad]

Ill never pay that asinine rate. Developers and publishers need to get there asses in check. Look at the economy, look at the competition for gaming from Apple and others.

$90.00 is stupid. $60.00 is even much for me anymore. So NO I will not be pursing this type of gaming.

[Coxswain]

It's scummy as shit and being optional doesn't do a thing to change it, but I also can't think of a single worthwhile game that's done it, so it's hard to really get worked up over it.

[Metalmurphy]

No, the game is the same price. The DLC is an option.

People like you are the reason this is happening.

[C_H_T]

Don't buy games on day 1 when you think it isnt worth, but if you really want to play that game on day 1, there are 2 options: rent the game or buy the game new and sell it as quick as you finish the game.

[ScraftyDevil]

I don't think it's nearly as extreme as the game having a $90 price-tag on store shelves and this certainly isn't the case with most games presently but yes, I am sick of DLC in general. The kind of stuff that really bothers me is when the "true" ending of a game is sold as DLC (see: Asura's Wrath).

That was more poor advertising than anything, considering it's an more of a coda than a "true" ending. If they had advertised it as a "bonus" chapter instead, I can gurantee you that more people would be buying it.

[kittens]

nah, if you wait for it to drop to $30, it's still $60 ;)

I really do consider buying games day one as buying "early" now. Like, a kind of premium option. Want it really really bad? Day one for $60. Can you wait a month? Then buy it for $30.

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ehh, no biggie. I will spend $60 for Diablo 3 and have it last me 10x longer than the $90 game =D

[CecilRousso]

Isn´t the extra $30 for a season pass of DLC unnecessary and a bit dumb to buy?

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

OP is still right imo..you pay 60 for the "game" 90 for the full game..If you dont have dlc you dont have everything associated with that game. Its like if smw released now for 60....but 30$ season pass for star road levels..gtfo.

[dragonelite]

I see season pass like preordering a expansion pack and you get content spread over a time.
But from what i heard only good Season pack offering so far was that of Gears of War 3.

[The_Darkest_Red]

That was more poor advertising than anything, considering it's an more of a coda than a "true" ending. If they had advertised it as a "bonus" chapter instead, I can gurantee you that more people would be buying it.

I haven't played the game but based on everything I've heard (mostly from stuff like the Bombcast) it totally sounds like it's the real ending to the game.

On another note, a lot of people here are mentioning that the DLC is optional but the obvious implication posed by the OP is that this "optional" content was really just removed so that it could be sold separately later. Obviously it's hard to know how true this is and it varies from game to game but I certainly think it's something to be aware of.

[Durante]

It's simple: don't buy games if you don't like the value proposition.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Your definition of 'full game' is different than mine. The comically easy answer to this is don't buy season passes and don't buy games that aren't worth $60 in the box.

B-b-but my gamer OCD requires that I have all the content available! If it don't, it's not the "full" game!

[Speedymanic]

If a game is going to have lots of single player DLC, I don't care and will happily drop upwards of 30 bucks for a SP (although I am slightly more weary about doing this after the The Third's pisspoor DLC), but MP DLC can suck a fat one.

[Ken Masters]

I noticed that Max Payne 3's $30 season pass is now up on PSN. This is something that we have seen from most major North American developers over the past year or so. I watched some of the videos for Max Payne 3 and it mentions that the multiplayer ships with only two modes. So this is how the companies are softening the market to accept paying more than $60 for a game. It started with baby steps of $5 and $10 DLC but now were up to the true intention all along : a price point of $90 to receive all of the content that has been planned and mostly developed before launch. The season pass model seems to have gained traction with game companies and they all seem to be working together to normalize it by offering similar packages at the same price point. They have to release a $60 version of the product to avoid consumer revolt but when a game ships with just two multiplayer modes it feels like they are only grudgingly doing so. When this practice began an argument can and was made that the $60 version of the game was complete or complete enough and the DLC was merely extras. After all the vanilla game still has to score well on Metacritic and the like. I can see this changing however, changing as much as the DLC has changed since the start of this console generation. Multiplayer modes tend to not get the same level of scrutiny in a review as the quickly played single player portions. In time I would not be surprised if some of the most interesting and innovative game modes are saved for the season's pass in order to further boost their sales. Do you feel that 90 is the new 60? I'm interested in NeoGAF's thoughts on this matter.

This game will be on sale for $40 a couple weeks after release, like ALL major releases (except COD)

Just wait a little

[Visualante2]

I've been thinking recently, whether full games will get green lit based on their ability to sell DLC, and thus reduce used games.

No map packs? No side stories? No game.

[open_mouth_]

I just bought Sin & Punishment for $5 shipped, so no

[michaelius]

Only if you enjoy half assed no effert DLC for big bucks

[Brera]

As the gaming market has evolved, so have my buying habits.

I don't buy games at launch anymore. I wait till UK BOMBA kicks in.

Then, I don't buy DLC...EVER!

More should do the same, but then again, those that do, kinda subsidizes my gaming habits.

[Costcosaurus]

The thread title is misleading to the point that it made me believe that the retail prices of games raised up to $90.

[ScraftyDevil]

I haven't played the game but based on everything I've heard (mostly from stuff like the Bombcast) it totally sounds like it's the real ending to the game.

Nah, it's more of a "what if?" scenario, as far as I know. The canon ending is the one the game shipped with.

[FrontalMonk]

It's simple: don't buy games if you don't like the value proposition.

I've been buying fewer and fewer games this gen by following this advice.

[Massa]

People like you are the reason this is happening.

No, game budgets growing faster than audience is the reason this is happening.

[Derrick01]

On amazon it looks like MP3 is $60. I'm not going to buy any shitty multiplayer DLC so I don't know why you're telling me it's $90.

[The_Darkest_Red]

Nah, it's more of a "what if?" scenario, as far as I know. The canon ending is the one the game shipped with.

Oh, okay. Well I guess there are conflicting opinions on it.

[edgefusion]

I haven't played the game but based on everything I've heard (mostly from stuff like the Bombcast) it totally sounds like it's the real ending to the game. On another note, a lot of people here are mentioning that the DLC is optional but the obvious implication posed by the OP is that this "optional" content was really just removed so that it could be sold separately later. Obviously it's hard to know how true this is and it varies from game to game but I certainly think it's something to be aware of.

I just rented Asura's Wrath and based on the comments I'm reading here it looks like once I've finished it I'll be.... watching the DLC ending on YouTube. Thrifty gaming!

[OldJadedGamer]

This game will be on sale for $40 a couple weeks after release, like ALL major releases (except COD) Just wait a little

Max Payne is already $50 on launch day if you buy through Amazon.

[HylianTom]

Hmm. I paid $50 for most of my Day 1 games this generation. And no DLC to be bothered about! :)

[Meisadragon]

It kind of feels like you aren't getting enough content when you see these DLCs being revealed before the game is even released.

It's optional and these developers want some extra revenue from gamers who are willing to pay for these additional content. I don't think that's wrong, but revealing everything before the game's out does feel a bit unprofessional. If the base game is filled with enough content and reviews well, then I don't think there's any problem with it.

I'm against on-disc DLC though.