Support NeoGAF

[Junahu]

It's very difficult to listen to someone who preaches about value and then makes tons of videos over plastic figures that are essentially DLC.

A lot of DLC sucks, but it can be done properly.

Honestly, despite having very little digital value, plastic figures are actually a beneficial form of DLC for kids. The requirement to physically purchase them draws attention to their cost, and to the fact that a purchase is being made (as opposed to clicking "confirm" on a storefront).
Unlike digital DLC, there's a greater sense of something happening when toy DLC is purchased. It's not nebulous or impersonal; you have the toy in-hand, this represents your DLC.


Also, even when the child stops playing the game, they still own something of value to them. That alone validates toy DLC.

 

[GKFinns]

I have zero issues with any of this. I enjoy DLC in my games. If it is a game I find enjoyable, having more content arrive months down the line extends my enjoyment of the game. It is that simple to me.

People keep throwing Mortal Kombat X as an example of the detriment of DLC and microtransactions. Why? Everything is available to gain by simply playing the game. Nothing is behind a paywall. So they added an option for lazier gamers to unlock everything from the start or get easy fatalities. Good! Some people hate the grind in fighting games to unlock everything. Let those people spend more money if they feel their time is more valuable than their money. Meanwhile, I am happy I have so much to work towards because now my time spent enjoying the game has increased.

It's all perspective, but NetherRealm is giving both camps the choice. Pay or play. Neither is forced to do the other.

 

[ANDS]

The DLC that I think rubs folks the wrong way is the content that is clearly "finished" but is held back to artificially extend the life of a game. The DESTINY DLC is a clear offender here, even if the DLC wasn't quite finished.

When expansion packs were the norm, folks didn't get upset when these things dropped because there was significant content to warrant adding on to the "base game". When you are holding back monsters and character skins as paid DLC, then you start pissing off your consumer base.

And for what it is worth, I have no problem with the MKX DLC/MT. The game you get at purchase is significant, and nothing available in the Krypt or as a MT keeps you from having a decent gaming experience with the characters you know and love. For those who are going to play the game A LOT over the next year or so, unlocking all items and finishers isn't going to be a problem. Unlocking it in a weeks time? Yea maybe.

 

[mclem]

Except no? You can still make incredible looking games without sinking the massive budget that larger studios do. Think of all the money EA throws at marketing,

Well, they're spending money on marketing with the expectation of a return of investment. That's not a budgetary consideration on the dev side.

Or maybe have your development studio in a location where the cost of living isn't ridiculously high.

Which is not something you can exactly change on-the-fly.

How do you reconcile this 'Just make things cheaper' idea with the fact that game development is built on a pervasive culture of crunch consisting of tons of (in many cases unpaid) overtime?

In the "stupid game dev questions" thread a while back, I wrote something about my thoughts on budgeting:

This is a difficult question, so I'll give the simple base answer, and then expand on it. I do also need to point out that a fair deal of the management movements were my impression from my role as a coder, and it's quite possible I'm being unfair or inaccurate, for which I apologise, but my perception of the issue was:

On the development side, I - quite simply - do not think money was being spent excessively. The people I worked with worked long hours with poor wages fuelled mostly by passion - and free pizza. There was an understanding that this was necessary to meet the requirements of the job. So, to reiterate: with the budget development had, we still felt we had to work many extra hours for free in order to meet the requirements.

If anything, the budget for development was too low.


Now, aside from that, I - along with many others - have often clamoured that budgets are too high. So how do we reconcile those two things?


The issue is one of scope, in part. As an independent studio, we were dependent on commissioning projects from publishers; we'd produce prototypes to try to demonstrate a workable game, management would negotiate titles and licenses they'd like to produce. And to do that, to secure that, they had to promise things we simply were not equipped to deliver at the price they agreed upon - but that got money in the company's coffers, and kept us going, it was simply regarded as what was necessary for survival.

One issue, I think, is the workforce, and I'm not so arrogant as to not include myself in that. There was a regular rhythm of getting fresh-faced people in from university, full of energy and passion, and pushing them as hard as they could at a low wage. Again, not through any idea of cruelty, just a feeling that it was necessary. They'd get burned out and leave, and replaced, and the cycle would continue. We had a fairly ridiculous turnover some years - I put that many pound coins in leaving-present envelopes...

I wonder if it may have been more productive - and cheaper in the long run - to have worked with better-paid, more experienced teams rather than having that turnover and relearning process. I don't know, myself.

As I got burned out, my passion and work quality definitely deteriorated. Ultimately, one prototype we'd pushed hard for (and it's been long enough now that I can probably safely say was for Squeenix, a sort of FPS with Pokemon elements - yes, really) fell through, and they needed to make layoffs, and that included me. It hurt at the time, but from a purely pragmatic point of view, I think it was the right thing to do. There were far more valuable and productive people laid off in the same wave, and had I stayed when they went, it'd have been quite unjust.

(As an aside: If I remember rightly, one of the management did suggest to me that Eidos pushed for the title to fall through on the grounds that they disliked us because we now owned what was Core. I... will admit to being somewhat sceptical of that claim!)

I had a point in there somewhere. What was it? Oh yes!

In my opinion: the scope of games is simply too large now, and consumer expectation is too great. The budgets are actually reasonable for the amount of content that's being produced. There's a fear that reducing the scope of games significantly would result in that title being ignored (percieved as 'not as valuable' as the blockbusters), so it turns into an arms race, driven mostly by the big guys.

Smaller games, right now, seem like a smart move. To link to another thread at the moment, Titanfall might well be doing the right thing, even though it's not particularly to my tastes. The problem is convincing publishers that the smaller titles have a better-reward-to-opportunity-cost ratio than blockbusters, and that's tricky.


It's a major reason why I find the rise of independent gaming and the kickstarter trend to be so exciting right now. While there are exceptions, Indie games are working strictly to what they're capable of. Crowdfunding has the developer lay out what they feel they can realistically promise for the given funding in advance. It's not a back-and-forth negotiation with the publisher holding the upper hand. There's some misjudgements, of course - it's early days - but it's a start that's oh-so-thrilling.

 

[Clear]

Tell me at what point sentence 1 made the statement you claimed in sentence 2. You exaggerated my statements as being ill-intentioned and trying to run a sweat shop like development studio.

I don't want to get into a fight with you, and my point was that your argument was ill-considered, rather than ill-intentioned.

I already explained why location matters, and why its a factor in recruitment. Ultimately your argument was all about cutting costs in production, and reducing payroll is a component of that process. I phrased it crudely in order to make a point about how unattractive it is from an employee/management relationship standpoint, not to shame you personally.

 

[vg260]

I have zero issues with any of this. I enjoy DLC in my games. If it is a game I find enjoyable, having more content arrive months down the line extends my enjoyment of the game. It is that simple to me.

People keep throwing Mortal Kombat X as an example of the detriment of DLC and microtransactions. Why? Everything is available to gain by simply playing the game. Nothing is behind a paywall. So they added an option for lazier gamers to unlock everything from the start or get easy fatalities. Good! Some people hate the grind in fighting games to unlock everything. Let those people spend more money if they feel their time is more valuable than their money. Meanwhile, I am happy I have so much to work towards because now my time spent enjoying the game has increased.

It's all perspective, but NetherRealm is giving both camps the choice. Pay or play. Neither is forced to do the other.

But which of these would you think is more likely?:
a) NR simply made the game and when completed NR/WB said, ok now, how much should we charge for an unlock option?
b) They planned to offer an unlock purchase as part of their projected revenue stream for the game, and took the that into consideration when determining the in-game unlock progression and player time involved.
I find b) way more likely. That affects the experience even if you don't buy the unlocks.

 

[IISANDERII]

Loving Bloodbone's pure experience. You pay your price of admission and that's it, their world is now your world.

Playing an EA or Ubisoft game is like paying a price of admission for a flea market. You enter and you walk around but all the while you see what you don't have and get harassed by salesmen trying to peddle their products.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I imagine that they DO mind, but begrudgingly empty their wallets anyway, because the sunk cost compels them to give that little bit more for the full experience.

This was certainly the case for me and Theatrythm's DLC, where I ended up buying literally everything, at a cost of nearly £100. I did mind spending that money, but I spent it anyway. And knowing how much I spent makes me feel bitter and rotten about the experience.

I eventually sold Theatrhythm Curtain Call because as much as I loved it, I just kept wanting to buy every new song and once I realized I'd literally spent more on DLC than the full game, but for fewer songs than it shipped with, it just had to stop.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Aside from that, saying you shouldn't trust any company to not attempt to be successful (by trying to getting you to buy the products they're selling) isn't even an argument. It's just silly. Every single other industry notwithstanding, monetary-led game design has been a reality that we've lived with since the first game designed to be sold existed. It's basically what defines the video games industry. It's not because of DLC or microtransactions, these are just different ways of monetizing. Just like arcades are, or subscription MMOs are, or shareware, or episodic, or Satellaview, or Gametap, or PS Now. Or the traditional lump sum of money for game. Whether any of those hamper the enjoyment of the game design they influenced can't be made into a blanket statement.

I don't overly follow what you're trying to convince me of here. I responded to "I don't buy micro-transactions, so they don't effect me" by pointing out that yes, they do effect you even if you don't purchase them because game design decision were made with them in mind. I didn't make any blanket statements about how your enjoyment of a product should be effected by that.

All I'm saying is, yes, of course they made decisions to try and influence you into buying micro-transactions. Which, you seem to agree with me on. How you feel about that is up to, I'm just saying don't be so naive to think that the game was made in a vacuum away from any talks of micro-transactions and DLC.

He also has one mentioning Hyrule Warriors' approach quite positively. It's more nuanced than a blanket THIS BAD.

Oh, I agree. Like I said earlier, there is absolutely good DLC.

 

[J'aime Fils-Aime]

Honestly, despite having very little digital value, plastic figures are actually a beneficial form of DLC for kids. The requirement to physically purchase them draws attention to their cost, and to the fact that a purchase is being made (as opposed to clicking "confirm" on a storefront).
Unlike digital DLC, there's a greater sense of something happening when toy DLC is purchased. It's not nebulous or impersonal; you have the toy in-hand, this represents your DLC.


Also, even when the child stops playing the game, they still own something of value to them. That alone validates toy DLC.

Personally, I'd rather pay $5 for an extra character than $10 for an extra character and cheap plastic figure that just wastes space. Just because it's a physical object doesn't mean it's not junk, and personally, I'd rather more money than more junk.

 

[FullmetalPain]

This is coming from the same guy who constantly runs paid promotions on his channel. His channel went for a whole week of paid promotions last year, and loot crate pays him to do his loot crate videos.

 

[Slayven]

Video Game companies aren't your friend, and their there to make a profit.

 

[Protome]

We are really just coming full circle to the Arcade model of doing things.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Another video preaching to the choir.

 

[shanafan]

Video Game companies aren't your friend, and their there to make a profit.

Of course, that is how they stay in business. Every company out there needs to be make a profit. It's not being greedy or rude, it's making a profit to stay in business. In today's video game market, DLC is a way to make a profit and stay competitive in its tough market.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Another video preaching to the choir.

This. Dear god this.

I swear videogame Youtubers will kill their own thing by just regurgitating their topics and their audiences opinions over and over and over and over and over again, without bringing anything interesting whatsoever to the table. Next week: Why "Toy 2 Life" will kill the industry, and why Nintendo should do something different.

Except for Jim Sterling, maybe.

 

[KJRS_1993]

Whats his alternative strategy for funding the insane cost of developing next gen games?

Oh, he doesn't have one, what a surprise.

Definitely second this.
The alternative is to increase the base price of the base game, and people definitely aren't going to like that one.

And no, you can't reduce the budget of Triple A titles drastically.
You will just be outdone by your competitors who continue to invest a higher budget into their product's development and marketing.

Plus, as a side. One way to reduce budget is to reuse old assets. And how much did people moan their tits off because a cutscene in Call of Duty Ghosts had 40 seconds of animation from Modern Warfare 2?

Except for Jim Sterling, maybe.

Definitely not an exception for Jim Sterling.
The "I'm the voice of the people, standing up to greedy evil publishers" shtick is just as strong in that one as it is the rest of them.

 

[Klossen]

Definitely second this.
The alternative is to increase the base price of the base game, and people definitely aren't going to like that one.

And no, you can't reduce the budget of Triple A titles drastically.
You will just be outdone by your competitors who continue to invest a higher budget into their product's development and marketing.

Plus, as a side. One way to reduce budget is to reuse old assets. And how much did people moan their tits off because a cutscene in Call of Duty Ghosts had 40 seconds of animation from Modern Warfare 2?

Actually, the alternative is selling the game to a wider audience, which is exactly what AAA big-budget games are doing. So them being big-budgeted also means that they will sell more on average than a lower-budgeted game. Therefore it's not reasonable that a big-budget game should be drastically more expensive than a mid-budget game as the intended demographics are most likely in proportion to their budgets.

You don't pay five times more to see blockbusters than you do regular dramas despite the huge difference in budget. Why? Because the big-budget production recoups its costs by appealing to a larger audience.

 

[KJRS_1993]

Actually, the alternative is selling the game to a wider audience, which is exactly what AAA big-budget games are doing. So them being big-budgeted also means that they will sell more on average than a lower-budgeted game. Therefore it's not reasonable that a big-budget game should be drastically more expensive than a mid-budget game as the intended demographics are most likely in proportion to their budgets.

You don't pay five times more to see blockbusters than you do regular dramas despite the huge difference in budget. Why? Because the big-budget production recoups its costs by appealing to a larger audience.

I do agree with this, but it's also true that a huge selection of games are too complicated to appeal to a huge audience.
Look at the complaints of "dumbing down" the Elder Scrolls series back when Skyrim reduced the amount of character attributes from around 9-10 to 3.
That simplification is part of appealing to a wider audience, but how much resistance do these changes always run into when they're announced?

Edit : clarification

Edit+1 : and how do you get the game into a wider audience? You need to market the shit out of them. This isn't as simple as a lot of people think.

 

[Silvard]

I don't overly follow what you're trying to convince me of here. I responded to "I don't buy micro-transactions, so they don't effect me" by pointing out that yes, they do effect you even if you don't purchase them because game design decision were made with them in mind. I didn't make any blanket statements about how your enjoyment of a product should be effected by that.

All I'm saying is, yes, of course they made decisions to try and influence you into buying micro-transactions. Which, you seem to agree with me on. How you feel about that is up to, I'm just saying don't be so naive to think that the game was made in a vacuum away from any talks of micro-transactions and DLC.



Oh, I agree. Like I said earlier, there is absolutely good DLC.

Sorry, I made the mistake of expounding on some things on a post where I quoted you. The blanket statement about enjoyment is Boogie's statement, under the guise of it being a "truth".

Obviously we agree that money influences game design, if anything I go further by saying it's not limited to recent trends like DLC or microtransactions, and that it's been there since the start. I just find the Jim Sterling observation or warning, the one about not trusting a company to not want to sell you what they sell, a bit vapid. The thing I disagree with is that while it's almost impossible to say that money doesn't influence game design, calling people naive for saying it doesn't affect them is basically commenting on their enjoyment, since I believe that their personal enjoyment is what they're talking about when they're talking about the effect these monetization schemes have or don't have on them.

 

[RedSwirl]

Think of Hollywood. There's barely any difference between watching a 200 million dollar blockbuster as it is watching a 20 million dollar drama. Why? Because the expensive blockbuster recoups its costs by aiming at a massive audience. The 20 million dollar drama is made for a niche which is why it's just as expensive as the blockbuster.

This is actually one of the main differences between Hollywood and gaming. The easiest movie to film is the one with just two people talking in a room. The hardest movie to film is the one with space ships and explosions. The easiest game to design is the one with space ships and explosions. The hardest game to design is the one with just two people talking in a room.

Did Wolfenstein TNO or The Evil Within take some ridiculous amount of money? Probably not, and they also don't have horrific microtransactions or cash grab DLC either. Instead they have real Expansion DLC. What about Bloodborne? Clearly it didn't bloat its budget to the point of needing to rely on Microtransactions.

Just what is it that Bethesda/Zenimax is doing that allows it and its subsidiaries to make games the way they do? Bethesda looks like almost the last big publisher in the business of making boxed games that can be enjoyed in their entirety without an internet connection, save for large chunks of singleplayer DLC.

Elder Scrolls and Fallout -- All singleplayer, expansion packs and story-based DLC. Skyrim sells 35 million copies.

Dishonored -- All singleplayer. Story-based DLC packs that combined are nearly the size of the base game.

Wolfenstein -- All singleplayer, soon to be getting two story-based DLC packs of probably similar size to Dishonored.

The Evil Within -- All singleplayer, just got a nice chunk of story-based DLC.

 

[EpicBox]

Publishers would like us to believe that paying for more stuff is a fun gameplay mechanic.

It isn't.

 

[Dr.Acula]

How the fuck are these AAAs spending hundreds of millions of dollars on budget? Are they insane? Sounds like a lot of money is being wasted, if they want to make more money then they should look inwards first.

Average employee salary, $60,000. Number of employees, 300. Development time, 3 years. That takes you over 50 million right there. Then you have to buy office space, keep the lights on, license tools, buy computers, stock the pop machine, burn and ship the discs, advertising, etc. etc.

 

[SeanTSC]

So I went through all 91 PS4 games that I currently own.

Games with no paid for DLC/Microtransactions: 61 Titles

Aaru's Awakening
Apotheon
Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China
Axiom Verge
Bloodborne
Bound by Flame
Contrast
CounterSpy
Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin
Daylight
Dead Nation
Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition
DmC: Definitive Edition
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Fez
Final Fantasy Type-0 HD
Game of Thrones (Telltale)
Guacamelee! Super Turbo Championship Edition
Hand of Fate
Hotline Miami
inFAMOUS: Second Son (Has a couple pre-order only cosmetics)
inFAMOUS: First Light (Stand Alone Expansion)
Injustice: Gods Among Us Ultimate Edition
Knack
Life is Strange
Mercenary Kings
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
Metro Redux
Natural Doctrine (1 *Free* Minor Content DLC)
Never Alone
OlliOlli 2: Welcome to Olliwood
Pix the Cat
PixelJunk Shooter Ultimate
Resident Evil HD
Road Not Taken
Rogue Legacy
Shadow Warrior
Shovel Knight
Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition
Spelunky
Sportsfriends
SteamWorld Dig
Stick it to the Man
Strider
Strike Suit Zero: Director's Cut
Tales from the Borderlands
The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
The Legend of Korra
The Order: 1886 (has a couple pre-order only cosmetics)
The Swapper
The Unfinished Swan
The Walking Dead: Season 1
The Walking Dead: Season 2
The Wolf Among Us
Titan Attacks!
Tower of Guns
TowerFall Ascension
Transistor
Trine Enchanted Edition
Trine 2 Complete Story
Valiant Hearts: The Great War
Wolfenstein: The New Order (Stand Alone Expansion Coming)


Games with DLC/Microtransactions: 4 Titles

Assassin's Creed: Unity - Currency Microtransactions, "Time Saver" Unlocks, Minor Weapon DLC, Free Content Expansion DLC
Dragon Age: Inquisition - Multiplayer Currency Microtransactions, "Deluxe Edition" Cosmetic/Starter Weapon DLC, Content Expansion DLC (Out on XB1, coming in May on other platforms)
Grand Theft Auto V - Multiplayer Currency Microtransactions
Plants Vs. Zombies Garden Warfare - Multiplayer Currency Microtransactions

Games with just DLC: 26

Assassin's Creed: Black Flag - "Time Saver" Unlocks, Minor Content DLC, Multiplayer Character/Costume DLC, Cosmetic DLC, Content Expansion DLC, Season Pass
Child of Light - Cosmetic DLC, Minor Item Packs
Destiny - Content Expansion DLC
Doki-Doki Universe - Content Expansion DLC
Don't Starve - Content Expansion DLC
Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends Complete Edition - By far the most DLC packs that aren't hats, I think more than every other game here combined sans TLOU:R. Costumes, Music, Stages, Base Themes, Weapons, etc. It's ridiculous in a bad way. "Complete Edition" my Irish/Welsh ass.
Dying Light - Season Pass: Cosmetic DLC, Minor Content DLC, Minor Weapon DLC, Free Multiplayer Mode DLC
Escape Plan - Content Expansion DLC
Far Cry 4 - Season Pass: Minor Content DLC, Content Expansion DLC, Multiplayer Modes
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Typical MMO Service Options & Minor Cosmetics
Killzone: Shadowfall - Cosmetic DLC, Multiplayer Modes
Lego: Marvel Super Heroes - Character Packs
Lords of the Fallen - Minor Weapon/Item DLC/Pre-Order bonuses, Content Expansion DLC
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor - Season Pass: Minor Item DLC, Cosmetic DLC, Mode DLC, Content Expansion DLC
Monopoly Plus - Custom Board DLC
Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty - Minor Content DLC
Outlast - Content Expansion DLC
Resident Evil: Revelations 2 - Minor Weapon & Item Storage DLC for Raid Mode, Extra Raid Character + Extra Costumes are Free in Retail Version ($40), must purchase for Digital Version ($25)
Resogun - Cosmetic DLC, Content Expansion DLC
Secret Ponchos - Cosmetic DLC, Character DLC
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Cosmetic DLC
The Evil Within - Season Pass: Content Expansion DLC
The Last of Us: Remastered - Cosmetic Multiplayer DLC, Multiplayer Item DLC. By *far* the most number of entries, but mostly Hats.
Thief - Minor Item DLC, Challenge Map DLC, Minor Content Pre-Order DLC
Velocity 2X - Content Expansion DLC
Watch_Dogs - Season Pass: Cosmetic DLC, Minor Weapon/Item DLC, Minor Content DLC, Content Expansion DLC

By far the most purely offensive of the bunch is Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends Complete Edition. Especially due to its name - it's not a Complete Edition with 75 DLC entries on PSN. The 4 games I own that actually have Micotransactions in them I find completely harmless or utterly pointless and useless (AC: Unity). I enjoyed the Expansion/Mini-Expansion DLC for AC: Unity, Black Flag, and Watch_Dogs. The Far Cry 4 DLC is pretty bad. I haven't played the Mordor DLC, but everything I've read said it's just disappointing, sadly. I also have the Destiny Expansion Pass, but I have absolutely no desire to actually start playing it again.

I'm looking forward to playing the Lords of Shadow, The Evil Within, and Dragon Age: Inquisition DLC. Really, really excited for the DAI one.

So, basically, I haven't found DLC to effect me in a negative way so far this generation except for being disappointed by the lack of quality in Far Cry 4 and Mordor's DLC and Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends "Complete Edition's" atrocious bullshit. The rest of it is fairly harmless and non-intrusive and I don't feel that they've really taken anything away from the games that I like thus far. And hell, the most annoying part of AC: Unity wasn't "DLC" - it was the Companion App & Initiates website chests. Thankfully, they patched that bullshit out of the game months ago.

Maybe if I played Military Shooters (CoD/BF), Music Games, Fighting Games, and Sports Games I'd feel differently, since I don't really have any experience with those, but so far this generation has been really light on DLC and Microtransactions for the rest of the industry.

 

[Klossen]

I do agree with this, but it's also true that a huge selection of games are too complicated to appeal to a huge audience.
Look at the complaints of "dumbing down" the Elder Scrolls series back when Skyrim reduced the amount of character attributes from around 9-10 to 3.
That simplification is part of appealing to a wider audience, but how much resistance do these changes always run into when they're announced?

Edit : clarification

Edit+1 : and how do you get the game into a wider audience? You need to market the shit out of them. This isn't as simple as a lot of people think.

Well, marketing usually is somewhere about the actual game production and often times even more in AAA games so marketing is a huge factor to bloated budgets. So big budget almost always means big marketing which means a product more likely to sell to a consumer base unavailable to moderately budgeted games.

My point is, do we even want the games with bloated budgets? Like stated, it would seem the biggest causes to the huge budget jumps is the desire to appeal to a huge audience. If your plan is to sell 10 million copies and budget accordingly, then they should stop cry foul whenever someone points out their DLC plans to compensate their budgets.

 

[Haunted Tank]

Definitely not an exception for Jim Sterling.
The "I'm the voice of the people, standing up to greedy evil publishers" shtick is just as strong in that one as it is the rest of them.

It is at least more bearable and entertaining than his "every second word is a swear word" phase. Let's be thankful for that.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Definitely not an exception for Jim Sterling.
The "I'm the voice of the people, standing up to greedy evil publishers" shtick is just as strong in that one as it is the rest of them.

At least he's funny and entertaining, though...

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

Always interested in this discussion but this is the guy who screams with a lisp and bangs shit around his desk, right?

 

[Corpekata]

Always interested in this discussion but this is the guy who screams with a lisp and bangs shit around his desk, right?

It's a parody character.

 

[Cmerrill]

This is coming from the same guy who constantly runs paid promotions on his channel. His channel went for a whole week of paid promotions last year, and loot crate pays him to do his loot crate videos.

I don't see the correlation between your statement and games cutting content for paid DLC at launch, ripping off consumers, etc.

He isn't allowed to make a living? He informs people when it's paid promotion if you don't want to support it.

 

[To Far Away Times]

The thing is... as long as microtransactions exist, the temptation is going to be there for them being tied to the game design.

Or games with "extended" endings and the like. Completely shameless.

Very few DLC is done right.

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

It's a parody character.

Okay? I guess what Im trying to say is I cant listen to someone make their point by yelling at me.

 

[Corpekata]

Okay? I guess what Im trying to say is I cant listen to someone make their point by yelling at me.

He's not trying to make a point when he does the character. The only real point of the character is to poke fun at rabid manchildren and to be laughed at.

 

[Chinbo37]

As a former "competionist" gamer at least I can say bullshit dlc leads me to play games but not stress about collecting and unlocking everything

 

[Daffy Duck]

I gotta say I'm not sure what relevance his ultimate point has. He basically is okay with DLC but goes on a rant against microtransactions in AAA games. Which is fine, sure, but I'm struggling to think of MTs in big games that really hamper the experience. Games can be designed to make you grind, sure, but in AAA so far, save for maybe Easy Fatalities, I don't think we're seeing that (and that's not even that great an example). He uses as an example, putting fuel into his car, which I can't say I can think of anything close too in 60 dollar titles.


I mean, I get what he's going for overall but he seems weirdly fixated on a problem that's not really very large. He's fine as he says, with them ripping out skins and characters and charging him, which I dunno, seems kind of a weird capitulation. I'd argue things like season passes are a far bigger problem with AAA games than MTs or random DLC.

CoD AW is the king of AAA titles with microtransactions in my experience on consoles.

Advanced supply drops.

 

[Armadilo]

So is the solution to just raise the price of Videogames to $70 or $80 ?

 

[TheSlySoul]

So is the solution to just raise the price of Videogames to $70 or $80 ?

I say go back to making expansion packs. I had no issues during the PSX/PS2 era.

 

[Corpekata]

CoD AW is the king of AAA titles with microtransactions in my experience on consoles.

Advanced supply drops.

Now this is a good example of being shitty. I knew of the supply drops, but those were all cosmetic IIRC, but the advanced ones have weapons and some can flat out be better than normal. Was this a post release thing? I don't seem to remember it during the little time I played it.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Now this is a good example of being shitty. I knew of the supply drops, but those were all cosmetic IIRC, but the advanced ones have weapons and some can flat out be better than normal. Was this a post release thing? I don't seem to remember it during the little time I played it.

Advanced supply drops were post release. I'm sure drift0r mentioned in one video as well SHG said to him they had no plans to do paid for supply drops...

They are obtainable at levels 20,30,40 & prestige but they are obviously aimed at being bought as MT's. I've had three so far through normal play and had 1 elite weapon.

The ASD's are the place you can get the cool looking exo suits/exos.

What yanks my chain is YT'ers in the CoD scene doing opening videos pushing that desire for kids to plough cash in to chase the dream too, that's disgusting to me.

My experience of Fifa Ultimate Team and packs is another shitty example of MT's.

 

[DirtyLarry]

I can count on one hand the amount of DLC I have purchased this gen. In fact the only DLC I have purchased is the DriveClub Season Pass and Trails Fusion Season Pass.

Both extended each game significantly and were well worth the money. Could they have been included in the actual game? I am sure they could have. That either would have A) extended the release date and/or B) cost the developer money.

Both games were good enough and gave me enough gameplay in the base games I had zero issue picking the Season Passes up.

I almost purchased the Season Pass for The Evil Within, but so far I have not done so.

So I have zero issue with DLC myself, as I do not have an issue with DLC.

 

[Papacheeks]

So is the solution to just raise the price of Videogames to $70 or $80 ?

No, the solution is to get back to basics in development. Let games be games, and let the game you started on be a complete game in it's completion.
Build a game being more smart about it's budget and development.
It was a smart move for NR to use Unreal 3.
If companies like Valve, Blizzard, CD RED, even Rockstar(Minus GTA V money purchasing for online) can make games that don't nickel and Dime you, other's can too.

A game should be complete when you put the disc in. Too many times a broken product ships to stores and need a 3-4gb patch to even make it functional.
\Games are viable if they can be smart in how the develop a project. Not all big studios need to make a AAA title every year.

And if hey make one that's let's say multiplayer only with very few modes or what not, don't charge the same amount that a game with a campaign+Multiplayer+optional modes has.

I'm with boogie as I see the smaller developers and indie, leading Tripple A development. Or making games with the Illusion of AAA scope.

Games like No man's Sky, Little Devil Inside, Rime.

I can see those having a retail release at 24.99 or less.

I don't want to see people's projects crash but I think we are hitting a boiling point in what were willing to put up with when it comes to these practices.

 

[Conan-san]

People will only whine that the games don't look next gen enough, or don't have enough content..

Bullshit. If the next Call of Duty looked the same as the last one no one would notice.

 

[platocplx]

DLC today is almost like the game expansions on PC, but in certain instances they are smaller in size and scale to lengthen the life of a game. I mean it used to suck to play a game on console and its a game you really enjoy and there isnt anything else to do once youve done it all. I dont have a problem so much with DLC as long as it has a nice value add to the game.

I welcome it,but I also see that some companies may use it as a vehicle to recoup development costs i know in the past we've expected games to expand in price every new console generation,so i think DLC kinda masks that. People would scoff at games costing 70 and 80 bucks a clip. So its almost like a nice compromise.

When it comes to F2P I hate it. Pretty much turns games into a casino like atmosphere and pretty much can mirror gambling at some point. You see people buying packs upon packs for immediacy to play more of a game. I just dont like that model. Its awful to see in games to me.

Microtransactions i dont really like either but in some ways, I guess more you feel cheated people are allowed to pay to get ahead totally defeats some level of difficulty of a game, but in the same sense a lot of people dont have the time to play a game nonstop to gain certain parts of a game and just would like to play the "fun" parts of the game minus the grind that some games can have especially if you are an adult with a full time job/family etc and kinda wanna jump in and out of a game.

I think thats how i kinda look at it all.

 

[SprachBrooks]

Argh, the bullshit argument that games are cheaper than they were pisses me off –– my salary in 2004 was at least in line with inflation. Not fucking now, that argument is a non-starter and not a valid excuse against game prices being stagnant.

 

[SprachBrooks]

So is the solution to just raise the price of Videogames to $70 or $80 ?

Lol i don't even buy games at $60 let alone $70-80, or £45 in the UK.

I will never pay more than £25 for a video game and have never ever purchased a DLC or so much as a skin.

 

[patapuf]

No, the solution is to get back to basics in development. Let games be games, and let the game you started on be a complete game in it's completion.
Build a game being more smart about it's budget and development.
It was a smart move for NR to use Unreal 3.
If companies like Valve, Blizzard, CD RED, even Rockstar(Minus GTA V money purchasing for online) can make games that don't nickel and Dime you, other's can too.

A game should be complete when you put the disc in. Too many times a broken product ships to stores and need a 3-4gb patch to even make it functional.
\Games are viable if they can be smart in how the develop a project. Not all big studios need to make a AAA title every year.

And if hey make one that's let's say multiplayer only with very few modes or what not, don't charge the same amount that a game with a campaign+Multiplayer+optional modes has.

I'm with boogie as I see the smaller developers and indie, leading Tripple A development. Or making games with the Illusion of AAA scope.

Games like No man's Sky, Little Devil Inside, Rime.

I can see those having a retail release at 24.99 or less.

I don't want to see people's projects crash but I think we are hitting a boiling point in what were willing to put up with when it comes to these practices.

We are really not. In world where mobile and various F2P models are the biggest growth sectors of the industry we are not anywhere near a boiling point.

Aditional content, be it meaty expansions, smaller aditions like a character in a fighting game, cosmetic stuff or "pay to skip grind" stuff is here to stay. Post release support is welcomed by many and crucial for many types of games.

Some DLC is good, some is bad, people that differentiate will have a good time. The "old" model of buying a game and playing it through in 2 weeks and get the next one will still exist but it won't be the "default". And it arguably hasn't been for a while now.

and yes, big studios need to make AAA games to justify their existence. It makes no economic sense to compete with 10-50 man teams in terms of scale when you employ thousands.

 

[Raist]

I always have trouble with the whole "Day 1 DLC is lame, they're taking content away for that" line of reasoning, because while yes it was ready at launch and one could think it should thus be part of the game, there's no way to judge properly what was part of the budget or not.

I guess devs may have a bunch of extra people working on optional stuff in parallel, that was never really part of what the game was going to be in terms of budget allocated to it.

I don't know, it's hard to tell, and just time of release might not be a perfect way to evaluate what ought to be in the core game.

At the end of the day, if you feel like people are abusing that extra source of revenue, vote with your wallet I guess. But I find it really difficult to be convinced that these kind of things were meant to be in the game abd taken away to be sold seperately at the "last minute".

 

[SeanTSC]

The "old" model of buying a game and playing it through in 2 weeks and get the next one will still exist. But it won't be the "default". And it arguably hasn't been for a while now.

It depends on what you play. That's certainly still the case for me, just look at the list of 91 PS4 games that I own that I posted. 2/3rds of them have 0 DLC at all. Of the remaining 1/3rd of them only about half of those have substantial content DLC. For me and the games that I buy, which is far more than your average person, the "default" is very much still you pay for it once and get all the content.

 

[OneUh8]

Would we rather retail games cost go up to say $80 for a game, or keep it at $60 and then have paid DLC to recoup costs? Because the is the reality. The cost to make a game is not the same as it was say 10 years ago. They are running a business first and foremost, not a charity. I love small indie type games, but I also like the experiences you get from bigger budget games as well.

 

[Vilam]

I always felt like like DLC should be stuff that couldn't be included in the original game because the content wasn't finished yet. If the content was finished and taken out of the game to be separately paid for, that's just wrong.

This is naive. It has nothing to do with when the content was created, and everything to do with the development budget set for the project.

DLC isn't developed as part of a base game... It has its own budget and its own sales projections.