Support NeoGAF

[Glix]

It can be harmful when the game is intentionally designed around microtransactions though.

This. A million times this.

 

[Straight Edge]

Do what I do; Just don't buy DLC.

 

[Gestault]

My purchase/play decisions are specifically built around avoiding microtransaction-based titles. I've consistently had positive experiences with DLC, because I scrutinize them the same ways I do the core title. Both are part of the reasons I tend toward console games rather than mobile.

 

[patapuf]

This. A million times this.

I mean, a game that isn't fun without "pay to skip grind" style microtransactions is just a bad game.

Bad games existing aren't a threat to anything. One just skips them.

 

[Daffy Duck]

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.

Well years ago they didn't spunk money up the wall on marketing YouTube trailers for reveals, and reveals of reveals, or live action TV adverts (CoD) etc etc now it's just marketing marketing marketing. Years ago it was a bloody magazine advert.

 

[OneUh8]

Well years ago they didn't spunk money up the wall on marketing YouTube trailers for reveals, and reveals of reveals, or live action TV adverts (CoD) etc etc now it's just marketing marketing marketing. Years ago it was a bloody magazine advert.

This is very true, but there were TV commercials, magazines, etc. . If the internet was prevalent in the 80's and 90's companies would have used it. Marketing is on of the most if not most important parts of running a successful business. If you do not market to your target, you will fail.

 

[JED BARTLETT]

It's like everything else, there's good DLC and bad DLC.
I don't understand why every game needs a season pass or why the season pass for Forza costs as much as the game.
I've bought Battlefield premium for the last 2 games and I honestly felt I got value for money, obviously not everyone will feel this way. If the DLC interests me I'll buy it, if not I won't.
The absolute worst was Mass Effect 3, the day one From Ashes was clearly ripped out of the game and I felt I'd missed out cause I refused to buy it. Still bums me out now, and it may well have cost them a customer for the next one.

 

[Papacheeks]

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.

F2P models need to stay the Fuck out of Retail games plain and simple. I agree expansions need to make a big return, and I hope CD RED's outlook rubs off on other developers.

Big studios waste shit tons of money having those big teams make games that are annual, like assassins creed.

When you see teams like rocksteady make Arkham City with 80+ people. The order was made with 80 as well, even though the game didn't pan out, can't deny how amazing it looked.

Ubisosft is getting smarter and padding out their years with smaller developed games like Child of Light, Valiant Hearts, Blood Dragon, Gunslinger.

SO no I don't see your point of view, if anything it's extremely antiquated, and outdated.

Indie developers hav actually spured the smaller made games by big developers, more so now than ever.

We use to have this back in PS2 days, smaller budget 19.99 retail games by Konami, capcom, Atari.

There;s a reason Hellblade is being made by a small team from Ninja theory. Look at what happened to Irrational Games, worked on a game for 4+ years with a giant staff, and people left that place even before the game released. That whole studio is gone now.

So making smaller games and dividing your studio into different projects is more lucrative in the long run, and helps mitigate people better.

Naughty Dog does it they have 2 teams.

 

[JayhawkerStL]

If publishers could not hide content behind a paywall, then they would resort to $80-$100 prices for new games. That's the deal. Gamers would throw conniption fits about "broken games" and "lazy devs" and refuse to pay the prices.

What the $60 represents is a budget release for gamers that can't afford the full price. And truthfully, that's a great deal, because for $60 you have a complete game with plenty of content to experience complete game. If you love the game and want more, for whatever the price of the Season Pass or DLC, you can get more, and play the full game. If it was merely okay for you, you can move on to a new game without spending the extra $20-$40.

I do think that accelerators and boosts run dangerously close into the area of damaging gameplay. If the gaming experience on the other end of accumulating the XP and boosts is more rewarding, gamers will feel justifiably like they are being screwed with. Developers will be incentivized to balance the game to lure more money out of gamers' pockets over making the journey more fun.

I think these are two separate issues stemming from one basic problem. Gamers have higher expectations for games than they are willing to pay for. While everything else in life gets more expensive, game prices have stayed flat. All the people making games are paying more for life to, but are trapped under the stagnant prices of games.

If you want to see publishers and developers become less "anti-consumer" then you would be more open to schemes to eliminate the used market. That is millions of dollars that would flow to publishers and developers, and could possibly net them more profit while even lowering prices, like they already do for PC games.

Under the current climate, nickel and dining gamers is really the best path to profitability.

 

[Newlove]

Its these CS:GO and Advanced Warfare gambling style supply crates that are creeping in now. Similar to Ultimate Team in Fifa. Its not really something I'm comfortable with, especially when you see internet personalities sink hundreds of dollars in and get like 3 decent items in return. "Exclusive" awesome looking skins locked behind premium packs, and even then its a gamble. I miss the days when the very best looking gear was earned and not thrown in my face as something I could buy amongst Nigerian t-shirts in a £1.50 crate.

 

[Daffy Duck]

This is very true, but there were TV commercials, magazines, etc. . If the internet was prevalent in the 80's and 90's companies would have used it. Marketing is on of the most if not most important parts of running a successful business. If you do not market to your target, you will fail.

I don't remember many TV commercials in the UK for the latest games back on the early 90's. Aside from dedicated magazines I can't remember ever seeing games advertised elsewhere. I was circa 10 though so maybe I was just not exposed to it.

 

[Papacheeks]

If publishers could not hide content behind a paywall, then they would resort to $80-$100 prices for new games. That's the deal. Gamers would throw conniption fits about "broken games" and "lazy devs" and refuse to pay the prices.

What the $60 represents is a budget release for gamers that can't afford the full price. And truthfully, that's a great deal, because for $60 you have a complete game with plenty of content to experience complete game. If you love the game and want more, for whatever the price of the Season Pass or DLC, you can get more, and play the full game. If it was merely okay for you, you can move on to a new game without spending the extra $20-$40.

I do think that accelerators and boosts run dangerously close into the area of damaging gameplay. If the gaming experience on the other end of accumulating the XP and boosts is more rewarding, gamers will feel justifiably like they are being screwed with. Developers will be incentivized to balance the game to lure more money out of gamers' pockets over making the journey more fun.

I think these are two separate issues stemming from one basic problem. Gamers have higher expectations for games than they are willing to pay for. While everything else in life gets more expensive, game prices have stayed flat. All the people making games are paying more for life to, but are trapped under the stagnant prices of games.

If you want to see publishers and developers become less "anti-consumer" then you would be more open to schemes to eliminate the used market. That is millions of dollars that would flow to publishers and developers, and could possibly net them more profit while even lowering prices, like they already do for PC games.

Under the current climate, nickel and dining gamers is really the best path to profitability.

Well then how come PC developers don't do it for their games? Unless the game is F2P or something, they don't really develop their full priced games with monetization unless it's a game that call's for it, IE MMO's, Moba's and such.

 

[Chabbles]

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

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

Idk if you watched his vid or not. But he's not complaining about "$5 dlc characters" or dlc in general, a point was being made about greedy MT's that add no real value to the game whatsoever (and games being somewhat developed around them, to promote their use)... but carry on.

 

[patapuf]

F2P models need to stay the Fuck out of Retail games plain and simple. I agree expansions need to make a big return, and I hope CD RED's outlook rubs off on other developers.

Big studios waste shit tons of money having those big teams make games that are annual, like assassins creed.

When you see teams like rocksteady make Arkham City with 80+ people. The order was made with 80 as well, even though the game didn't pan out, can't deny how amazing it looked.

Ubisosft is getting smarter and padding out their years with smaller developed games like Child of Light, Valiant Hearts, Blood Dragon, Gunslinger.

SO no I don't see your point of view, if anything it's extremely antiquated, and outdated.

Indie developers hav actually spured the smaller made games by big developers, more so now than ever.

We use to have this back in PS2 days, smaller budget 19.99 retail games by Konami, capcom, Atari.

There;s a reason Hellblade is being made by a small team from Ninja theory. Look at what happened to Irrational Games, worked on a game for 4+ years with a giant staff, and people left that place even before the game released. That whole studio is gone now.

So making smaller games and dividing your studio into different projects is more lucrative in the long run, and helps mitigate people better.

Naughty Dog does it they have 2 teams.

Big studios certainly don't "waste" any kind of money on annual games like asassin's creed, COD, FIFA etc or huge projects like GTA since those make a lot of money in return. Valiant hearts, as good as it is, doesn't make a dent in those kind of numbers.

smaller budget 20$ retail games won't make a return except after release for the most successful indies because the profit margins at retail are pretty bad compared to digital and because the big AAA games own basically all of the shelf space. PS2-like diversity at retail is gone.

Indie Devs are great and i ignore basically all AAA releases in their favor. But i'm not under the illusion that their numbers will somehow inspire the companies that aim for 5 million 60$ copies at minimum. And i honestly don't understand why people look to EA, Ubisoft and co. to provide smaller experiences. Like why? There are more than enough other developpers.

As for the F2P style microtransactions, i just ignore games that depend on them for game design. I don't feel threatened or think they are "harmful" (beyond compromising the quality of a game). There's more than enough games out there without them. And if people eat them up that doesn't bother me much, it's not my money.

 

[Tain]

What about incentivized grinding?

What constitutes "grinding" is actually pretty subjective. Developers were making games that were seen as dull grindfests before DLC existed, and we often can't even be sure if a given modern game is designed around players buying their way through the game or not.

What we can do is see a long, boring grind as a long, boring grind and skip the game for having long, boring grinds. Which may or may not be the DLC's fault, but long, boring grinds are not a fault inherent to DLC.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Have you played Diablo 3 when they had the auction house? When they tuned the drop rates so fucking low that they 'encouraged' you to use th auction house so they can make a buck. You got shit drops in a loot game where the main crux of the game is loot progression. When you have pay to enjoy the game more you start to call bullshit.

That is one example. It can go that way. I have given you a very clear example.

You want another example? Perfect Shithole (Perfect world) They changed specs to make one specilization better, want to switch spec? You have to pay for it. There is no other way.

/thread.

 

[Papacheeks]

Big studios certainly don't "waste" any kind of money on annual games like asassin's creed, COD, FIFA, GTA etc since those make a lot of money in return. Valiant hearts, as good as it is, doesn't make a dent in those kind of numbers.

smaller budget 20$ retail games won't make a return except after release for the most successful indies because the profit margins at retail are pretty bad compared to digital and because the big AAA games own basically all of the shelf space. PS2-like diversity at retail is gone.

Indie Devs are great and i ignore basically all AAA releases in their favor. But i'm not under the illusion that their numbers will somehow inspire the companies that aim for 5 million 60$ copies at minimum. And i honestly don't understand why people look to EA, Ubisoft and co. to provide smaller experiences. Like why? There are more than enough other developpers.

As for the F2P style microtransactions, i just ignore games that depend on them for game design. I don't feel threatened. There's more than enough games out there without them. And if people eat them up that doesn't bother me much, it's not my money.

So when they reuse the same engine and assets for Assassins creed they need 300 people to make the game?

Like i said if CD RED and Rocksteady can make simialr large open world expierences with a fraction of the work force why not Ubisoft?

And your looking at it all wrong. If they didn't have giant teams, and worked more efficiently, they wouldn't need as much revenue for these projects.

ANd smaller games can make a profit for them, it's just because the other side of the development is so in-effcient that those small games that bring in revenue only serve a purpose to mitigate the over bloated teams and production from their bigger projects.

Super meat boy made a really good profit, so did Minecraft when it released and their overhead was so minuscule compared to their take home.

It has been viable, and can be, and shows how much Publisher's and studios need to adapt and change.

PC developers seem fine making games like Magika with small teams that do extremly well.

 

[VariantX]

Have you played Diablo 3 when they had the auction house? When they tuned the drop rates so fucking low that they 'encouraged' you to use th auction house so they can make a buck. You got shit drops in a loot game where the main crux of the game is loot progression. When you have pay to enjoy the game more you start to call bullshit.
That is one example. It can go that way. I have given you a very clear example.

You want another example? Perfect Shithole (Perfect world) They changed specs to make one specilization better, want to switch spec? You have to pay for it. There is no other way,

MKX's whole thing cynical and sad because those fatalities are easy to do but the spirit that shit is made in is very troubling.

That RMAH is the entire reason I didn't buy D3 and I'm glad they came to their senses and dropped it and made it in to what I hear is a far more enjoyable game now without it.

 

[Version 3.0]

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.

I think it's naive of you to think this is always the case. Sometimes DLC is legitimately separate content, but if you think there haven't been cases of "let's just take this part out and sell it for more money", you're quite gullible.

DLC isn't a problem, it's all about how it's handled. I don't think it's been handled especially well by the industry, personally.

 

[BokehKing]

If it means I don't have to pay $80-$100 for a game up front I'm not even sure I'll be playing 2 months from now? Then yeah I'm OK with dlc

 

[ElCidTmax]

I can't overstate how much I appreciate the fact that Bloodborne is a complete standalone game. I have no idea if there will be DLC or not. You certainly can't tell by looking at the game. If DLC is announced at a later date, I won't feel like I only got part of the game for my $60. Plus it helps that there is no lack of content in Bloodborne.

I think it's pretty gross when a game puts paid add-on content front and center- especially in the main menu before you even start the game. It definitely colors my opinion of the game publisher, and that factors into purchasing decisions.

Still, some games I'll buy regardless because on balance I'll still want to play the game, even if the DLC upselling makes me feel put upon. There's a high likelihood that I'll pick up Star Wars Battlefront for example, and I'm assuming that will have comprehensive DLC which will combine Premium/Season Pass map/mode packs (which have been a good value in Battlefield games), plus PvZ Garden Warfare-style card packs with the options of buying cards with coins that can be earned in game or via microtransactions. EA knows how to do this, and it's a model that has worked before.

 

[Mass Effect]

Its these CS:GO and Advanced Warfare gambling style supply crates that are creeping in now. Similar to Ultimate Team in Fifa. Its not really something I'm comfortable with, especially when you see internet personalities sink hundreds of dollars in and get like 3 decent items in return. "Exclusive" awesome looking skins locked behind premium packs, and even then its a gamble. I miss the days when the very best looking gear was earned and not thrown in my face as something I could buy amongst Nigerian t-shirts in a £1.50 crate.

Yes, I'm really not liking this trend at all. For example, it's insane that I wasn't able to unlock everything in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer despite putting over 100 hours into it, and this was with doing glitches like the missile exploit to farm credits fast. Games are definitely being designed around enticing you to buy into these packs.

Feels the same way in Battlefield 4. It seems like it takes forever to unlock things. I swear it didn't take as long in BF3 .

 

[BattleMonkey]

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

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

Stop spending insane budgets on extra content to sell to players? Games with year+ of extras already in works to sell down the line? Make the product self contained?

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

I love Boogie2988. I agree 100% with him

 

[TheSlySoul]

Well years ago they didn't spunk money up the wall on marketing YouTube trailers for reveals, and reveals of reveals, or live action TV adverts (CoD) etc etc now it's just marketing marketing marketing. Years ago it was a bloody magazine advert.

Yeah, games have pretty much evolved much like movies.
In the start, people did not have that much expectations of games. Now the casual game market wants games to be like blockbuster movies which means they require the same budget. The difference is that a game's average profit does not match a movie's more often than not.
Much like how most movies make up costs in DVD/digital sales game developers use DLC.

In terms of a game that is doing it right would be Dragonball Xenoverse. Loads of content and the DLC feels like it was actually made after game development.
Fantasy Life put Link! content as DLC which is cool as well.

I don't hate DLC, I just hate how most people use it.

 

[Version 3.0]

If publishers could not hide content behind a paywall, then they would resort to $80-$100 prices for new games.

When you start with an incorrect assumption, your entire argument is invalid. And you have started with baseless conjecture. It's easily disproven by the simple fact that not all $60 games have any content hidden behind a paywall. Clearly, it is possible to charge $60 for a game, and nothing more.

Paywalls don't exist out of desperation. They didn't dream them up as a way to stay in business. They exist because they're an extremely high margin, low risk revenue stream. They're not a way to offset otherwise unsustainable costs - costs are completely under the publishers' control. They're a way to avoid having to manage costs.

And that's all fine. Where it all goes wrong is YOU. When publishers tell us, as consumers, that WE are to blame for their problems, and that we have to blindly follow along with their plans to separate us from our money, it's up to us to decline to do so. We should decide on our own what's in our interest.

You are doing yourself and all of us a disservice by putting publishers' interest over ours. The publishers' job is to make a product worth buying. Your job as a consumer is to decide whether their product is worth buying. If you think DLC is worth it, then say that.

Don't argue that it's necessary, because it IS NOT.

 

[Papacheeks]

I can't overstate how much I appreciate the fact that Bloodborne is a complete standalone game. I have no idea if there will be DLC or not. You certainly can't tell by looking at the game. If DLC is announced at a later date, I won't feel like I only got part of the game for my $60. Plus it helps that there is no lack of content in Bloodborne.

I think it's pretty gross when a game puts paid add-on content front and center- especially in the main menu before you even start the game. It definitely colors my opinion of the game publisher, and that factors into purchasing decisions.

Still, some games I'll buy regardless because on balance I'll still want to play the game, even if the DLC upselling makes me feel put upon. There's a high likelihood that I'll pick up Star Wars Battlefront for example, and I'm assuming that will have comprehensive DLC which will combine Premium/Season Pass map/mode packs (which have been a good value in Battlefield games), plus PvZ Garden Warfare-style card packs with the options of buying cards with coins that can be earned in game or via microtransactions. EA knows how to do this, and it's a model that has worked before.

Couldn't agree more.

Bloodbourne is oldschool design. MAKE ADD on content after people have exhausted the base game.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Couldn't agree more.

Bloodbourne is oldschool design. MAKE ADD on content after people have exhausted the base game.

And moreso, the DLC that got added to previous Souls titles was among the best of their respective games, if not the best period. You get actually great additional value for the buck, and not, like, 3 swords and 10 minutes of content and a horde mode.

 

[Just_myles]

My answer to him is, "Because they can."

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

I think my first incidence of becoming really pissed off with a developer over DLC plans was probably Lair of the Shadow Broker in ME2.
Liara, one of the main popular characters in ME1 (who actually turned out to be the love interest in my play through) was just completely missing from ME2.

I finished ME2 only for them to release a fairly large add on which had her in it.
It meant it totally fucked up the flow of the way I'd played the game from ME1 and I had to go and completely replay ME2 once all the dlc was released to actually have a feeling of some continuation from the first game.

Holding back large chunks of content which were originally conceived as being part of the main story damages the flow of storytelling games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age.
Developers should receive a cryo blast to the throat whenever they do it.

 

[geordiemp]

This year there are games that I have decided not to but because of excessive micro transactions that to me would affect my game experience.

Things like MT for cutting grind = grind added to main game = no buy

Slow levelling up for new characters or buy with DLC = no buy.

Its no big deal there are plenty of games in my buy list, it helps to have an excuse to rule a few out.

 

[Grimgrillz]

It can be harmful when the game is intentionally designed around microtransactions though.

For me AC Unity personified this. Ubi have really gone down in my estimation as a publisher. I hope, cross my fingers and hope some more that ubi haven't ubi'd "The Division" and just let the devs (who seem genuinely passionate about the game) just do what they do best.

But ubi's recent history for me is quite alarming.

 

[Refreshment.01]

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

It's lose/lose for developers.

Do you think AAA games cost as much as they do right now due to visuals?

Here's a hint: some of the most visually impressive games came from relative small studios. Here's another hint: None of them used famous expensive voice actors or hired a professional hollywood director to direct the story portion of the game.

On topic: This should have been questioned back in 2002. Thanks to everyone that supported pay to play since that time XD

 

[Mooreberg]

I've never had a problem with publishers selling actual new content, but the "pay to win" stuff that is creeping into $60 games puts me off from spending any additional money on it. Killzone Shadowfall was the first game where I observed this first hand - pay to use weapons or class attributes that are already sitting on your HDD as part of a patch. Advanced Warfare does it too with supply drop weapons. Nope.

You could argue that it is a "can't lose" scenario for the publishers since it completely subverts the laws of supply and demand (if even ten percent of people are willing to pay for it, it is worth withholding from the base product) but time is limited enough that I can easily just stop playing these games in favor of something else. The point at which people stop playing a game, they are lost as a potential customer for the less ridiculous DLC. Other than the marathon chart toppers like GTA V, games from western publishers drop in price relatively quickly these days. There is always something new to move on to when something stops behaving like a game and more like a digital shopping mall. I'll spend the money on what would have been called an "expansion" prior to Xbox 360: something that actually expands the scope of the product and prompts me to get back into something I would have otherwise been done with.