Support NeoGAF

[Dinosaur Sr.]

Can you not understand that we are trying to tell you that if people keep eating this shit up they will start asking us to pay extra for things we DO want? 60 bucks for a game and then 20 bucks for multiplayer maps 5 dollars for a new character, so on and so on.

Screw that, I'm not paying 20 bucks for a multiplayer map.

See how easy that was?

 

[Mashing]

Can you not understand that we are trying to tell you that if people keep eating this shit up they will start asking us to pay extra for things we DO want? 60 bucks for a game and then 20 bucks for multiplayer maps 5 dollars for a new character, so on and so on.

Exactly, this is my fear as well.

 

[XboxGamers]

NICE!

 

[Matlock]

So what's worse, getting an A+ game and wishing you could get a new character/maps but it never happens or getting an A+ game with a THE OPTION TO BUY a weekly new character/map available for a few bucks?

I dont see a huge problem. If the game is great then and the content is great it's a win/win.

Otherwise either will rot on the shelf.

I think I speak for the forum when I say I don't want to pay $100 to have a game and an "expansion pack" made entirely of nickel and dime transaction.

 

[JoDark]

There are other skins in the game for free. The Rubble skull skin is awesome!

Sometimes the gaf is the best place on earth, other times, the maoning and bitching cracks me up.

Oh no, $2.00 I'm going to die.

Ring tones anyone?

I hope there are more of these, I want to see bunny Kameo Halloween Kameo! As was mentioned, skins for PD would own!

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Maybe the movie industry and music industry should adopt the same model pretty soon as downloadable content becomes more pervasive. When you buy a new album, you have to pay to get the extra few tracks that they kept to themselves for later on. Or when you buy a movie, you have to pay for the extras that came on the DVD before hand.

Sounds like a great idea! Give me less, and make me pay for it later! w00t!

Now thats value.

 

[vitaflo]

Screw that, I'm not paying 20 bucks for a multiplayer map.

See how easy that was?

That's the entire arguement. Others are saying a lot of people may buy the $20 map, meaning you will never get to play multiplayer in a game unless you front the $20, because it becomes popular to distribute multiplayer maps this way. Just saying YOU won't buy them, and expecting the situation to correct itself is not enough. Think of all the stupid people out there willing to support this business model to its fullest!

 

[PhatSaqs]

I think I speak for the forum when I say I don't want to pay $100 to have a game and an expansion pack.

So dont buy the expansions. I certainly didnt buy Brood War

 

[Dr_Cogent]

You guys are also missing the point that if others do buy it, and they are playing said content, you can't play online with them until you pony up too. Great way to get others to buy it later isn't it?

Shit, I can't play with Jim because hes playing a map I didn't download. Fuck, guess I better pony up.

What a sweet model for MS. The milk model.

 

[Particle Physicist]

So what's worse, getting an A+ game and wishing you could get a new character/maps but it never happens or getting an A+ game with a THE OPTION TO BUY a weekly new character/map available for a few bucks?

I dont see a huge problem. If the game is great then and the content is great it's a win/win.

Otherwise either will rot on the shelf.

more like::


getting an A-B game with the option to buy a weekly new character/map (PURPOSEFULLY LEFT OUT OF THE INITIAL RELEASE) available for a few bucks


also, we are already paying for live.

 

[jedimike]

Maybe the movie industry and music industry should adopt the same model pretty soon as downloadable content becomes more pervasive. When you buy a new album, you have to pay to get the extra few tracks that they kept to themselves for later on. Or when you buy a movie, you have to pay for the extras that came on the DVD before hand.

Sounds like a great idea! Give me less, and make me pay for it later! w00t!

Now thats value.

The movie industry already does that... LOTR standard version, LOTR extended version.

 

[FiRez]

I remember people compaining about the hurricane packs of Ninja Gaiden and that was free :lol

Just don't buy it, I wouldn't even if the transaction is 2$ and can be done just pressing the A button one time.

But I would buy something like Geometry Wars because is a complete and good game and I think is cheap (5$).

 

[GitarooMan]

Or when you buy a movie, you have to pay for the extras that came on the DVD before hand.
Sounds like a great idea! Give me less, and make me pay for it later! w00t!

Now thats value.

As I said before, this already happens just as an example there are special and regular editions of Batman Begins, the special edition has some extras and costs about 7 dollars more. It's the same thing, just at the point of purchase instead of downloadable.

EDIT: Beaten by a minute.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

The movie industry already does that... LOTR standard version, LOTR extended version.

Actually no, it doesn't. There are two distinct products.

There isn't one version that you have to milk up to the other.

You can buy the one you want, then be done with it.

Just like you can buy the deluxe version of a certain game and get the useless extras that float your boat, or not. Two distinct products.

 

[PhatSaqs]

more like::


getting an A-B game with the option to buy a weekly new character/map (PURPOSEFULLY LEFT OUT OF THE INITIAL RELEASE) available for a few bucks

Devs are only hurting themselves if they do this but only if the quality of the content makes the game that much better IMO.

In the case of this particular DLC tho, it doesnt matter as the content is shit.

 

[Raiden]

Screw that, I'm not paying 20 bucks for a multiplayer map.

See how easy that was?

He said mapS

Im a pussy in that shit, if i love PD0 online, and they release a stealth-suit Joanna Dark model or something, i KNOW ill buy it.

 

[kaching]

That's why there is competition.

From time to time, competitors do agree to cooperate in a cartel. A competitive environment isn't a cureall.

Nobody is missing the point because it is really just that simple. If the developer hasn't convinced you that the content is worth paying for, then don't buy it. The developer will then have to make more compelling downloadable content or just not make it at all.

That assumes the developer cares about my dollar anymore. Its a big market at this point and the developer could find that it's far more lucrative to attend to people who are less demanding in what they expect to see in the originally shipped product and who will also pay for subsequent downloads.

I tend to think that things can work themselves out, that the market can find an equilibrium that works for most but I don't think that will necessarily happen without vigilance on the part of those of us who care about gaming. Shrug your shoulders and say "whaddya gonna do?" and the fees will just keep creeping up.

 

[GitarooMan]

Actually no, it doesn't. There are two distinct products.

There isn't one version that you have to milk up to the other.

You can buy the one you want, then be done with it.

Just like you can buy the deluxe version of a certain game and get the useless extras that float your boat, or not. Two distinct products.

That is a distinction without a difference IMO, just a different medium to purchase the extra content through. The movie industry isn't "gimping" the regular editions of movies, they're just adding extras to special editions. I haven't seen anything different so far here, of course if it goes to far competition and/or market forces will react against it.

 

[TheDuce22]

Just like you can buy the deluxe version of a certain game and get the useless extras that float your boat, or not. Two distinct products.

The xbox live extras your bitching about are distinct products. You dont really need them.

 

[jedimike]

Actually no, it doesn't. There are two distinct products.

There isn't one version that you have to milk up to the other.

You can buy the one you want, then be done with it.

Just like you can buy the deluxe version of a certain game and get the useless extras that float your boat, or not. Two distinct products.

What's your point??? The one with extras costs more money, just like the extra features on some games over XBL.

 

[Kung Foo Kid]

So how much should i pay for games like DQ8 or disgaea? Scarlet logged 300 hours into DQ8, should she pay 700 dollars for it?

I'm not saying games should be 8 dollars, obviously there is a difference between a game and a movie, but 60 dollar games + nickle and diming for stupid shit is not the answer.

No she wouldn't, she would probably say wow I got 300 hours of entertainment for $60 what a deal, but you know complain away.

Also technically you almost do come close to that sort of numer when you factor in a system purchase, but that is something else completely. Comparing games to movies is also pretty useless in the sense nothing is required to see a movie. Just go to the theatre and see it, you a have a preinstalled base of 6 billion people compared to say 10 million consoles.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

What's your point??? The one with extras costs more money, just like the extra features on some games over XBL.

The point is, you know going in that one has less content than the other. You have no clue about the DLC for a game when it's released and what they plan to milk out of users. It's clearly not the same.

 

[TheDuce22]

The point is, you know going in that one has less content than the other.

Not when they release a special edition of a movie a couple months later.

 

[Kung Foo Kid]

Maybe the movie industry and music industry should adopt the same model pretty soon as downloadable content becomes more pervasive. When you buy a new album, you have to pay to get the extra few tracks that they kept to themselves for later on. Or when you buy a movie, you have to pay for the extras that came on the DVD before hand.

Sounds like a great idea! Give me less, and make me pay for it later! w00t!

Now thats value.

Yes cause this does not already happen...

 

[HokieJoe]

i dunno maybe they should try......streaminlining development? Or maybe drop the price so more people buy games?

I mean last i checked i didn't have to pay 60 dollars to go see the titanic in the theatre.

Hehe, well, you didn’t get a copy of the movie to take home either. As well, your feet don’t stick to the floor, you don’t hear babies crying, or some knuckle-nut talking on their GD cell phone the whole time.

 

[AirBrian]

First off, that information was a rumor. Also, this isn't the first time gamers have had to pay for extra content. PC developers usually just save a whole bunch of extra content and call it an expansion pack. We also paid for extra courses in Links and 2 map/car packs in PGR2.

Everytime this happens, there's a huge bitch thread on GAF. However, I don't recall anyone calling PGR2 or Links gimped games.

Except this isn't the PC market. I love console gaming so much more than PC gaming because everyone has the same content, the same hardware, and thus, a (relatively) level field of play. Not only are developers going to hold back content for microtransactions, but it ruins the consistancy of console gaming that helps make console gaming what it is.

 

[Dinosaur Sr.]

The point is, you know going in that one has less content than the other. You have no clue about the DLC for a game when it's released and what they plan to milk out of users. It's clearly not the same.

You always know that you're buying the "regular DVD" version of a game when you get it. You can choose later whether or not you want to upgrade it to the "special edition DVD" version by purchasing downloadable content.

 

[jedimike]

The point is, you know going in that one has less content than the other. You have no clue about the DLC for a game when it's released and what they plan to milk out of users. It's clearly not the same.

We could go around and around in circles with this... DON'T BUY THE CONTENT. I guess there are just some things that people will never agree on. Democrats/Republicans, Pro-choice/Pro-life, blah, blah, blah.

I'll just say that if a developer can make a great game that I'm willing to buy and on top of that they make downloadable content that I'm willing to buy, then that's a damn good developer and I'm happy they are getting my money.

If a developer puts out a "gimped" game and then hopes to un-gimp it by making me pay, then that developer won't be getting my money.


Simple solution.

 

[Kung Foo Kid]

The point is, you know going in that one has less content than the other. You have no clue about the DLC for a game when it's released and what they plan to milk out of users. It's clearly not the same.

That is assuming the movie was released at the sametime. What about DVD's that release a standard edition then a another addition 6 months later with extra content. Should the people with that bought the first DVD get the extra content for free? In your system they apparently do.

 

[monkeyrun]

frankly .. things like these should be considered easter eggs. no one's gonna pay for it, specially for a new franchise like Kameo. if they put this costume on Halo, some people might actually get it.

 

[Redbeard]

Wow, that's a real lame attitude to take towards it. So instead of being proactive and telling MS to stuff this shit back where it came from, just take it up the ass and encourage them to do it more right?

Sounds like a fanboy attitude to me. Take it up the ass and smile.

It's not a "lame attitude". What you and others are suggesting is ridiculous, and is nothing like the examples that are actually out there. When developers start shipping a game lacking the last level and then charge for it, then complain all you want. Thinking that these tiny downloads are going to lead to games being deliberately shipped incomplete is nonsense, and you know it.

If anything is a fanboy attitude, it's this overreactionary anti-"M$" bullshit.

 

[Dinosaur Sr.]

if they put this costume on Halo, some people might actually get it.

Master Chief don't roll like that.

 

[Kung Foo Kid]

Master Chief don't roll like that.

How do we know? We don't know how the story ends, lol

 

[Dr_Cogent]

It's not a "lame attitude". What you and others are suggesting is ridiculous, and is nothing like the examples that are actually out there. When developers start shipping a game lacking the last level and then charge for it, then complain all you want. Thinking that these tiny downloads are going to lead to games being deliberately shipped incomplete is nonsense, and you know it.

If anything is a fanboy attitude, it's this overreactionary anti-"M$" bullshit.

Buahahahah! Obviously you guys are never going to get it.

No one is talking about lacking the last level. It's simply content they already produced for the game that they have selectively decided to leave out in order to make you pay for it later. They won't leave out items that will "break the game" obviously. What they will leave out is cool models, weapons, outfits, blah blah blah that they think they can get you to buy later on that should have already gone into the game in the first place. If games are going to be 60 bucks now, they already got their fair share of whats coming to them. They should put it all into the game and not make it "unlockable/downloadable" by spending even more money on top of it.

They are already pretty much going to get their way with 60 bucks, but some here appear to want to pay even more.

 

[TheDuce22]

They still have to sell the game to begin with. If they ship a barebones product and nobody buys it they have to deal with the consequences. Whats more likely is they put out the best product they can then maybe add to it later if its popular enough.

 

[jedimike]

Buahahahah! Obviously you guys are never going to get it.

No one is talking about lacking the movie ending. It's simply content they already produced for the movie that they have selectively decided to leave out in order to make you pay for it later. They won't leave out items that will "break the movie" obviously. What they will leave out is cool characters, places, lines, blah blah blah that they think they can get you to buy later on that should have already gone into the movie in the first place. If movies are going to be 20 bucks now, they already got their fair share of whats coming to them. They should put it all into the movie and not make it "a seperate purchase" by spending even more money on top of it.

.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i know i'm not buying anything, not even geometry wars...

i'm not going to be party to any nickel and diming...

i'm not going to be party to any phantom pay content...

no hard copy, no sale!

 

[SteveMeister]

Buahahahah! Obviously you guys are never going to get it.

No one is talking about lacking the last level. It's simply content they already produced for the game that they have selectively decided to leave out in order to make you pay for it later. They won't leave out items that will "break the game" obviously. What they will leave out is cool models, weapons, outfits, blah blah blah that they think they can get you to buy later on that should have already gone into the game in the first place. If games are going to be 60 bucks now, they already got their fair share of whats coming to them. They should put it all into the game and not make it "unlockable/downloadable" by spending even more money on top of it.

And obviously you are never going to get it, either. If people don't like the idea of microtransactions to pay for downloadable content, they won't buy it. If not enough people buy the downloadable content, it will not be a viable revenue stream, and companies will stop providing it.

Charging for downloadable content is an experiment at expanding revenue streams. If it works, then the people who buy it will be happy, and the people who sell it will be happy -- and the people who ignore it will be completely unaffected. If it doesn't work, then IT WILL GO AWAY.

You are opposed to it. Let your wallet do the talking; don't buy it. If enough people feel the same way, then the experiment will be considered a failure.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

No one ever said some of this shit can't be on the up and up. I'm sure that the Halo map pack levels had not been developed before hand and weren't involved in the initial development of Halo 2. Them charging for the map pack a year later is fine.

It's the idea of them intentionally leaving out a few MP levels (or whatever for that matter) that could have made it into the game at ship time to maximize profits. If you guys honestly think that devs won't do this in order to make a few more bucks then you are fooling yourselves. I know I would as a developer. I would try to milk every damn penny out of you people.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

And obviously you are never going to get it, either. If people don't like the idea of microtransactions to pay for downloadable content, they won't buy it. If not enough people buy the downloadable content, it will not be a viable revenue stream, and companies will stop providing it.

Charging for downloadable content is an experiment at expanding revenue streams. If it works, then the people who buy it will be happy, and the people who sell it will be happy -- and the people who ignore it will be completely unaffected. If it doesn't work, then IT WILL GO AWAY.

You are opposed to it. Let your wallet do the talking; don't buy it. If enough people feel the same way, then the experiment will be considered a failure.

Your idea only works if everyone doesn't buy it. It's obvious to me that the market will eat it up because they just don't care or think beyond a few bucks here, or a few bucks there. Hence, it will lead to the slippery slope already discussed.

 

[TheDuce22]

It's the idea of them intentionally leaving out a few MP levels (or whatever for that matter) that could have made it into the game at ship time to maximize profits. If you guys honestly think that devs won't do this in order to make a few more bucks then you are fooling yourselves. I know I would as a developer. I would try to milk every damn penny out of you people.

The first priority is making something that people want to buy in the first place. If they leave shit out the reviews and sales might suffer. I find it hard to believe they would take that risk to maybe make money down the road.

 

[Rhindle]

Buahahahah! Obviously you guys are never going to get it.

No one is talking about lacking the last level. It's simply content they already produced for the game that they have selectively decided to leave out in order to make you pay for it later. They won't leave out items that will "break the game" obviously. What they will leave out is cool models, weapons, outfits, blah blah blah that they think they can get you to buy later on that should have already gone into the game in the first place. If games are going to be 60 bucks now, they already got their fair share of whats coming to them. They should put it all into the game and not make it "unlockable/downloadable" by spending even more money on top of it.

They are already pretty much going to get their way with 60 bucks, but some here appear to want to pay even more.

If what's on the disc isn't worth $60, don't buy the disc.

If what's in the content download isn't worth $2, don't pay $2.

Either that, or you can you can spend half your day bitching on a videogame message board on the Internet. That will change the world for sure.

 

[Redbeard]

Buahahahah! Obviously you guys are never going to get it.

No one is talking about lacking the last level. It's simply content they already produced for the game that they have selectively decided to leave out in order to make you pay for it later. They won't leave out items that will "break the game" obviously. What they will leave out is cool models, weapons, outfits, blah blah blah that they think they can get you to buy later on that should have already gone into the game in the first place. If games are going to be 60 bucks now, they already got their fair share of whats coming to them. They should put it all into the game and not make it "unlockable/downloadable" by spending even more money on top of it.

They are already pretty much going to get their way with 60 bucks, but some here appear to want to pay even more.

Dude, you were talking about games being "gimped". Offering small things like a few costumes or cars to download afterward does not make the game you bought gimped. And if the game was gimped to begin with, microtransactions aren't going to bring it back from gimphood.

 

[StorablePrawn]

The solution to this is simple. Vote with your dollars.

Not that it's hard to in this case. Nobody would want this crap anyway.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Either that, or you can you can spend half your day bitching on a videogame message board on the Internet.

I will do whatever my prerogative is.

We know that MS and other companies read these boards. If they read you guys ready to take it up the ass pronto, they will definitely be ready to help you out there.

If they read about people not being happy about it, maybe that will have some sort of influence.

Some here are obviously a marketing dream to those devs/publishers that want to milk the shit out of consumers.

 

[Sean]

Not sure why this is such a big deal as it's only a skin. Kameo already has DOZENS of unlockables already in the game. Fans that enjoy the game might purchase this, others don't have to. It's NOT an essential part of the game that everybody needs, it's just a freaking skin. If you don't feel it's worth paying for just don't buy it.

Premium DLC has been around for years now. Off the top of my head Links, MechAssault, DDR, Halo 2, PGR2, Crimson Skies, Rainbow Six 3, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory all had premium content. Paying for certain downloads is not something new. You either buy it or you don't, the same thing people have been doing for years now.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i see what people are saying though, the average consumer already spends $50 on quite a few crappy games...

i've thought this out and it's gonna take more than just not buying the content to dissuade developers, you're going to have to not buy the game too... they figure if everyone buys the game that would have anyway, even with less content, then the few that get the extras are just free money, so you would have to not buy the game to begin with to make a real dent...

so if you REALLY want to make a difference, don't buy any games that have DLC that obviously could have been included on the game itself.. yes, that means Kameo and Ridge Racer 6!

 

[SteveMeister]

Your idea only works if everyone doesn't buy it. It's obvious to me that the market will eat it up because they just don't care or think beyond a few bucks here, or a few bucks there. Hence, it will lead to the slippery slope already discussed.

Well, it's not "my idea," it's basic marketing. Goods are priced at the level the market will bear.

Besides, I seriously doubt any game company will intentionally cripple a game, forcing you to buy downloadable content. That just isn't going to happen. I seriously doubt Microsoft would even LET that happen -- heck, they don't even allow titles to require the hard disk drive to be present, and Microsoft makes money from HDD sales.

Another thing to think about. Since developers can charge for downloadable content, they can spend time and money creating brand new content/features, knowing that they'll get a return on their investment. Which might lead developers to continue releasing new content long after release. You may see new content in quantities and of a quality level that you would not otherwise have seen.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Well, it's not "my idea," it's basic marketing. Goods are priced at the level the market will bear.

Besides, I seriously doubt any game company will intentionally cripple a game, forcing you to buy downloadable content. That just isn't going to happen. I seriously doubt Microsoft would even LET that happen -- heck, they don't even allow titles to require the hard disk drive to be present, and Microsoft makes money from HDD sales.

Another thing to think about. Since developers can charge for downloadable content, they can spend time and money creating brand new content/features, knowing that they'll get a return on their investment. Which might lead developers to continue releasing new content long after release. You may see new content in quantities and of a quality level that you would not otherwise have seen.

why waste time doing that when they can make even more money by develping a game with all the content at one time, then release 85% on disk and 'time release' say .. 15% of it while moving on to developing the next game and having minimal staff for any QA issues?

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Well, it's not "my idea," it's basic marketing. Goods are priced at the level the market will bear.

Besides, I seriously doubt any game company will intentionally cripple a game, forcing you to buy downloadable content. That just isn't going to happen. I seriously doubt Microsoft would even LET that happen -- heck, they don't even allow titles to require the hard disk drive to be present, and Microsoft makes money from HDD sales.

Another thing to think about. Since developers can charge for downloadable content, they can spend time and money creating brand new content/features, knowing that they'll get a return on their investment. Which might lead developers to continue releasing new content long after release. You may see new content in quantities and of a quality level that you would not otherwise have seen.

I have no problem with legit content being created and consumed.

What my fear is, is that certain parts will simply be omitted before release in order to try to squeeze a few more dollars out of consumers when it could have simply been included in the game to begin with.

I can't believe that people honestly don't think that this will happen. I said before, if I was on the other side, I would be doing this exact same thing in order to line my pockets with more money.