Support NeoGAF

[Jebusman]

Interesting game to make an example of. Skins are the only thing that require real money.

Champs could be bought with real money, but it's pretty expensive to do that and doesn't even make you good at the game lol.

The league argument is generally that in a true competitive setting, every player would have the full roster of characters as it enables you to have the greatest range of potential counterpicks and team synergy.

But because League locks characters away for either in-game money or real money, you are at a competitive disadvantage against other players because they have more options than you.

Your only way to solve this is either dumping a fuckton of time into the game, or conveniantly, why not just give Riot money and they'll grant you all the characters!.

And when compared to Dota2, in which every character is unlocked from the start, it seems like a raw deal.

So you think it shouldn't exist...

How are you making this connection. Explain it to me. Because if your argument is "I NEED THE PROOF, SHOW ME THE RECEIPTS", there is literally no convincing you and I'd rather not spend more time trying to make it clear.

 

[SpartanN92]

I really enjoy DLC. It has extended my enjoyment of countless games and I am happy to open my wallet for more content to consume from some of my favorite franchises.

Examples of DLC done right:
Halo
Fallout NV
Fallout 3
Oblivion (Excluding horse armor)
Skyrim
Red Dead Redemption
Forza Horizon
Left 4 Dead
CoD

 

[Z3M0G]

Wish he didn't use Destiny as an example... $500M is franchise contract, not cost of full game... and Destiny has no micro-transactions other than the Season Pass / DLC. But that does make it a $90-100 title, rather than a $60 title.

 

[Clear]

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, or more importantly, their own company executives. Or maybe have your development studio in a location where the cost of living isn't ridiculously high.

I think I remember Tim Schafer saying all his employees needed to make at least $120/k a year because of being in San Fran. And Double Fine is a small-fry compared to the giants.

So wait... your solution is to make all games on the cheap, don't market, have no business infrastructure, and make sure development is done in economically suitable areas where you can afford to pay your workers as little as possible.

Nice.

 

[TimmiT]

That's not a good example at all. Games that are intentionally designed around microtransations are the ones like Dungeon Keeper where the base game is so gimped in terms of progression that you either buy microtransations or it's going to take you forever to get anywhere in the game. With MKX, the fatalities are always there and there's really no barrier between you doing them as they're really easy to pull off. There are even quite a few fatalities in MKX where you don't even need to press a button after the directional input. That's how easy they are.

Mortal Kombat X is a full priced game though. If we're including F2P games, then yeah there are a lot more examples to pick from.

 

[ShinMaruku]

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.

 

[Zombegoast]

Having these microtransaction in games that requires a subscription to play online is even more ridiculous on top of already paying for the game.

 

[Jebusman]

So wait... your solution is to make all games on the cheap, don't market, have no business infrastructure, and make sure development is done in economically suitable areas where you can afford to pay your workers as little as possible.

Nice.

So your posting strategy is exaggerate everything, then point at it and go "LOOK HOW DUMB THIS IS, BOY ISN'T HE STUPID".

Come on now.

You can market without dumping millions of dollars into stuff.

You can run a business without needing to have executives clearing multi-millions per year.

You can still pay employees great wages without trying to run them like slave drivers. Grow up.

The Tim Schafer example was that the cost to the company for a single employee, per month, was $10K. Not what the employee was paid, just how much cost to the company the employee was. In an area with a more reasonable cost of living, you could still pay the employee the same amount, maybe more, while not as big of a financial burden on the company. But Schafer wants to be in SF because he does.

 

[Lanrutcon]

So there are still people that believe micro-transactions and DLC don't influence development. I thought, this being 2015, we were past that and the Easter bunny.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

I really enjoy DLC. It has extended my enjoyment of countless games and I am happy to open my wallet for more content to consume from some of my favorite franchises.

Examples of DLC done right:
Halo
Fallout NV
Fallout 3
Oblivion (Excluding horse armor)
Skyrim
Red Dead Redemption
Forza Horizon
Left 4 Dead
CoD

I think/hope most would agree that there's absolutely nothing wrong with some DLC. There are good and bad ways to go about it. If it feels like it takes a lifetime to unlock shit because you are selling unlocks (Forza 5 before they patched it) that sucks. If you let me run around as John Marston popping zombies in the wild west, that's awesome.

 

[Koobion]

Ugh - more bitching about DLC from Boogie. He hasn't had anything new to add to the argument in a while. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but he's taking it too far by incessantly harping on about how he doesn't want his viewers to preorder or get games day 1.

 

[MrBadger]

I don't really have an issue with DLC existing. If the base game is substantial enough and I'm willing to give them money for whatever else they're selling, that's all that really matters. I don't really care for any of the other details.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Ugh - more bitching about DLC from Boogie. He hasn't had anything new to add to the argument in a while. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but he's taking it too far by incessantly harping on about how he doesn't want his viewers to preorder or get games day 1.

Continuing to talk about a problem that keeps rearing its head doesn't really sound like "taking it too far." Especially when it's on a youtube channel you can just stop watching.

 

[DannyDanger]

How are you making this connection. Explain it to me. Because if your argument is "I NEED THE PROOF, SHOW ME THE RECEIPTS", there is literally no convincing you and I'd rather not spend more time trying to make it clear.

What other reasons are there to complain about DLC and MT's? You either don't want to pay for the extra content, because you assume it should be in the main game, or dont want the content to exist, because you assume it hurts the main game.

If there is another reason I'm missing here please let me know...

I didn't ask for any proof. In my original comment i laid out a few questions that i'd like DLC, MT haters to answer. Because right now, the complaints make no sense to me

 

[KHlover]

Idk, post launch DLC for Mario Kart 8 and SSB4 definitely increase my enjoyment. Also have only heard good things about Hyrule Warriors DLC. If the game has enough content at launch I don't mind additional DLC down the road, as long as I genuinely feel that the DLC wasn't cut out of the base game to sell it at markup.

 

[ShinMaruku]

So there are still people that believe micro-transactions and DLC don't influence development. I thought, this being 2015, we were past that and the Easter bunny.

There is a sizable portion of humanity that is batshit insane.
Like 14-30% of America is fucking insane and should never be catered to.

 

[Jebusman]

What other reasons are there to complain about DLC and MT's? You either don't want to pay for the extra content, because you assume it should be in the main game, or dont want the content to exist, because you assume it hurts the main game.

If there is another reason I'm missing here please let me know...

I didn't ask for any proof. In my original comment i laid out a few questions that i'd like DLC, MT haters to answer. Because right now, the complaints make no sense to me

Except that's not what people are saying. There isn't an argument (or at least a valid one) that ALL DLC is bad. But there is a clear trend that certain developers are using DLC to milk money out of consumers that, 10-15 years ago, would have just been included in the game in the first place, or left out completely because the problem the DLC is trying to fix, was never a problem in the first place.

I'm not hating on all DLC and MTs. And neither is anyone else up in arms about this. You're looking at this situation way too black/white.

Hell, Expansion Packs were what predate the modern DLC trend (and still exists for MMOs and a few titles), and I don't think anyone really complained about that. No "WHY WASN'T THIS IN THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE" stuff.

Also, if you weren't asking for proof, what was this? This is essentially the "If you don't work for the company, you can't complain" line. Right up there with "You can't criticize art if you're not an artist" "You can't judge music if you're not a musician" "If you don't work for Maxis, you have no proof Sim City works offline".

Do you have a record of the companies financials that gives you the insight to make that call? Were you there when they decided to "cut this content from the main game"?

Where is your proof that they intentionally built the game around forcing to buy DLC or MT's?

 

[J'aime Fils-Aime]

I haven't played the most recent MK, but I know the past few versions have had that annoying system where you have to grind to unlock things. Honestly, I would have probably enjoyed the previous games more if I had had the option to unlock everything from the start, because grinding is so goddamn boring. I also would've paid money to unlock Grand Master Galaxy on Super Mario Galaxy 2 rather than have to do redo all the previous stages.

Making games "100s of hours through boring grinding and replaying the same shit over and over" was a problem that's existed for a long time; it may not bother people with a lot of time, but it bothers those of us who don't game full-time. Paying money isn't the ideal solution (cheat codes are), but it's preferable to grinding.

Sure, some games do really go too far in incentivizing paying more money to win, but you know what? I don't bother with those games. Same with games that promise hundreds of hours of doing the same shit over and over. There have always been good games and bad games. Nothing's new.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

The things gamers bitch about (and we sure do like to bitch) are the same things we embrace. People buy a fuck ton of dlc, that's why publishers do the things they do. They offer a lot of it day one - because gamers gobble it up. I can't blame the game publishers. If there's money to be had, they'll go after it. That's why they're in business.

I know boogie touched on that, but its true. Either put up or shut up, video game fans. Actually, just shut up.

 

[RedSwirl]

To me this plugs right into that Oddworld guy saying capitalism is the main issue here -- that too many companies are constantly after short-term profits when some should probably just be focusing on staying in business.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Mortal Kombat X is a full priced game though. If we're including F2P games, then yeah there are a lot more examples to pick from.

But even then it's not designed around it. The point I was making is that they actually made fatalities in many cases easier to do in MKX than in any previous games in the series. So they removed barriers rather than putting up more.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

The things gamers bitch about (and we sure do like to bitch) are the same things we embrace. People buy a fuck ton of dlc, that's why publishers do the things they do. They offer a lot of it day one - because gamers gobble it up. I can't blame the game publishers. If there's money to be had, they'll go after it. That's why they're in business.

I know boogie touched on that, but its true. Either put up or shut up, video game fans. Actually, just shut up.

It's as if there are millions of gamers with different opinions. Weird.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

So there are still people that believe micro-transactions and DLC don't influence development. I thought, this being 2015, we were past that and the Easter bunny.

im still waiting for this transaction-inducing grind people keep talking about.

 

[Iorv3th]

The league argument is generally that in a true competitive setting, every player would have the full roster of characters as it enables you to have the greatest range of potential counterpicks and team synergy.

But because League locks characters away for either in-game money or real money, you are at a competitive disadvantage against other players because they have more options than you.

Your only way to solve this is either dumping a fuckton of time into the game, or conveniantly, why not just give Riot money and they'll grant you all the characters!.

And when compared to Dota2, in which every character is unlocked from the start, it seems like a raw deal.

I would rather have it that way than have someone counter-pick with a character they do not know how to play. An argument could be made that this somewhat forces a player to become good with the characters they unlock before getting another character. You actually get people that will only play maybe 2 roles and try to get champs that favor those roles to learn.

 

[DannyDanger]

Except that's not what people are saying. There isn't an argument (or at least a valid one) that ALL DLC is bad. But there is a clear trend that certain developers are using DLC to milk money out of consumers that, 10-15 years ago, would have just been included in the game in the first place, or left out completely because the problem the DLC is trying to fix, was never a problem in the first place.

I'm not hating on all DLC and MTs. And neither is anyone else up in arms about this. You're looking at this situation way too black/white.

Also, if you weren't asking for proof, what was this?

So you're hating on DLC and MT in games that you feel are milking. That makes alittle more sense.

When you mentioned "proof" and "receipts" i thought you were referring to proof of purchase (in other words proof that u purchased the game and dlc, and witnessed the game being effected first-hand)

Proof that the game was effected in general, yea i did ask for that, my bad.

I still would like that to be laid out though. We've heard so many behind the scenes info on development cycles (good and bad). But to this day i haven't heard of leaked info about cutting content from the main game to sell as dlc. You have the right to assume that ofcourse, but don't base a whole argument on it without any factual evidence.

 

[Clear]

So your posting strategy is exaggerate everything, then point at it and go "LOOK HOW DUMB THIS IS, BOY ISN'T HE STUPID".

I exaggerated nothing, I just reiterated your points in different words to show how thoughtless it all was.


What's the point of having amazing technology if you can't afford to put it to its fullest use?

This requires a lot of manpower, which in turn means you need to run your enterprise like a proper business, not a bunch of friends futzing around in basements and bedrooms.

Then of course you need to be able to grow and maintain that staffing, balancing the burn-rate risk of salaried employees versus short-term contractees. Which in turn begs the question how do you get the right people for the job(s)? Location plays a big role in that as do you really expect every talented candidate to be willing to pull-up their roots in order to join your company at some far flung site? Especially if you are offering less money than what is expected in their present area.

 

[Jebusman]

I would rather have it that way than have someone counter-pick with a character they do not know how to play. An argument could be made that this somewhat forces a player to become good with the characters they unlock before getting another character. You actually get people that will only play maybe 2 roles and try to get champs that favor those roles to learn.

A counter argument is that the few characters they have, regardless of personal skill, can be at such a heavy disadvantage that all the teamwork in the world still leaves them with a significant handicap in the matchup.

In a 1v1 game this would be a littler clearer, but a 5v5 like League, the team dynamics muddle it all.

I'm still firmly in the Dota2 school of "all character all the time", because I feel the very existence of the characters being available, despite your lack of knowledge on whether or not the other team can PLAY those characters, still contributes to the mindgames being played during a draft.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

If your game is costing you 500 million and half of that is marketing and you give DLC with little content you're kind of an asshole.

 

[Jebusman]

I exaggerated nothing, I just reiterated your points in different words to show how thoughtless it all was.

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

economically suitable areas where you can afford to pay your workers as little as possible

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.

 

[Klossen]

His analytical perspective on DLC is very lacking. You can come to the same conclusion reading a NeoGaf thread. I didn't feel like I got anything from that video that I already didn't know. While his points are correct, he's really just kicking in an open door.

We should be talking about why games are so expensive instead of just using budget as an excuse to justify DLC. Destiny was apparently a massive investment. But did anyone actually see any of that investment in the actual game? Why do publishers insist on investing so much in a single game to the point where it flopping would burn their company? It's because they want the games to sell 10+ million copies now. A decade ago and one million copies sold was considered a success. But now, publishers want that huge 10+ million audience after CoD showed that you can sell twice that much annually.

So the huge budgets exists to finance a marketing campaign and a game intended for a massive audience. If the expected audience is 10+ million, then why should DLC be an excuse to "our games are more expensive than before"? Yes, your games are more expensive to make, but I can't recall anyone playing games frequently wanting that. High budgets are a symptom of a desire of wanting to hit big. Basically, massive budgets are also due to greed. Therefore it cannot be argued that DLC exist to off-set budget costs as an high-budget game is often made for a wide audience. 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.

Yet in gaming, we're supposed to accept that our blockbuster publishers keep monetize their games to the point of absurdity simply because of the budget excuse. A high budget isn't an excuse. It seems like many of us have reached the point where we are seeing that AAA did more harm than good for the industry and want to return to the days of games being more niche but also complete functional experiences day 1 of the purchase.

 

[Silvard]

I haven't watched the video yet, but Jim Sterling has a Jimquisition that does a good job explaining the fault in this logic. You cannot and should not trust a company to not make game design decisions influenced by the fact the are selling microtransactions/DLC.

Their goal is to make money. NetherRealms is making money by people paying $20 to unlock everything in the Krypt in the newest Mortal Kombat. Now, you can unlock all of that without giving them a penny if you put in enough hours. But, it is naive to believe that at no point did the fact they are selling a $20 unlock influence the decisions made as far as how many unlockables there are, the in-game cost of those unlockables, and the rate at which you gain that in-game currency. So, while you haven't engaged in any microtransactions, your gaming experience has been effected by their existence.

Anyone who doesn't believe that has bought into the bullshit lies that these companies are selling.

Everyone has a different threshold for these things, and evidently it happens to be that microtransaction-led game design hasn't crossed that threshold for most people. It has nothing to do with logic, people will support what they like until they don't want it anymore.

Distrusting companies to not make game design decisions with microtransaction or otherwise monetary goals in mind, on principle, is as silly as distrusting old console games (and their companies) to not have been designed with coin-op arcades in mind. It doesn't matter that selling unlocks influenced what they designed, what matters is what they designed. Is it enjoyable to you? Support it. It's not enjoyable to you? Don't support it. That's the only logic to it. The slippery slope argument is the actual logical fallacy.

 

[Avari]

Their goal is to make money. NetherRealms is making money by people paying $20 to unlock everything in the Krypt in the newest Mortal Kombat. Now, you can unlock all of that without giving them a penny if you put in enough hours. But, it is naive to believe that at no point did the fact they are selling a $20 unlock influence the decisions made as far as how many unlockables there are, the in-game cost of those unlockables, and the rate at which you gain that in-game currency. So, while you haven't engaged in any microtransactions, your gaming experience has been effected by their existence.

For me this is the crux of the issue. In general I don't mind DLC for things that are unlockable in game as it is optional. It becomes problematic for me when the process of unlocking the content becomes extended or protracted for no apparent reason other then to drive sales of the DLC. I will simply purchase games with a good balance, and learn which companies release games with a bad balance.

 

[ender1986]

Bah, I disagree. DLC can be abused, but to take a recent example, personally I hope Turtle Rock continues to push out new Hunters / Monsters, I'll gobble 'em all up.

I think the issues comes in what content people believe "should" be included in the game, vs what they think is chopped off and sold later. I'm not claiming that companies DON'T do this, but I've seen some ridiculous entitlement from certain corners of the gaming population.

"Ugh, they should have given us all these skins."

Why?

 

[DidntKnowJack]

It's as if there are millions of gamers with different opinions. Weird.

Naive. Gamers are sheep.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

And when compared to Dota2, in which every character is unlocked from the start, it seems like a raw deal.

LoL and DOTA2 comparisons never work fairly, because they're fairly different at fundamental design levels.
Basically, DOTA2 has hard counters where LoL does not, so the amount of champs locked / not locked is of a different importance in each game.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Is it enjoyable to you? Support it. It's not enjoyable to you? Don't support it. That's the only logic to it.

That's fair logic. Sometimes difficult, though. I've really enjoyed what I've played of MKX so far, but I hate that they're selling a $20 krypt unlock. Obviously I'm not buying that unlock. But, every time I go into the krypt to unlock something, and see how fast my Koins vanish, it bugs me...

The slippery slope argument is the actual logical fallacy.

Saying you shouldn't trust a company that is selling a product to not try to get you to buy said product isn't a slippery slope argument.

Naive. Gamers are sheep.

Gamers are a flat circle.

 

[Live Free or Die]

I disagree. its all optional.

 

[M3d10n]

The good kind of DLC is that that gives you more of what you liked, like the expansion packs that were prevalent in PC gaming. The MK8 DLC is a good example of this.

 

[Shuggananas]

LoL and DOTA2 comparisons never work fairly, because they're fairly different at fundamental design levels.
Basically, DOTA2 has hard counters where LoL does not, so the amount of champs locked / not locked is of a different importance in each game.

How convenient. No.
It's as if capcom made akuma unlocked with money or grinding 200 hours because "you already have ken and ryu !"

 

[Wagram]

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.

 

[Jebusman]

I still would like that to be laid out though. We've heard so many behind the scenes info on development cycles (good and bad). But to this day i haven't heard of leaked info about cutting content from the main game to sell as dlc. You have the right to assume that ofcourse, but don't base a whole argument on it without any factual evidence.

Day 1 DLC is probably one of the more prevalent examples to provide, but even that is argued back and forth on whether or not it's valid, and based on the situation it can be.

The biggest argument for it tends to be the "It was developed on a separate budget" line.

As in, they budgeted $1 million dollars to make this game. Then they made a separate team, gave them a budget of $250,000 and told them to make some DLC. The DLC, while not finished in time to get on the disk, is finished in time to be available for download on launch day.

They argue that this allows them to sell both the original game at full price to attempt to make up the $1 million budget, THEN sell the DLC that is already finished because it was given "a separate" budget.

Is this valid? It could be. It all depends on how integrated into the core game that content seemed to be.

Really it's incredibly subjective and I don't mean to seem as aggitated about it as I do, but it's more of a "keeping companies in check" mentality where letting this slide even a little bit creates a snowball effect of it getting worse and worse. Stuff like Sim City charging for individual buildings while discouraging modders, compared to Cities: Skylines where modders supplied all the content (as was done in every Sim City before the current one).

If I remember correctly, didn't Mass Effect 3 launch with a mission/character that was locked behind a paywall unless you A. Paid $10, B. Bought the collectors edition?

Some people see that as a legitimate bonus to getting a collectors edition, while others (myself included) saw that as a way to extract another $10 from players for content that was already primed and ready to go before the game even launched.

How convenient. No.
It's as if capcom made akuma unlocked with money or grinding 200 hours because "you already have ken and ryu !"

Street Fighter makes a better example of the "problem", but not really in comparison to League. League is a team game. Even the shittiest hero might have a trick up his sleeve depending on the abilities of his teammates. I still think the counter pick mentality exists there, but it's definitely not as clean cut as "I have to fight Dhalsim? Fuck I only own Hugo. Fuck this game".

 

[SeanTSC]

Know what I'd like to see? Some actual data on budgets. Everyone is always saying budgets are always going up and up and up, but we haven't really seen real budget reports and comparisons for a LONG time now, except for on a select few titles. There really should be some in-depth report on the games industry and how much *every* title has cost to make between the start of Gen 7 and now in year 2 of Gen 8.

Between Engine Licenses being more accessible than ever, XB1 and PS4 architecture being exponentially closer to the PC for porting purposes, not having to deal with the Nightmare that was the PS3, and Social Media Marketing being far cheaper than running TV spots you'd think that *some* costs have had to come down. Plus with Indies flourishing so incredibly well it seems the games industry is not so insane to break into anymore.

I do not buy that games like Fifa, Madden, and Call of Duty continue to have massively growing budgets when they reuse the same engines and architecture so much. Same with Far Cry 4, it's barely different than Far Cry 3. And Destiny clearly did not actually have 500 Million Dollars sunk into it, isn't that actually some ridiculous projected 10 year budget for the entire Franchise?

Sure, Ubisoft probably bloats the fuck out of their budgets with AC titles by having tens of thousands of people and dozens of studios working on them while likely spending probably twice the actual development budget on Marketing, but what about the rest of the industry? 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.

I have a lot of games already this generation. Currently 28 retail disc PS4 games. Nearly that many again in digital titles (mostly indies/small games) and that's not counting free games on PS+. Only a couple of those games have Microtransactions (AC Unity and GTAV). Well over half of them have no DLC what so ever and of the ones that do have DLC most do not feel like cash-grab bullshit.

So, I don't think that budgets have gotten so ridiculous that every single game has to rely on Microtransactions and DLC, because a whole hell of a lot of games do not.

Maybe it's just the type of games I buy though.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Disagree. All MTs and DLC are 100% optional, and their presence/availability in a game never hurt my enjoyment. I purchased the ones I wanted and ignored the ones I didn't want.

 

[Jebusman]

So, I don't think that budgets have gotten so ridiculous that every single game has to rely on Microtransactions and DLC, because a whole hell of a lot of games do not.

Every game has microtransactions and DLC so the VP of Whatever can buy his 4th yacht.

 

[DannyDanger]

Day 1 DLC is probably one of the more prevalent examples to provide, but even that is argued back and forth on whether or not it's valid, and based on the situation it can be.

The biggest argument for it tends to be the "It was developed on a separate budget" line.

As in, they budgeted $1 million dollars to make this game. Then they made a separate team, gave them a budget of $250,000 and told them to make some DLC. The DLC, while not finished in time to get on the disk, is finished in time to be available for download on launch day.

They argue that this allows them to sell both the original game at full price to attempt to make up the $1 million budget, THEN sell the DLC that is already finished because it was given "a separate" budget.

Is this valid? It could be. It all depends on how integrated into the core game that content seemed to be.

Really it's incredibly subjective and I don't mean to seem as aggitated about it as I do, but it's more of a "keeping companies in check" mentality where letting this slide even a little bit creates a snowball effect of it getting worse and worse. Stuff like Sim City charging for individual buildings while discouraging modders, compared to Cities: Skylines where modders supplied all the content (as was done in every Sim City before the current one).

If I remember correctly, didn't Mass Effect 3 launch with a mission/character that was locked behind a paywall unless you A. Paid $10, B. Bought the collectors edition?

Some people see that as a legitimate bonus to getting a collectors edition, while others (myself included) saw that as a way to extract another $10 from players for content that was already primed and ready to go before the game even launched.

Honestly its not even the fact that ppl don't like DLC and MTs that bother me. It's just that they feel the need to justify their stance by claiming "evil corporations", "gullible consumer" without any actual evidence.

It's optional, so I 100% agree that if you feel its wrong, don't support it.
But when you're (Boogie) making youtube videos and crusading to make it seem like companies that sell dlc and ppl that choose to buy dlc are hurting gaming, it just gets annoying (This statement isnt directed at you in particular)
( For what its worth i rarely buy dlc )

 

[Petrae]

Complaining about microtransactions and DLC resolves nothing. Publishers are still going to do it, regardless of who complains about it; it's an integral part of the AAA business model now and won't be curtailed.

As a consumer, all I can do is vote with my wallet and not buy the vanilla launch release. Instead, I wait for GOTY editions or I wait for the vanilla game to drop to $20-30 and buy the DLC in addition to it... though the latter option is rare in my case.

I used to rail about DLC and microtransactions, before they became the rule and not the exception, and nothing changed. In fact, it got worse. Doing so now only gives the complainer the satisfaction of getting the frustration off of his/her chest. There are no other wide-ranging results.

 

[Silvard]

Saying you shouldn't trust a company that is selling a product to not try to get you to buy said product isn't a slippery slope argument.

It's not, the slippery slope argument is when you (generic you) argue that you shouldn't buy a product because of that, on principle, because if you're fine with it then you're fine with more aggressive ways of monetization. I'm not saying it's an argument you've made, either.

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.

 

[Senoculum]

Budgets in general aren't ridiculous. But AAA titles have totally gone up. Video Games are like film, where not every title needs 250 million dollars to produce.

But video games are separate to film in that add-on content could see an audience return at a small fee. AAA games are more likely to create DLC and MT (and like everything else in this world, some are better than others); and what's the problem? Nothing.

There has yet to be a game that's become unplayable due to people abusing this. Mobile games are yet another market, but what people don't realize is that those games have a very sharp bell curve of people playing it. Developers have finally found that sustainable model for the mobile market. If it really turns you off that a developer asks you to spend $2.99 for gold for your RPG fantasy sim, then don't play it. No one has a gun to your head. For those who are actually invested in these "freemium" games, then that's their prerogative, and their own wealth on the table.

I think what bothers people the most is that content is seemingly held back, "when it should already be on the disc." There has yet to be an example where such an absence of a "skin" or a multiplayer mode has actually deterred any enjoyment from the core title. Choices, people, you have the power.

Find me a game where you need to pay a premium to get a platinum trophy, then we'll talk. Find me a $74.99 mobile game that's successful enough to never warrant any micro-transaction, then we'll talk.

 

[vg260]

To believe your gaming experience hasn't been effected by the existence of micro-transactions and DLC is to believe that a company has a product it wants to sell, but they aren't actually trying to sell it to you. And that is obviously nonsensical.

They have a product, they want to sell it to you, and decisions are made throughout development on how best to get you to buy it. Not believing that is, again, simply naivety.

I haven't watched the video yet, but Jim Sterling has a Jimquisition that does a good job explaining the fault in this logic. You cannot and should not trust a company to not make game design decisions influenced by the fact the are selling microtransactions/DLC.

Their goal is to make money. NetherRealms is making money by people paying $20 to unlock everything in the Krypt in the newest Mortal Kombat. Now, you can unlock all of that without giving them a penny if you put in enough hours. But, it is naive to believe that at no point did the fact they are selling a $20 unlock influence the decisions made as far as how many unlockables there are, the in-game cost of those unlockables, and the rate at which you gain that in-game currency. So, while you haven't engaged in any microtransactions, your gaming experience has been effected by their existence.

Yes. A game's progression rate determination is inherently compromised once a monetization scenario is worked in. I find it hard to believe that an entire in-game economy was designed completely independent of considering the time/effort needed from the player and potential earnings of sale of unlock DLC. If they are going this route, they would be stupid business-wise not to balance it with that in mind.

 

[mclem]

I haven't watched the video yet, but Jim Sterling has a Jimquisition that does a good job explaining the fault in this logic. You cannot and should not trust a company to not make game design decisions influenced by the fact the are selling microtransactions/DLC.

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