pretty much how I feel.Originally Posted by Guardian XIII
think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.
pretty much how I feel.
think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.
Except that all those old games are never going to be added to. No matter how much I hope for it, I'm never going to see an official map editor for Master of Orion 2. And, even if they were releasing DLC for older games, DLC is never that awesome.pretty much how I feel.
think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
You need to remember there are constraints on what DLC can do to a games base code. It is for this reason that Super Street Fighter 4 is being released as a game and not as a dlc patch for the original Street Fighter 4 game. The base code of the game can be manipulated to an extent but the DLC cannot completely overwrite the base code. Therefore in older games, should the base code not offer the option of expanding to include features like map editors then well sorry that is just how it goes.Except that all those old games are never going to be added to. No matter how much I hope for it, I'm never going to see an official map editor for Master of Orion 2. And, even if they were releasing DLC for older games, DLC is never that awesome.pretty much how I feel.
think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.
True. But that was not quite what I meant. Most new games these days don't need DLC. Unless things are specifically held back for DLC, the games are generally complete and finished. DLC should be more than just tacked on random stuff, or levels specifically designed and held back for DLC. DLC, done right, would be like giving a map editor to MoO2. It would be taking a game that is already awesome on its own, and adding in a feature that fans of the game have been hoping for somewhere in their hearts and waiting for it to appear. One or two extra characters, or an extra weapon, are not worth the effort, and extra levels too often feel either as though they were always around, but held back to milk the extra money out of people, or just tacked on without any work to integrate them into the game as a whole.
Oh, and I did get an unofficial map editor for MoO2. It's not perfect by a long shot, but it is still pretty awesome.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
If you're getting less content for the same price of more than the original game, that is by definition an inflated price. Perception doesn't change that.Even still, the price is only inflated if a person thinks it's inflated. Obviously a lot of people think they get their money's worth from this stuff whether it costs more than the original game for less or not.
Unless you think they undercharged for the amount of content that was in the original game. I'm sure a lot of people feel Fallout 3 had way more than $60 worth of content. In fact, I can pretty much guarentee a lot of people think that because there are a lot of people who think the DLC was well worth the price.If you're getting less content for the same price of more than the original game, that is by definition an inflated price. Perception doesn't change that.
Seriously, we're talking about putting a value on something as abstract as how much fun can be had in a game. Since you really can't quantify the amount of fun and content in a game, it's value can only be based on perception.
It depends.
There's DLC done right (Valkyria Chronicles) and there's DLC done wrong (Tomb Raider Underworld.)
Basically it's done wrong when the developers blatantly cut out content from the main game only to sell it later,or when they change the end of the game by making the DLC the "real ending" which you have to buy if you want to complete the experience.
You can't undervalue a game, every new game comes out at the same price point and they all have varying degrees of content. New games are all $60.
I like it when it's additional content.
I also like it when it's cosmetic and completely optional!
I DON'T like it when it is used to unlock the further section of the game you just payed a good AU$100 for.
Wow...
I don't mean to sound rude, maybe I wasn't explaining my point well enough or something, but I'm not sure my point could have been missed anymore completely.
I'll use an example to try and clarify what I'm talking about. I'll use the Orange Box as an example. When it came out, it included HL2, HL2 episodes 1 & 2, Portal and TF2. Literally 5 games for about $45 on the PC. Now it's literal dollar value was $45 but if you ask me, the value I got out of the package (in terms of how much fun I had and how much I've played all of those titles) was worth far more than $45. In fact, I would have paid $45 for any one of those games alone.
Which is the point I'm getting at. If someone feels they got far more entertainment value than just their $60 worth from a game like Fallout 3 in terms of how much fun they had and how much play time they got out of it, they're going to think that DLC with less content but more expensive than the original game in total is more fairly priced than someone like me who played through once and has no desire to ever play Fallout 3 again.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my point than that, so if I'm still not clear enough then I give up.
I understand the point, it's just stupid. How does that justify overpaying for DLC?
"Oh, I got a deal on this game, I owe Bethesda."
What, don't use coupons or sales at all?
You are still missing the point.
Let's use a simple breakdown using a non-existent game.
You buy a game for 40 dollars. The game is totally awesome, you love it, and would have actually been willing to pay 80 dollars for it, because it is just that good.
Now they release DLC for it. The DLC has half the content as the original game, but costs the same 40 dollars. Since the value of the original game to you was 80 dollars, getting half the content for half of the price you value the game at is a perfectly fair trade.
You get a deal on the first game, and pay a reasonable price for the DLC. That's the way you view it. If you feel the price is unreasonable, you don't pay it.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
No, I understood the logic behind it completely, it's just stupid.
I would never feel that way ever, if anything it'd make me feel more ripped off than my argument is stating now. If you're get so much entertainment for your $40 for the game itself, why don't you get the same value for your money on the DLC?
And how about the next game? What if it's not nearly as good but you still payed $40 for it? Everyone complains when a follow up isn't as good as the predecessor.
If a company is packing in that much awesome per dollar, they should continue to do so.
Last edited by NorthernChaosGod; 01-15-2010 at 11:44 AM.
I think this is getting really long winded here lets just sum up?
DLC, blessing or curse?
Well DLC is neither a blessing or a curse, that implies that there is good and evil involved and since it is an object. Objects have no sense of good or evil, objects just are the concept of good and evil right and wrong is entirely human in itself and thats a whole different conversation there which should be held in EoEo to prevent offense to anyone. It is the players who choose what DLC to download and what DLC not to download who see it's worth or if it is a good thing to them or a bad thing to them. That is ultimately like music, films and books what games base their sales on, a matter of personal opinion. If I were to ask all of you to post not your favourite game ever but "the best game in the world without question" in here regardless of whether you liked it more than your favourite or not I bet I'd have a long list by this evening and a huge argument as well.
To summarise, whether DLC is worth it or not is a matter of opinion, no one can surmise what is worth it to the player or not. Some might love Street Fighter IV so much they won't care about shelling out for everything, or AC06 which by far and away has the most dlc available on the 360 (allowing people to change the behaviour of the planes and the stats of them to any of the past AC titles) Others will dabble with a pack here or a pack there and some will say it isn't worth it at all.
I find it interesting that on the Bioware forums for DA: Origins (which I skim from time to time) there is a massive thread about this same subject or rather the subject is paying for the DLC for DA: Origins and why the dev's are charging for things the players thought should be free ect. The main thing I found interesting to note was a post by one of the Bioware Dev team behind DA:O saying how the data for the game was finalised in late 08 because they wished originally to ship the pc copy on the first quarter of 09 but held back in the end so that they could release all 3 formats at the same time. Because of the finalising of the games data they had apart from the console teams a good deal of time to work on expanding and adding to the game for post release development. (in fact, going on release dates of now I'd say they had a good 18 months to do this) This is why they had a lot of DLC ready to be released so soon after the release date of the game. Taking in to account the "un finalizing" of the game content would likely have jepoardized development all together as the funding publisher (EA) would have had a product they could say was almost ready to go out on the shelves and start making money to being nowhere near finished again something which can kill a game in development as a failed or aborted product, had EA pulled out of the publishing role who would have risked picking up the project? EA is one of the biggest names out there in the games industry, (heck EA even do normal board games I found out over christmas which surprised me a little but what the hey we're talking computer games here) If they drop a project as a failure other publishers tend to take note.
As for charging for DLC or not well as the dev who wrote the post on the bioware forums said and Yearg has said too in this thread "Some people have this false sense of a right of entitlement to dlc for free" which is true, just because they paid for the original product once does that mean these people can get refills for free forever? Lets put this in to another context, I buy a printer, I use it to print a lot of things and the ink runs dry and the paper that came with the printer runs out. Just because I originally brought a printer with paper and ink does not mean the company I brought it from has to give me paper and ink for free forever though the company will advertise and tell me when I buy the printer before I even use it that they sell the refills, the printer will tell me what refills it needs way before I get to the point where I feel the need to get them. The refills are much like DLC in this regard, it will not necessarily free and it will be advertised to me many times, when I purchase the game that it is there, this is called marketing we see it in every shop we go in from the lay out of a grocery store where as you go round you're enticed to buy more (and yeah it's true, ever wondered why preserves/jelly/peanut butter ect is next to the bakery section?) to the assistant at a computer store offering you microsoft office with your new laptop and a laptop bag in cases such as the DA:O DLC the advertising is subtle, it's there and they do it in a way that most people aren't going to care about because it doesn't glaringly stick out like a sore thumb it's the kind of subtle you see in grocery stores when they place offer items near the tills so people impulsively buy something even if they don't need to buy it. I respect good marketing seeing as I work in an industry built on it, marketing that makes me think "hey I wanna buy this" is rare and if Bioware found a marketing tech that worked on me well I commend them. In the end if people want to keep playing the same game because they like it but also wish to have new experiences in that game outside of player challenges ect then they too have to pay for the new experiences.
[/wall of text]
That's an awful analogy. DLC is extra game content, it is not necessary for the full operation of the game.
It is entirely different than the relationship between a printer and paper/ink.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
