Abhorrent? Really? Because it's a bit expensive? Nothing is crucial, nothing gives you an advantage online, as you say it's totally optional. And it's selling at that price. If THQ felt it would see significantly more sales at a lower price they'd charge less. But it wouldn't because people like you still wouldn't buy it anyway (because it's just cosmetic) and the big fans that really want to customize their armies will buy it regardless.Originally Posted by Althea
Last Stand DLC, perhaps? Some pretty good gear there, at least in terms of the lower levels.
But yes, I do find it abhorrent. It's more about the principle than anything. THQ got it into their heads that they could sell a lot of DLC at high prices, and they've done that for a number of their recent titles, and when people buy it, they're pretty much saying "Yes, THQ, cover me with your DLC-y goodness!", so THQ continue to do it. Saints Row the Third's "Forty Weeks of DLC" thing is pretty much the epitome of it.
I'd argue it wouldn't be an authentic Warhammer(R):40,000(TM) experience without spending egregious amounts of money on tiny and mostly cosmetic bits and pieces. ;)
Preorder bonus content aside I'm yet to buy any DLC from THQ and haven't felt it really detract from my gaming experience. Evidence suggests that this practice didn't really pay off so maybe others will take heed.
Every time I read about one of these giants falling it does give me pause with the whole digital purchases thing... We're all gonna get absolutely screwed with this one of these days.
It's just alternative options though for different builds. And Last Stand is co-op anyway so it's hardly pay-to-win.
But if people are buying it, they're clearly happy to pay that price so what's the problem? I can see it being annoying from an "I quite want that but can't really afford it" perspective but I don't see any huge moral issue. The value of things changes depending on the customer and the situation. A coke costs more in a pub than a supermarket, and more again from a hotel minibar. That's annoying, but it's not really abhorrent.But yes, I do find it abhorrent. It's more about the principle than anything. THQ got it into their heads that they could sell a lot of DLC at high prices, and they've done that for a number of their recent titles, and when people buy it, they're pretty much saying "Yes, THQ, cover me with your DLC-y goodness!", so THQ continue to do it. Saints Row the Third's "Forty Weeks of DLC" thing is pretty much the epitome of it.
I get that maybe stuff should be priced more closely to the actual cost and development time, but the issue with that people only want it one way. They want the DLC priced for $1 because it's clearly only comparable to 1/60th of the game, but if the developers turn around and say okay, but the main game will now by $90 because that more accurately reflects the money spent on it then people will get upset.
Having DLC that rich people can buy that is ultimately useless subsidise the cost of the main game for the rest of us is just fine with me.
While I don't really want to sidetrack the thread, I think it's worth stating my thinking on stuff like this. Games in general, and game DLC in particular are as close to being pure luxury products as anything ever is. If you create something cool that no-one needs I think you have the right to charge whatever you want for it. Anything. And there is no ethical dilemma attached- it is a morally neutral act to charge $3000 for horse armour, or whatever. This is so because I have the free choice not to buy, and a large, varied competitive market of other products. In these circumstances, as a whole, laws of supply and demand will set the prices anyway.
I love the DoW2 DLC. I think the work on the race packs is of exemplary quality (the Ultrmarines Chapter pack in particular, is magnificent). I've been tempted by some of the Last Stand gear (exploding teleporting Mek? Sounds great!). I haven't bought any of it, because the price is too high for me. I do not resent this in the slightest.
As a side note, while I think charging Haitians vast sums for building materials after a severe earthquake is consistent with supply and demand, and actually abhorrent. Having your attractive DLC at slightly above impulse purchase price is, at worst, merely irritating.
I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise.
Rii, in particular I was responding to Althea's description of THQ's DLC practices as 'abhorrent'.
I was trying to think of a way of expressing just how silly it is to use words like "abhorrent" to describe the pricing and availability of DLC, but it seems arathain has already done a better job at communicating my thoughts, so just go back and read that if you haven't already.
Maybe... Just maybe this will somehow lead to Homeworld 3. I have hope!
BobHound - EVE Online
THQ's PR statement is a textbook example of good PR.
"THQ has not cancelled its 2014 line-up, and has not made any decisions regarding the planned MMO. As part of the ongoing review of our business, we have made decisions to ensure that the company is strategically addressing the most attractive markets. As we have previously announced, we have dramatically reduced our commitment to the kids' boxed games sector which leads to a significantly more focused release schedule moving forward. Our slate for calendar 2012 and beyond is focused on high-quality core games and continues to build our digital platform and business. We are excited for our pipeline of original and high-quality content along with our relationships with some of the best talent in the industry.
Additionally, we are thrilled with the great performance of Saints Row: The Third, which on a like for like period in North America has tripled in sell-through from Saints Row 2. In addition, WWE '12's worldwide sell-through sales are up almost 40% year-over-year for the same sales period with fewer platforms. According to NPD, for the month of December and the 2011 year, THQ was the #5 publisher overall, #4 third party, with reported sell through growing over 18% in a market that was down almost 6%. And coming up next, we have two great titles for the first half of the year including UFC Undisputed 3 and Darksiders 2."
The only thing here that actually has any relevance to yesterday's circus is that they still plan some 2014 line-up. Everything else is just pure marketing and a torrent of words designed to distract attention from the actual problems.
The best part is this though: And coming up next, we have two great titles for the first half of the year including UFC Undisputed 3 and Darksiders 2.
My recent experience of THQ is thus:
Saints Row 2 was a great, deep, freeform game with tons of customization and tons of stuff to do. Saints Row 3 stripped a lot of the stuff out and added tons of scripted setpiece missions.
Red Faction Guerilla was a great, destructive freeform game. Red Faction Armageddon took that and put it in a cave.
Frontlines: Fuel of War was a hardcore Battlefield-style shooter from the makers of Desert Combat. Homefront took that and turned it into a far more restrictive CoD-alike but with some vehicle combat.
MX vs ATV: Reflex was a fun offroading game with tons of different vehicles and events. MX vs ATV: Alive made most of the stuff on-disc DLC.
They thought they'd chase the moron money, by taking good games and making them simpler so idiots could better understand them, and would happily part with their money to glue the missing parts back on. It didn't work out. Oh well.
Saints Row 2 built upon the original's city and engine. SR3 was a fresh start - and Volition had less people working on it.
RFA was a direct response to the mountain of complaints against RFG and while being linear it was still a great destructive freeform game. Fact.
It's undeniable that both SR3 and RFG have great mechanics, plenty of unique twists on the gameplay formula, excellent production values and polish. If some people dismiss RFG saying it's a "cave shooter" then they deserve all the Homefronts and shitty COD clones thrown at them. A classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Agree. Insensitive fan-boy that I am, I'd find the economic equivalent of THQ burning to the ground completely palatable if it meant HW3 in some form.
All times I have enjoyed greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those that loved me, and alone.
Calling something abhorrent doesn't stop anyone doing anything. I think it's a bit repulsive too, but unfortunately things I find repulsive don't get banned. They just don't get bought by me, either. How very cruel of me.
My issue is you can't get much stronger than 'abhorrent' really. And there are companies who's attitude towards DLC is far, far worse than THQ (pay-to-win, stuff cut from the game and re-sold, etc).
Frankly, I was kinda surprised just how quick Unrav assumed that THQ was dying because of DLC. Pass me whatever she's smoking, 'cause damn.
I don't think you know what 'freeform' means. RF:A was a linear corridor shooter. Fact.
The complaints about RF:G were that the story was a bit naff (though not terrible) and the difficulty curve was weird. The open world gameplay combined with the destruction mechanics were almost universally praised, and the competitive multiplayer was very well liked. RF:A threw out the open world ENTIRELY, the destruction mechanics were reduced to little more than flavour (unless you almost exclusively used the magnet gun), the story was shit, and the competitive MP was tossed out.
When I think about what was originally planned for RF4 (a game that improved and expanded upon RF:G's gameplay) versus what we got, it still makes me furious.
Rfg was cool though perhaps a little monotonous here and there. The solution was to add more variety to the missions, more toys to play with, cooler side missions, cooler game world with collectables and stuff like that. In short they were amiss by quantity not quality. Instead they did RFA.
Um... no. I never said that.
I took "freefrom" as "freeform combat" not "open world". I don't know why people claim the combat is dumbed down when despite the cave setting there is so much stuff to destroy and so many weapons it's ridiculous. No better third person shooter was released in 2011. As far as I'm aware work on it started before RFG was released.
However I'm very bitter about the incredible DLC weapon being restricted to that mini-campaign. You can throw entire buildings at foes! Fuck balance, this is amazing!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
