Results 61 to 64 of 64
11-06-2012, 07:48 PM #61
What if it were not food or music and just, as people said, DLC, as DLC is DLC.
Like selling games as DLC for DLC.
11-06-2012, 08:20 PM #62
29-06-2012, 02:02 AM #63
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
I don't think E3 is unsalvagable. I agree it doesn't reflect the current gaming industry but some changes like showing actual gameplay, talking about game design out in the open, and respecting gamer culture and the consumer would go a long way.
23-08-2012, 10:21 PM #64
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Philadelphia, PA
My point is that all this shit has value. Value that is determined by a vague negotiation between the masses of consumers and the companies that produce the shit. So what makes a burger and fries different from a game and some DLC? If people are willing to buy a burger for the price of a burger, then the fries are going to cost more.
The whole concept of *DLC* in gaming is something that is new, but as has been said before, expansion packs have been around forever, and they are essentially the exact same thing. Day-one or not. Whether the development occurs before, during, or after, if the company determines that there is a cutoff to what development time has a reasonable return on it from the base price of the original product, then all the rest is going to be extra. Allow me to present a very early example that really wraps all this into one, from Wikipedia:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
If you'd like to read more about the extra content that Sonic 2 and Sonic 1 enjoyed, here is the article itself.
To speak in terms of games today, I think it's nice that we have the choice. I do believe companies are creating more than they normally would with the advent of DLC, but instead of it necessarily costing us (consumers) more by increasing original product price, we can choose whether or not we want the fries and soda. For instance, paying $60 for both Starcraft 2 and Battlefield 3 was fine for me. I've enjoyed both games fully (in fact, Starcraft has reallllly stretched its value. After all this time, I'd say if I had paid $125 I would not regret it. But I don't represent the rest of the market), I bought the BF3 Premium pass, and I'm completely ready for the SC2 expansion. Blizzard's constant support for patching and perfecting Starcraft is really impressive to me, but they are paid well for it by every huge tournament that is held for the game.
On the other hand, I haven't bought a damn thing that Bioware has put out for Mass Effect 3, and I don't plan on it unless it is VERY well-reviewed single player content. I didn't buy the game for multiplayer, I didn't enjoy the bit of multiplayer that I tried, and I was actually pissed about it entirely because I thought it would take away from the single player. Little did I know that they would make an excellent single-player campaign anyway and continue to appease their fan base by providing extra content for free, while supporting the multiplayer by releasing paid DLC for the people who do enjoy that sort of thing. In the end, I got the burger I wanted, the people who like multiplayer/fries got what they wanted, and Bioware/EA is getting their money. Who is getting the shit end of the stick here?
EDIT: Just realized that Hypernetic, original poster of the fast food analogy, is also a Philadelphia resident. Small world. I mean really, the underused forums of a British PC gaming blog... and I agree with this person, of all things. Let's get naughty.
Last edited by mittortz; 23-08-2012 at 10:42 PM.