A Plea for the Gaming Industry to Respect Gamers
With microtransactions set to become even more prevalent, publishers need to be considerate.
Although the economy might not be in the thick of a recession as it once was, that doesn't mean things are going especially great for videogame publishers. Take Electronic Arts, for instance, which hasn't exactly set the world on fire with its performance as of late. The start of the next generation is an ideal opportunity to effect change that doesn't come along often, and it seems EA doesn't intend to miss it; just yesterday it revealed plans to proliferate microtransactions throughout each of its games. As EA and publishers in general attempt to do this (and try out other means for generating additional revenue), I hope they don't forget to treat gamers with respect.
This current generation of consoles has seen the onset of numerous new money-making tactics. While expansion packs had been offered in the past, downloadable content became the norm for nearly every game, delivering everything from horse armor to new characters, maps, and more. Online passes have attempted to fight used games sales, encouraging gamers to buy new copies of their games or, failing that, forcing them to pay money directly to the publisher for access to certain (often multiplayer) content. Always-online connections, allegedly intended to enable new features but with the obvious benefit of trying to ward off piracy, spread from games where its use was implicit to those where its use is a detriment more than anything else.
The next generation will bring with it consoles that are more open to alternative business models and give publishers an opportunity to reprogram the way gamers think about buying games (much in the same way they have over the past seven or eight years). What that means is we can expect to see the way games are delivered to us, and the way we're asked to pay for their content, to change. You can't blame a company like Electronic Arts, which has posted more than its fair share of losses in recent years, for trying; I like a lot of the company's games, and I want to see more of them. I appreciate that these companies are businesses with stockholders expecting them to make money, but I do worry that things could be taken too far in a hostile direction.
I have no problem with downloadable content. I like having the option to play more of a game I enjoy without having to wait for the sequel. Provided the content in question is worthwhile and wasn't yanked out of the base game because it's something that they knew gamers would have to buy later, I'm perfectly okay with downloadable content continuing to be a mainstay going forward. After all, without it, we'd never have gotten something like Minerva's Den -- widely considered the best part of BioShock 2 -- and so long as games are released as complete experiences like they used to be, I don't see downloadable content as the plague that some do.
Online passes aren't especially objectionable to me, though it's easy to see why people dislike them. Simply by choosing to take advantage of all of a game's features, the game loses value because a secondhand buyer would then have to purchase an online pass to gain access to whatever it locks. It also makes the simple act of borrowing a game from a friend a less-than-ideal experience.
But it's always-online requirements that I find much more hostile. Take Diablo III, for instance. Blizzard liked to point to the benefits this requirement allowed for (persistent friends lists, server-side characters accessible from any computer, and the like), but it ignored the fact that this prevented a segment of gamers from playing the way they wanted to. This is not World of Warcraft where an online connection is critical to the experience; Diablo III can be played solo, but you have to connect to Battle.net's servers in order to do so even if you have no intention of ever taking advantage of an online feature. Considering the sales success of Diablo III and what's almost assured to be a big hit in Destiny, we've got the makings of a trend that's only going to become more prevalent, not less.
Microtransactions are something that have already become a common sight in all sorts of games, with the possible exception of the traditional, $60 retail titles. Dead Space 3 made headlines earlier this year when it was revealed the game includes microtransactions that essentially act as a shortcut for obtaining resources used to craft weapons. It's not the first time a shortcut like this has been offered -- we've even seen it in multiplayer games before. In case you thought it was a one-time experiment, this kind of thing officially is not going anywhere, as EA declared this week that it will include microtransactions in all of its games.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this option being offered for those who want it -- if people want to spend their money on shortcuts, so be it -- but there is something that simply feels untoward about it all. Trying to squeeze extra money out of gamers, not with new or better content, but by hoping they won't have the time or inclination to play a game the old fashioned way, strikes me as a poor strategy for turning a business around. Again, I get that this is a business and the goal is to make money, but wouldn't better products be a preferable path to profitability? I certainly think so, and that's before raising the concern that microtransactions could eventually influence design decisions in some capacity; if companies are going to sell weapons and the like as DLC, who's to say they won't also make the time investment required to obtain a high-end weapon/car/whatever higher in order to nudge people in the direction of microtransactions? Even if that doesn't happen, the suspicion will be there, and the potential backlash won't be good for anyone.
The bottom line is that the gaming industry needs to ensure it treats gamers with respect. It might ultimately view them as walking bank accounts, but that doesn't mean it can't shy away from some of the more anti-consumer practices out there. Take DRM, for instance: Far too many companies (which is to say, more than zero) place an emphasis on trying to block pirates from accessing their games rather than making the experience of buying and owning the game more pleasant. Instead of everyone putting effort into delivering a kick-ass boxed product, as some do, you have a company like Ubisoft that has, in the past, employed always-online requirements as a form of DRM that only punished legitimate customers once the DRM was cracked. It's the equivalent of the piracy warning you're subjected to when you boot up a DVD that can only be skipped on pirated discs, only far more detrimental. Paying customers shouldn't be treated like criminals.
Asking to be treated with respect is not that outrageous of a request. At the very least, doing so will avoid running the risk of scaring gamers away from the industry altogether. Beyond that, publishers might even find that treating people with respect is to their benefit. By passing up an opportunity to make a quick buck, considering things from the gamers' perspective, and delivering better games, they might find they instill a sense of loyalty that ultimately leads to gamers who are more willing to open their wallets. Perhaps the path to making money that seems to elude these companies has been in front of them this entire time.
- 115
Comments (60)
-
-
play game
Posted: Mar 13, 2014 12:00AM PST by marcinwroblewski
very good game. not bored, I could play it for hours. cool story
-
-
That's not the only example of disrespect...
Posted: Aug 08, 2013 12:00AM PST by smashbrolink
Has anyone paid attention to the Wii U's launch line-up?
Zombi U felt rushed, and the rest of the games from AAA third parties were ports of games that had been out for ages, which lack features and DLC.All at new-game prices.
And they[third parties] had the audacity to whine when the games didn't sell well, and used it as their excuse to back off support for the system.
Now we're stuck in a catch 22: the big-name third parties have effectively screwed up a ton of trust that we once had in them to make their games great on a new system, and they're backing off of selling their games on the system until sales of the system go up.
But sales of the system won't go up very quickly without some actual support from their end.
They've whined that they can't sell their games on Nintendo systems in the past because Nintendo titles took up too much capital on the systems.
So the Wii U launches with fewer blockbuster titles, leaving them with fewer games to content for their money and a wide open road to impress gamers into getting their games on the Wii U.
They failed and promptly blamed Nintendo, and its fans, for their lack of software sales.
Wii U needs reliable third parties again. Ones that won't abuse or mess up the opportunities afforded to them.
Because, right now, the current ones have been treating gamers who would buy their games on the Wii U, as if they're second-class citizens of the community who are not worthy of recieving the same kind of excellent quality in their games that the players on other systems enjoy so often.
-
-
More sides to the coin ...
Posted: Jun 10, 2013 12:00AM PST by Crono'sEpoch
This video provides some much needed perspective on the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M
-
-
A few highlights ...
Posted: Jun 10, 2013 12:00AM PST by Crono'sEpoch
Comparing games to music/movie sales is flawed because:
*Movies not only make money from their initial release, but dvd sales and syndication (networks paying for the right to broadcast it). Similar revenue channels with music, but musicians/record companies get paid royalties (again, forever) and artists also make money by performing concerts. Games have one revenue channel - the initial sale.
*Another interesting point raised in the video was how employees of certain video game retailers are pushed to promote a used game over it's brand new counterpart. Maybe 7-10% of a game's price reaches the developer whereas when GAME/Gamestop resells the used copy, 100% of the price goes to GAME/Gamestop. And we know how high the prices of newer used games can be.
*Wonder why digital copies are no less expensive? Gamestop dictates terms to publishers/developers. They threaten them with not carrying/promoting the game if they offer the digital version for a much lower price because it undercuts their business. The developers don't deserve all the ire of gamers. Reserve some for the specialty retailer.
.... check the video. Fresh perspective on this whole matter.
-
-
-
asd11!!
Posted: Jun 09, 2013 12:00AM PST by kileysmith93
Max. if you think Christopher`s st0ry is something... last monday I got a great Jaguar XJ since I been making $9491 this-past/month and even more than $10k this past month. this is certainly the most financially rewarding I've ever had. I started this seven months/ago and immediately started bringing in minimum $83... per hour. I use this website, wwwBow6com
-
-
Pay for Unlockables
Posted: May 31, 2013 12:00AM PST by OneShotFOGE
The pay for unlockables blows me away and EA is one of the biggest offenders with their "Time savers" packs.
In my day, if we wanted to unlock things, we earned them. We didnt buy them. I miss the days of earning unlockables. Even when Call of Duty World at War had an amazing unlockable zombie mode. Activsion soon unlocked it for everyone with a patch.
-
-
old skool gamer
Posted: Apr 11, 2013 12:00AM PST by Ch0senLast
Most games released between 2012 to now I don't like to buy due to all of the dlc and game passes I'm a real old skool gamer and this stuff just makes turn away from the game even though the story may be great sounding I just feel that it is bring a lot of gamers going back to the older systems and reliving the glory days
-
-
agreed
Posted: Apr 20, 2013 12:00AM PST by orca4gaiden
it seems instead of developing the next best thing and constantly improving the industry has turned into simply monotiez everything. even the way the platforms themselves market to their users is sad.
-
-
-
Score one for greed
Posted: Mar 25, 2013 12:00AM PST by Aaritron
All this can be resolved quite simply by not buying that kind of product. I have never purchased extra downloadable content and I most certainly will not buy additional add-ons to a game that a purchased straight up for 60 dollars. I compare this to someone going out and buying a book and, just as things begin to conclude or turn in an interesting direction, the next page reads, please go out and purchase the remainder of this story arc at your local barnes and noble next week. They are sacrificing content and entertainment in the name of the almighty buck. In the end they are smacking their customers across the face and telling us to pay for it. Oh well. I'll just pick and choose what to buy and I'll make sure that my purchase does the talking.
-
-
Question is do you really buy it?
Posted: Mar 08, 2013 12:00AM PST by codygraham22
I honestly do not buy DLC very often. Extra characters just aren't worth the $5.00 transaction. It doesn't bother me, but I don't want it to become a requirement for every game in the future.
-
-
I miss
Posted: Mar 07, 2013 12:00AM PST by DrDamz
the days when i could read through the Tips and Tricks magazines to unlock guns specials etc to cheat through games or get an advantage to finish it. these days you gotta pay to unlock characters items etc, which kinda sucks but hey, its a business i suppose
-
-
Word
Posted: Mar 16, 2013 12:00AM PST by Immortallix
I used to love that magazine when it was around, it really sucks there are barely any games with cheats or secret unlockables these days
-
-
-
It works both ways
Posted: Mar 06, 2013 12:00AM PST by HanokOdbrook
Gotta give respect to get it. As you said, the Gaming industry is a business, and as long as people buy what they are selling, then it will continue to produce what the people are willing to spend money on. Just like retailers getting all the Christmas stuff out right after (and sometimes before) Halloween. It's because people want it and buy it at that time. Quite frankly, I think gamers can do with giving a little (aka a lot) more respect to those who produce the games. Go into any gaming forum and most of the vitriole is hardly deserving of anything better in return.
-
-
I don't mind dlc
Posted: Mar 06, 2013 12:00AM PST by Togegawa1
in gerneral but I absolutely wont pay for a feature to be unlocked on the very dick that I shelled out 60+ bucks for in the first place. I'll hack the disk every time. Also, I'll never buy an always online DRM game. They simply don't mesh with the ficklness of satillite internet. Plus, I like single player mode during the service outages.
-
-
Really?
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 12:00AM PST by Masterjr91
All this BS about game developers not making enough money is pissing me off, movies pull in way less money than most popular video games and we don't hear directors complaining about how they need more money, and on top of that movies are easier to pirate than video games, so please game companies stop complaining that you're not making trillions instead of billions
-
-
Some DLC is fine
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 12:00AM PST by KevinTheGoose
DLC which extends a story is ok with me as long as the original story wasnt neglected to produce said DLC. $20 "Map Pack" are bullsh*t. Microtransactions that are used for Vanity items are fine with me too as long as they dont give a competitive or stastistical advantage. Changin skins of characters, guns, armor, vehicles is all good with me. Buying advantages in games would quickly become the downfall of gaming and would promote account stealing and item/currency farming black markets.
-
-
Do you guys realize the price of games haven't gone up in the last decade?
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 12:00AM PST by JezuitX
For as long as I've been gaming (started out with the NES) the price of games has hoverd in the $50-60 range and less for downloadable or PC titles. Just think about that, then think about how much game development has increased in length, and cost in the past ten years. After you go "oh my god I never thought of that", then think about how these developers had to combat used game sales and piracy. Lastly, think about the people that make games.
A little box with EA on the side does just push out a game every few months. They and other studios employee thousands of people to make these games, and those thousands of people have families that need to eat, sleep in a house, and have kids that need stuff. In an industry where your next game could ruin you are we really going to begrudge these people the ability to make $2, $3, $9, or however much they want to charge for DLC?
-
-
Yes, but you're still wrong...
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 12:00AM PST by Sega_AM2
Yeah games were almost the price they are today, even back during the NES/Sega Master system days, but you're forgetting one key reason why. Cartridges and memory weren't cheap back then, and prices would usually go up or down depending on the size of the game. A big game like Phantasy Star which was 4 megs was more exspensive then your typical 1 meg game, and that trend continued with games on the genesis and snes. Once the Playstation hit and CD's were cheap to produce (something like 5 cents per disc or something along those lines) the price of games dropped to around $39 or less because the media they were on was so much cheaper. Now each generation since games have gone up $10 to the standard price we have now of $59. So yeah, games might be the same price now that they were years ago, but for vastly different reasons then what you're pitching. Developers have been making LOTS of money for a long time and continue to do so, so please stop with the pitty party BS for them ok.
Oh and don't even start with the used game crap, you do realize that to become a used game it had to be sold first as a new game right, the company made their money off of it and now it's fair game for whoever to sell it however they like. Do you also complain when you see a used car dealership, or a used CD section at a music store, or a used book section at a store, etc, etc, etc? It's called greed and companies want us for feel bad for them so they can rake in even more money, sad that some morons buy right into while not giving one shit about the customer, us the gamers.
-
-
You both make valid points...
Posted: Mar 05, 2013 12:00AM PST by Rev_Maynard
I remember dropping $80+ on Street Fighter II for the SNES when it came out, and recall my mom complaining about how much she had spent on Castlevania III for me back in the day.
I do agree that developers have to pay the people who create the games well, but at the same time, few microtransations offer anything of real substance in line with an expansion pack. If publishers want us to fork over extra money, they need to allow the developers to create something to extend the life of the game. Personally, I don't care about playing dress up in a game. Give me more content. Even though Dragonborn wasn't amazing, it still got me to dust off my copy of Skyrim.
As for the used games market, Sega_AM2 hits it right on the head for me. There are used markets for just about anything out there, so why should video games be unique in that it be the only media where owning something that someone else was bored with be frowned upon? If a game is solid enough to be worth buying new, most gamers buy it new. The problem, I think lies in the fact that devs are trying to recoup a ridiculous amount of money in development costs, and we are seeing a sort of bottoming out where the userbase for any given software doesn't exceed the cost of development. I mean, with a few exceptions like an Elder Scrolls game, you're going to be hard pressed to find 50 million people who are going to drop 60 bucks on week one for an RPG release. And that's pretty much the goal most developers are setting for their game to be successful.
-
-
Rev_Maynard is right
Posted: Mar 05, 2013 12:00AM PST by gensurvivor
That "bottoming out" is the real culprit. Development costs are scary from the business side of things. We're reaching a point now where it's exceeding demand for certain titles and types of games. Combine that with the consumer's dilemma, which is if you live on a fixed budget as most people do, how many games can you realistically buy? The industry and the gamer will have to adapt. I don't think the answer is shutting down the used game market and adding a whole bunch of extra content that should have been in the game to begin with. Besides that it is insulting to the the gamer who works hard to buy a game, it is a bandaid on a much bigger economic problem the developers will be facing if costs continue to go up. In other words, they're making a bubble and they think that with DLC and controlling distribution at every point that their problems will go away.
-
-
....
Posted: Mar 05, 2013 12:00AM PST by San_Andreas
...The DLC and nickel-and-diming isn't keeping studios from being shuttered. It isn't even keeping EA profitable. The problem is, EA makes a lot of very bad business decisions, loses money from said decisions, and then decides to roll the cost of their executives' financial fuckery onto the customers. Other companies do it, too, yes, and in industries other than gaming, but doesn't make it right wherever it happens.
-
-
Even still...
Posted: Mar 06, 2013 12:00AM PST by Rev_Maynard
I see a lot of commenters keep point the finger at EA specifically, but the microtransaction thing is bigger than just one company. It's an industry wide problem. Some companies just handle it better than others. And while it does come down to voting with your wallet, how many times have you decided not to buy something and still felt a little pang of regret for not being able to experience what you panned over? This happens to me fairly frequently. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll drop 20 to 30 bucks for an expansion if it's worth it, but some little add-on that should be included in a software patch isn't getting $5 from me. I'm pretty sure most gamers feel the same way.
-
-
Also...
Posted: Mar 06, 2013 12:00AM PST by Rev_Maynard
Another huge hurdle the industry needs to overcome is to create compelling games without reinventing the wheel. I've been a gamer since the early days of the NES, and while I've seen different control gimmicks come and go, this whole motion control/touch screen garbage seems to be hindering more than it's helping. It's not that I'm reluctant to embrace change, it's just that the experience isn't as immersive as a good old fashioned intuitive control scheme. I have a Kinect that I never use and a Wii that I got rid of because it never got played. Really, I feel there's only so much you can do with this tech, and it's just not very fun.
Though on the other hand, we have triple-A titles that keep falling flat because of ungodly amounts of hype and that end up being derivative of games we were playing on PS2. Because the only fresh new thing they could think of is adding QTE's to cinematics. This console gen has been simultaneously the most impressive and yet depressing generation I've ever seen. The games that are good are REALLY good, but there's so much unpolished crap out there that I rarely buy more than one or two new games a year anymore. And while you can argue that there has ALWAYS been unpolished crap in the industry, marketing gets the hype machine rolling like never before. How many people were stoked about Aliens: Colonial Marines until the reviews came out? :P
-
-
...
Posted: Mar 06, 2013 12:00AM PST by San_Andreas
...Take SimCity 2013 as an example. I loved the original SimCity. I loved SimCity 4. I really wanted to be able to love this one. But then EA decided to make it online-only, even with SP. EA decided to make it MP-mandatory. It's so heavily locked down with DRM it's ridiculous. I'm not surprised that this happened after the way EA totally assfucked Spore, the most recent Maxis game prior to this one.
And for all that, the game isn't even that good. The game itself is heavily stripped down from past installments. Those kinds of thingsimpact a game's fun factor greatly. So I will be skipping this game altogether with no regrets. I can keep playing SC4. And if I need a more up-to-date city simulator I will buy Cities XL instead. There is nothing EA makes that someone else doesn't do better.
-
-
JezuitX
Posted: Mar 08, 2013 12:00AM PST by BrokenH
I dunno, Jez. Yeah, games have always been roughly the same price. (Unless you were at the right place during the right deal) but companies have added more general jerk baggery to dick over the consumer.
When your paying for content already on the disk there is a problem. (Why can't said content be an unlockable?) When you always have to be online there is a problem. (What, I can't enjoy my game peacefully in private without being monitored by a bunch of suits?) When you pay 60.00 for an incomplete mess of a game and have to shell out an additional 40.00 for dlc there is a problem. When you buy an inferior version of a game as a reluctant "guinea pig game tester" only to see the superior version of said game release later there is a problem.
As for "used games" not everyone is living it up nor do most people have access to their parent's credit cards by the time they're in their 20's or 30's. Most of us have bills to pay, groceries to buy, and rent that's due so pardon me if I get a game used & on sale when my budget for entertainment is tight. "Survival" comes first,mate. Everything else is secondary!
It's true people who work on games need to get by too but this is why their higher ups should care more, be less negligent, and make sure a release can "float" without needing to sell 5 million copies just to break even.
-
-
Why not re-think games?
Posted: Mar 11, 2013 12:00AM PST by crisby
People talk about development costs like they are decided by an all powerful daeity. They are not set in stone publishers choose how much to spend and if its killing them they should stop spending so much. When a film dosen't have the bugget to compete with a blockbuster it emphasises other asspects like story, characters, setting, originality. In video games they just spend more money homogenize the game play to resemble whats popular like RE6 and DS3 ruining its charm then hope and pray it sells well.
I would love it if a publisher scaled back the scope their games to make the cost more reasonable and tried to emphasise story like Spec Ops or Far Cry 3 as a way of getting you to buy their game over the next Call of Dutey. Gamers are ready for a change like that just look at the attention and praise both my examples got in the aftermath of their releases.
-
-
-
If you absolutely need to buy an EA game
Posted: Mar 03, 2013 12:00AM PST by BananaJane
Buy it used for 5$, and don't buy any DLC so they won't make any money
-
-
Or....
Posted: Mar 03, 2013 12:00AM PST by San_Andreas
...people could download a cracked version from a torrent to avoid the DRM altogether if EA insists on continuing to piss in people's faces. When it's that much easier to obtain - and play - an illegitimate copy than a legit copy, EA will really have a problem.
-
-
Torrent EA to death
Posted: Mar 06, 2013 12:00AM PST by AlmightyMokona
I'll only buy a game if I support the people making it, so f*k y apoc...EA sucks time to burn it to the ground...in this gen only a good game or two slips through each year...I'll stick to emulating Genesis and Snes, wake me up when developers get good again
-
-
-
Mostly agree
Posted: Mar 02, 2013 12:00AM PST by ButterPeanut
I don't mind the idea of other people paying more money to finish their video games a little faster. However, this could eiminate an incentive for companies to make games playable / beatable on their own terms. Going down this path we could someday see a company say, "Look, we only charged you $50 for that video game, and it has 20 hours of content there, which is great value compared to things like DVDs or music albums. It IS beatable, it's just very difficult, and if you want to make it easier for yourself then you can go ahead and drop another $4.99, you miser."
One thing that's changed for me with DLC's advent is that I now hold off purchasing new AAA titles for years, knowing that companies like EA or Bethesda will release a steady stream of $15-20 DLCs that are pretty decent for 1-2 years afterwards before eventually making some "Game of the Year" edition with all the DLC included at a much deeper discount. I think that for many adults that like saving a dollar and don't have all the free time in the world to play video games anyways, it's not a big deal to play most games 1-2 years after their release date in their "ultimate" versions. The other alternative is to purchase games off Steam for highly marked-down prices, especially during a Steam sale. You can get a lot of great games that are better for console on Steam, but then play them with a gamepad like a 360 controller anyways.
-
-
Goodbye Up Up, down down
Posted: Mar 02, 2013 12:00AM PST by Hunterman328
Remember when you could put in a cheat code for what now cost you extra money? I guess those days are gone. Soon those hidden blocks in Mario games won't pop out a 1Up but instead send you right to the E-Shop.
-
-
DLC is not for me
Posted: Mar 01, 2013 12:00AM PST by Alucart
I thought it was at first. I got both dlcs for Castlevania:LOS and was pretty disappointed. It felt rushed and even admitted by the developer themselves, it was rushed and ultimately ruined the affect for the protagnist. I'm not hopping mad or anything but afer that experience plus all the things I hear about MMORPGs where basically have to spend real money on virtual gadgets, trinkets, spells and weapons I say no thanks. Literally not worth it.
But developers are catering to the habits of what I call "hoarder" gamers. These are not real gamers at all to me. They simply crave in excess the need to have anything and everything the game offers to satisfy an unhealthy consumption-complex regardless of how fun a game is or any quality usually associated as reasons to invest in it.
-
-
Title of Comment
Posted: Mar 01, 2013 12:00AM PST by dlewbell
EA has not posted more than their fair share of losses. They've seen losses that were totally deserved. The last EA games I bought were NFS Carbon & Mirror's Edge (which I bought online without realizing it was EA, hooray for not paying attention). Their treatment of customers lately has turned me off to them, so I've quit buying from them. If others are doing the same, they're getting exactly what they deserve.
The industry does need to learn to respect it's customers. Otherwise, we'll be gone. There are more than enough older titles to keep me busy until they learn.
-
-
I despise DLC
Posted: Mar 01, 2013 12:00AM PST by gensurvivor
but it's reality and it's here to stay. It's all part of the big money grab. Most of the DLC that interests me is story-based as that is the aspect of a game that is most frustrating not to have. Weapons and costumes are cool but that is stuff that should have been unlockable in the game and so when it's not there that just lowers the replay value. You have to really love a game to spend $60 on it and then over a year later an extra 5 hours is still $15 as is the case with Deus Ex on PSN. Two things: one, this is just a way for companies to recoup the dreaded loss of money from the used game market and two: if I'm going to spend that much why wouldn't I just buy another game? It will be interesting to see how these trends progress, particuarly if there is no secondary market or we're all forced onto a subscription service.
-
-
Double edged sword
Posted: Mar 01, 2013 12:00AM PST by evildog13
On the one hand when youre getting whole new chunks added to a game say like Bioshock or Borderlands 2, I don't mind, but they have to be worth the money. In the case of Borderlands, Captains Scarlet DLC felt complete and worth the money. The last two, Torgue and Hammerlock not so much. To me they felt skimpy and rushed.
But the stuff I don't like is what Capcom pulled on Streetfighte X Tekken. Color pallets is one thing, but the stat-ability bonus thing had a direct impact on a characters playability. Those should have been things you unlock by actually playing the game, not digging into your wallet for. I tallied up how much it would cost if you bought all the pallets and bonus, it came up to about $60. It just shameless.
-
-
Right
Posted: Mar 01, 2013 12:00AM PST by octoberfleshed
and Chris seems to agree with you, there are merits to DLC and the like, and when it affects gameplay on a community based game, it's no bueno.
-
-
-
Guys, Stop Buying EA Games!
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by Funny_Color_Blue
they charge, everything!
-
-
Microtransations > Online Pass
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by nsonic79
If there was a moment where I'd have a choice it what I'd rather have in the future of gaming I'd pick the lesser of the two evils. In a perfect would none of these methods would be needed. Have become use to DLC so long it's not DLC cut from the main game to just make a point.
But I'd happily take microtransactions if it meant never seeing ONline pass ever again.
-
-
Not evil but misguided
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by moth_city
I'm not against paid DLC or microtransactions but I think they both just end up making the publishers shoot themselves in the foot. For example, say I've only got 100 dollars to spend on games in the next six months. If there's two games that I really want, I can talk myself into spending another 20 on a second game. But, if I bought one game and spent 30 dollars on DLC/microtransactions, I'm definitely not getting that second game. Now if those two games happen to be published by the same company, then they didn't get an extra 30 dollars, they lost 30. And who knows how many times this has played out. Thousands? Tens of thousands? Doesn't matter how many times you squeeze my wallet, there's still only so much money in there.
-
-
While I wholeheartedly agree...
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by sean697
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/
Better watch out, Cliffy B is going to call you out. Gamers are obviously dumb and stupid for not understanding or embracing DLC. If he doesn't embrace why gamers love Steam and hate Origin, then he's got a problem not gamers.
-
-
farts this:
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by volition134
in the end, its their game and they can do what they want.
just don't buy it.
-
-
treated with respect
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by jgusw
That's all I want. It's one of the reasons I will always support Atlus and my new found love, CD Projekt.
-
-
Atlas
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by donstarlancer
Definitely a fan of them myself. Come on Persona 5
-
-
Couldn't agree more
Posted: Jul 26, 2013 12:00AM PST by Skydiving_Secks
Atlus is one of the best companies imo. I fell inlove with Demon's souls when I first purchased it.
-
-
-
Nobody needs to buy games
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by BananaJane
Once everyone's been bullied around enough the big companies'll learn their lesson.
-
-
I will never...
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by San_Andreas
...support microtransactions. As far as I'm concerned, if a game is liberally sprinkled with cash shops hawking wares for my hard-earned real-life money, it's a non-starter.
-
-
Yea
Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:00AM PST by donstarlancer
It doesn't bother me in mobile games cause most only cost if a buck upfront anyway but it will feel really creepy in a full priced retail game. "Really guys, I already gave you $60." I mean I ok with new DLC missions and stuff coming month later but I won't be nickeled and dimed.
-
Popular on 1UP
No recent updates for this section.Around the Network
-
-
-
-
The Most Ambitious Pokemon Ever? Early Thoughts on Pokemon X/Y
-
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance Connects the Series' Past With a Radical New Future
-
About 1UP
- Contact Us
- 1UP Staff
- Ad Gallery
- Contests
- Help
- Site Map
Popular Games
- Resident Evil 6
- Diablo III
- BioShock Infinite
- Call of Duty: Black Ops 2
- StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
- Grand Theft Auto V
- Assassin's Creed 3
- Tomb Raider
- Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
- Halo 4
Popular Guides
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Deus Ex: Human Revolution Walkthrough
- LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4
- The Witcher 2 Walkthrough
- Dark Souls Walkthrough
- Portal 2 Walkthrough
- Deus Ex: Human Revolution Walkthrough
- The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword
Popular Content
- Best Free Games
- Mapping Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
- Why Japanese Games are Breaking Up With the West
- The Nine Worst Video Game Themes
- I Played Skyrim Wrong, but It Felt So Right
- The Dark Souls Survival Guide
- The Top 10 Worst Consoles
- Why Quake Changed Games Forever
Big Events
- Tokyo Game Show
- PAX
- E3
- Comic-Con
- GamesCom
© 2010 | Advertise | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Site Usage | Site Map | Browse Games:
#
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z