Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Seiji, Apr 23, 2015.
I can't agree more. This is an accurate visual at how all video games are now. Very rarely- if not at all do we see full games out there anymore. We no longer pay just $60 or heck, $40 like it was back then.
We all pay $100+ for a full game. Unless ofcourse...you get the edition that comes with all DLCs, but those don't end up coming out for a year or so.
That's why I don't pay full price for games anymore, and haven't for a very long time. I was pirating, but I've since gone to Steam Sales and visit regularly /r/GameDeals. If a Pre-Order is especially good, I might bite (I was able to get Witcher 3 for an insane price), but now-a-days, I'll just wait for the Game of the Year Edition to come out-- at Christmas-time.
This slightly overstates the problem. It'd be more accurate if the now version original game was a bun with a hamburger patty on it, nothing more, because they do ship technically completed games... they're just technically complete in the same way that two piece of bread around some hamburger meat is technically a complete hamburger. You get a game, it'll just probably be dry and bland and require a lot more to feel like it was worth the effort of consuming it.
It's super accurate for "early access" games though. :P
Quit buying shitty games then.
Do your research. Watch some amateur reviews. Browse their forums. Know what you're getting into.
Love me some steam sales as much as the next human with a wallet but I don't always want to wait a year or so for a game to be 'reasonable'. Or I just use basic math to gauge if it was worth it.
Ten hours for 20 dollars? That's cheaper than spending ten hours doing much else and enjoying it.
<----- Early Access!!
A huge problem I'm having with the directions of games now is we're starting to go into the whole online only requirement, even for single player games. I shouldn't be told I can't play my single-player campaign when my internet's down because that's a fucking rip off and I want no part in it.
I also tend to dislike the vast flood of DLC and basically being forced to buy it for games if I want to play multiplayer. With all these overpriced map packs, you kind of have to buy them because most of the community does and good luck finding a server after a while when DLC comes out. All it takes is one DLC map on a rotation to necessitate you to buy a the DLC to play on the server. No thanks.
The season pass shit has to go, too. You don't know what you're getting or the quality of it, and more and more publishers are pushing it on us... and the worst part is, it doesn't cover all the DLC a game's going to have.
Remember when everyone was pissed at Microsoft for the Xbox One always having to be online when it was announced? Who's to say the next generation, or the one after, won't try that again?
Blegh. Games industry makes me sad now.
This user has been banned for: Disruptive behavior, arguments, and harassment. Escalating a situation that could have been resolved peacefully.
Really needs things like bugs all over the food in the "now" column and if you try and take the food home and add your own toppings, you're banned from ever coming back for life.
Seriously, though; I can count the number of games I'm genuinely excited to play on 1 hand, of which 1 is a re-release of an 8-year-old game (Devil May Cry 4: Special Edition), 2 are sequels to some of the few genuinely good games to come out in the last 5 years (Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and the Witcher 3), 1 is a ripoff/spiritual successor to Team Fortress 2 (Overwatch) and the last is the only new IP and/or semi-original concept (Desync).
If I didn't have so many mods to play for all my old games like Doom 'n Quake or a decent backlog of games waiting for the semester to end so I can get caught up, I'd have probably quit this hobby years ago.
The reason why DLC exists is so games won't go past $60. Games are getting bigger and bigger and not everything can fit on the disk or servers at once. Plus if DLC is added after the game's release, then there shouldn't be an issue. I don't mind DLC and will gladly buy it (provided it's marketed correctly of course). Chances are the game will just be re-released with all DLC included anyways like I've seen a few companies do in the past. If anything, what really needs to be an issue is all of the online and digital bullshit that's going on. And developers being shallow and putting stupid graphics and story over gameplay. And let's not forget fix-it games. Nowadays, I only stick to franchises I like. I'll only try a new game if it's part of a genre I love. Fighting is my main genre of video games now and in that area, DLC is usually just fine. Unless we're talking about a certain company *cough Capcom cough* I don't play most mainstream games so that's probably why I'm not exactly losing my sanity over DLC. Especially when it's usually a good thing. Only a few companies actually market DLC terribly and honestly I can name a few games that would've been much better had DLC been included.
EDIT: to be honest, DLC is good in theory, it expands upon the game in varying ways (New areas and characters to explore and interact with, new characters to give you more variety in a roster, etc), but if time has shown one thing to be cool, it's shown just how it can be milked and treated poorly, like Brovo's example, which is perfect.
Honestly, I'm on the fence, on one hand, it's really not as bad people make it out to be, on the other hand....It's really fuckin hard to find a decent, non military based, FPS Game that doesn't focus on fuckin multiplayer.
I mainly use steam sales.
Far cheaper games and anything on sale would have been out for a while, so you can easily do your research first.
And Technically Indie and early access games are rising up to cover for the AAA's slack.
However, Indie has it's own issues atm in regards to milking early access, no real commitment/requirement to finish it, people getting disengaged before the finished product etc.
That plus social issues surrounding gaming has made this a rough few years for Gaming, I'm hoping we'll be able to pick up soon. But it's hard to predict that stuff for sure.
Remember when developers had to make expansion packs for add on content and actually had to take time and effort to make it good and worth people's money? They should go back to that mentality for DLC. Make it a big deal that really adds to the experience.
I remember when Expansion packs were almost half a game's worth of shit to enjoy, while anything smaller was fucking given away. Now, the only people who do that sort of shit are Rockstar and Valve.
About that $60 thing... Ever notice how almost all new games, even crappy little shovelware affairs, come out in retail stores with a $60 price point? That's because the publishers essentially demand that retailers sell games at that price, else they'll cut them out of the loop on future things by not selling them games. Retailers are cool with that because the lack of competitive pricing means they don't have to cut into their own prices to bring in customers, because video game buying consumers know that new games are always $60 so they're gonna come in prepared to pay $60. Also, Sony and Microsoft sell digital copies of their games on their own little store platforms for $60 as well, which is just them raking in profits because all the money that would go to shipping and packaging and the retail cut goes right to them.
DLC doesn't exist to keep prices down at or below $60. DLC exists for the express purpose of being able to make more than $60 off those games despite the publisher/retailer agreement on prices. A huge bulk of DLC that exists is just cosmetic stuff, pure cash grab things, not things that actually add to the gameplay. It's also not so much about size either: multiple disc games have been a thing for a long damn time, and having game files that are a few GB bigger for customers to download won't be a huge drain on any reasonable game server. It's absolutely a money thing before any other considerations. Some companies do it well by sticking to a similar formula as expansion packs in the past, offering additional game content for additional money, but most just crank out cosmetics to make money off of people willing to pay $5 for a new look for their character.
The games for the PS4 and the Xbox One are printed on blu-ray discs. Blu-ray discs can hold between 25 GB and 50 GB of data. Many modern PCs come with pre-installed blu-ray drives. If someone is running an older PC that isn't equipped with a blu-ray drive, they can purchase one for 40 bucks.
There's no reason why completed games and their accompanying DLC expansion material cannot fit on one blu-ray disc.
Well I have heard about DLC being on the game at release cause developers couldn't find time to put the content into the game to begin with. And there are companies like Namco who release free DLC. Plus consumer demand can also play a part in DLC as well. Multiple disk games aren't really a thing anymore because of blu-ray technology being used for physical copies nowadays. Unless the game has an assload of content like GTAV, you won't see multi-disk releases much anymore. You can't blame the developers for wanting to make more money. That's how more and more games are made and how they provide for themselves. Especially since they've gotten much more expensive to make which is why the cost of games has gone up. What's wrong with cosmetics? Nothing wrong with wanting characters to look good or wanting to buy a new character. Like it or not, that kind of DLC is what's most popular. The DLC also depends on what genre or games you enjoy playing so that's not always the case. There are also DLC sales to consider and sometimes developers will even re-release the game with all DLC included at a discounted price at that. I don't like buying expansion packs because I usually don't want all of the content being offered. It's not as terrible as some people make it out to be. It all depends on preference in the end and honestly, I'm all for DLC as long as it's marketed correctly which happens more often than most people think.
I don't think many of us were. :P
We may not agree with it, but I don't think most of us blame then either.
What Jorick was addressing though was your statement that DLC is a thing simply so the game won't go over 60$.
While highlighting that there's really no need to not put all the content on release for 60$, where often DLC is really there just to get even more money.
The enforced 60$ by the Publisher, and then additional from DLC where the DLC could have just been put with the base game and still sold for $60.
Ok fine I retract that dumb statement :P BUT remember what I said about the all DLC re-releases. Sometimes they re-release games with some of the DLC included but give the ability for all of your DLC to carry over so you don't have to buy it again. What about those practices? I see those a lot