Fed Up of Being Nickel & Dimed This Gen!

[The Beans]

But this is the question that pyroxian is asking. Are you prepared to pay substantially more than the current price for those "unlockables" to be included at release?

No I'm not. I paid the regular retail price for games like Tekken 3 or Dead or Alive 3 and all the unlockables were on the disc. I pay the same today and they aren't. As somebody who is used to beating tough challenges or completing modes with characters I don't usually use just to get access to the goods, I completely fail to see why I should pay the same RRP today and then have to pay more on top for things that were on-disc 'back in the day'.

The difference between now and back then is that games now cost a lot more to make and distribute. A whole lot more. Yet gamers such as yourself still the want the same amount of content, maybe even more, for a game that in real terms is even cheaper than it was back then.
As you said yourself, "I pay the same today", for a much more expensive product.
What else can a publisher do except eke out what they can by any means possible when faced with that sort of customer expectation?

[RetroMartin]

No problem with DLC provided its not just "extra costumes" - they can do that but it won't get many sales. DLC that ADDS value to a game with new modes, extra campaign, loads more online content is brilliant.

People forget, DLC is just today's version of "expansion packs" which were 20-30 quid a pop (yes they were a bit bigger but to get any of it you had to buy it all) whereas with DLC you can pick and choose.

It's the pricing of DLC that is a little out of whack to be honest!

[Megamixer]

But this is the question that pyroxian is asking. Are you prepared to pay substantially more than the current price for those "unlockables" to be included at release?

No I'm not. I paid the regular retail price for games like Tekken 3 or Dead or Alive 3 and all the unlockables were on the disc. I pay the same today and they aren't. As somebody who is used to beating tough challenges or completing modes with characters I don't usually use just to get access to the goods, I completely fail to see why I should pay the same RRP today and then have to pay more on top for things that were on-disc 'back in the day'.

The difference between now and back then is that games now cost a lot more to make and distribute. A whole lot more. Yet gamers such as yourself still the want the same amount of content, maybe even more, for a game that in real terms is even cheaper than it was back then.
As you said yourself, "I pay the same today", for a much more expensive product.
What else can a publisher do except eke out what they can by any means possible when faced with that sort of customer expectation?

Some good points there. I think we'll have to agree to disagree overall though. I can totally understand your justifications so don't think I'm having a hissy fit over it but as a passionate gamer, I find it difficult to accept these changes and the way that gaming is going in general.

Perhaps DLC is good for keeping the gaming industry afloat and if that is the case then who am I to argue? Let it continue. I am however extremely doubtful as to whether I'll even get involved in the next gen as I feel that the current digital models are just the tip of a fairly big iceberg and knowing how this will make me feel, it's just not worth it.

I'm not saying never (I'm sure certain games/sequels on PS4, Wii-U etc. will tempt me) but it's better for me to stick with the games I know and love instead of letting myself get bitter over relatively trivial (in terms of life in general) topics such as DLC.

[Dreamer]

====================================
Unreal Tournament Bonus Pack README
(c) 1999, 2000 Epic Games
====================================

"Thanks for acquiring the Unreal Tournament Bonus Pack.

This pack is our way of saying "Thank you!" to the gamers out there who have supported Epic."

"Feel free to distribute this pack online as well as on magazine cover disks."

"It is illegal to charge users for this content."


Good times!

[crusto]

Quick question - what would people prefer?

The game to cost £80-100, but no DLC

The game to cost £40, with an additional amount of DLC that you can optionally buy?

How did you arrive at that £80-£100 figure?

Does it matter?
It's a simple point being made: if you want the extra content you'll have to pay more for it.

DLC etc is a response to the fact that publishers can't produce the amount of content desired at a price the customer is prepared to pay. So they break the content up. You get a certain amount of game at a set price and the option to buy more for that game at another price.
The alternative is simply less game than you've maybe been used to in the past but at a price you're willing to pay and no option to buy extra content. The extra content probably won't even get made. If it does get made it'll be in the sequel.
The alternative is ALL the content at a higher price for the initial release. The publisher has to make a profit on their work.
Releasing a game at a reasonable price and then selling extra optional content for that game is a good sales model IMO. I find it's the people who can't afford to buy as many games as they'd like who complain about it the most.

Developers have got along just fine in the past without the aid of DLC, for many years. Im not against DLC, far from it. But companies are beginning to take the censored with it if you ask me, too many shameless cash ins going on. A game should be released in its finished state and with every unlockable available to be earned rather than bought. Additional content should be added at a later date, a good example of this is the Shivering Isles etc from Bethesda.

[The Beans]

Developers have got along just fine in the past without the aid of DLC, for many years. Im not against DLC, far from it. But companies are beginning to take the censored with it if you ask me, too many shameless cash ins going on. A game should be released in its finished state and with every unlockable available to be earned rather than bought. Additional content should be added at a later date, a good example of this is the Shivering Isles etc from Bethesda.

Things have changed. Developers of the past didn't have to contend with second hand sales on a massive scale that the internet and recent retail practices have brought to bear. This is on top of the usual piracy remember.
Games are released in a finished state. I can't think of a game where you're charged extra to see the ending. Most of the unlockables we all miss have actually been sidelined by Achievements and Trophies. They're the "unlockables" you unlock with skill nowadays. We get a badge instead of a costume. I think this is worse than any issue with DLC but that's just my opinion.

How do people feel about the Mars Bar? In order to keep the price as low as possible Mars have made the bar smaller and covered it in lower quality chocolate. The price has still gone up despite this. Lots of food items have had to reduce quality and quantity to keep the price down as manufacturing costs have risen. Games could do this too and dispense with DLC altogether. Smaller games with less content but the price stays the same. Would it work?

[steve82]

*What happened to just releasing a game and that being the main product and thats it*

i think it is common sense that consoles being connected to the internet is the answer to the above

consoles being online was only properly introduced this gen and if you think about it everything has gone downhill ever since with games like skyrim being released in a messed up condition. and all the DLC crap its all the internets fault

lol

[Misery]

Nickel & Dimed? Give me a break...

Yes, one or two companies take the censored (Capcom being of particular note) but I have absolutely NO problem with Day 1 DLC, Online Passes or additional DLC packs.

I buy my games around the £20 mark new, that means I get all the content at a price I'm happy with. In the cases of games like Fallout 3, I bought the GOTY edition for a fiver!! That's thievery...and I'm the thief

Ah, but alot of people dont DO that, is the thing.

If you're buying a game, day one that it comes out, you're NOT paying a drastically reduced price unless some store or other has a really funky deal going on. You're instead paying full-retail price. Which is exactly where the "day one DLC" arguement comes in.

The reason day one DLC is so frowned upon is that it's one of the most blatant, nastiest ways to just suck up extra dollars that there is right now, and really, it's downright DISHONEST.

If a developer has day one DLC, particularly hidden on the disc, it's JUST a money hike. It's not a "feature" add on, it's not a nice thing they're doing for the players, it's a hidden extra cost that you must pay to access the full game. Over here in the States, retail games generally come out at price points of either $40, or $60. 40 being on the low end. If someone goes and buys, say, a Capcom game, a new one, seeing it at a nice 40-dollar price point, and THEN afterwards they find out they need to plop another 20 on it later to actually get the WHOLE GAME, well.... it's like being lied to. That initial price can make or break the decision for them. Maybe 60 is harder for them to afford right now, but 40 was OK; they essentially ended up eventually having to pay the full 60 WITHOUT KNOWING that it was gonna cost that in advance. That, right there, is someone who very much has a right to be pissed off. Because now they maybe CANT get the full game, because they dont have the cash right now to throw at it, simply because the publisher was being such a blazing jackass. And it's even WORSE if it's a 60-dollar game, because pricing BEYOND that is usually a damn stupid idea unless it's a special-edition sort of thing.

And yes, you can say "oh well it's their fault for not researching it" or some crap like that, but not everyone DOES that, or has the time to do that, or even knows where to GO to do that. That 40-dollar game might have been a gift for, say, their kid, or a nephew, or whoever. Suddenly, without knowing it, they've just given someone an UNFINISHED gift without even KNOWING it, simply because of the publisher's dishonest business maneuver. THAT, to me, is extremely wrong.


I'm not against DLC in general, but by that I mean *real* DLC. The sort of thing where the developers want to support the game after it's release, so they are actually WORKING ON CONTENT *after* the fact. Like, say, Skullgirls; that one has DLC characters coming to it soon. But, by "soon", I mean "in a few months". Because that content ISNT done yet, it's still far from release and is being worked on. When you buy THAT, what you are paying for is the developer's time spent working on the game post-release; you're NOT paying them for time spent working on it during it's original development time, because you already DID that with the initial purchase. What groups like Crapcom do, is they make you pay the usual price for time-during-normal-development..... and then AFTER the fact, they say "Oh hey, you know what.... sorry, but that price just went up. I'm gonna want another 20 from you now.". Did they DO extra time for development after release, which would make DLC a viable way to pay them for extra time? No. They didnt. You're just paying them a SECOND time for what you ALREADY paid them for.

And really? If these braindead dolts are going to pull that crap.... JUST PRICE THE DAMN GAME HIGHER TO BEGIN WITH. Release your 40 dollar game at 60. Yeah, it might annoy people..... but nowhere NEAR as much as it'll annoy them if you pull crap like they did with SFxT. THAT made alot of players REALLY ANGRY. And for good reason.



This kind of crap is yet another reason why I just dont bother with the consoles much these days and tend to stick to PC/indie titles. Some of these larger publishers are getting downright NASTY in recent years.

[retrosofer]

I find the whole argument that we either accept dlc in its current form or suffer substatially higher game prices laughable, sorry but i dont accept that at all. As has already been stated, consoles have done well and survived up until this Gen fine without it, and devs & publishers have had to deal with all sorts of costs and expeses over the years, and yet they are still around. The switch from 2D to 3D was pretty damn expensive for dev and publishers, but the majority made it work and survived, and yet prices didn't shoot up dramatically because of this. Also just look at last Gen Xbox and PS2, with games like San Andreas, Killzone, Getaway, Brothers In Arms, Fable, Jade Empire etc, all these games had just as big teams working on them as anything this Gen, and incurred near enough the same to create and publish. I cant speak for the Xbox because i never had one, but these games sold really well and publishers and devs made enough to survive and continue without DLC.

Its too easy to make out that some devs and publishers are fighting on the breadline. Poor publishers like Activision only made billions of dollers off of COD, no wonder they have to charge 1200pts for only a few crap maps, no wonder they have to charge for that COD community thing, whatever its called. I suppose if they had made billions more and stayed out of the red they could have done the community thing for free like Bungie did with Halo .

Also look at the Wii, i know some games have managed to implement a DLC thing in game, but largly all the rampant fleeceing of customers for extra cash hasn't made it over to the platform. All the passcodes, DRM, DLC has not been a problem on the Wii, and i find that really enticing about the system and one of its many good points. Also there have been many great games released on the Wii, with no counterpart DLC, yet the games have done well and so have the devs and publishers out of them, so i fail to see how DLC is a must have component to their bussines models. I know dev costs are lower on the Wii, but games like The Last Story, Pandoras Tower, Xenoblade Chronicles, Conduit, Red Steel 2 and others will have had massive teams working on them and all incurring massive costs.

[DreamcastRIP]

Also look at the Wii, i know some games have managed to implement a DLC thing in game, but largly all the rampant fleeceing of customers for extra cash hasn't made it over to the platform. All the passcodes, DRM, DLC has not been a problem on the Wii...

I *suspect* the lack of a HDD *may* have had something to do with it.

The fact Ninty have stated folk will be able to connect external USB drives to Wii U for game data storage and have also given the green light to third-party publishers to shill consumers with DLC via the console's Nintendo Network means that even Ninty's hardware has now fallen to this phenomenon.

[samhain81]

No I'm not. I paid the regular retail price for games like Tekken 3 or Dead or Alive 3 and all the unlockables were on the disc. I pay the same today and they aren't. As somebody who is used to beating tough challenges or completing modes with characters I don't usually use just to get access to the goods, I completely fail to see why I should pay the same RRP today and then have to pay more on top for things that were on-disc 'back in the day'.

Granted, modern gamers are probably more lax towards this kind of publishing tactic and that's fair enough. It's people like me that are suddenly being asked to cough up more dough for stuff we played for 10+ years ago that are asking these questions and as I said in the previous post, this is a retro forum so I'm surprised that the general concensus isn't the same.

I totally get stuff like expansion packs and sizeable DLC add-ons that come later and extend a product's lifespan but taking away the little 'treats' and putting price tags on them is just diluting the experience as far as I can see.

Perfect post.

Its not the DLC I'm angry over, its the 'little' extras that we used to 'play' for to unlock, like costumes, hidden levels etc, that are now charged for.

But they ar emoving with the times, as generations progress, gamers become more retarded.

[pyroxian]

...as generations progress, gamers become more retarded.

No, they're not, it's just that marketing executives try to market their games to everyone, including non-gamers (even though non-gamers generally wouldn't buy an FPS / Beat 'em up in the first place *sigh* ).

[samhain81]

...as generations progress, gamers become more retarded.

No, they're not, it's just that marketing executives try to market their games to everyone, including non-gamers (even though non-gamers generally wouldn't buy an FPS / Beat 'em up in the first place *sigh* ).

sorry...they're still derpy in my eyes.

[Misery]

I find the whole argument that we either accept dlc in its current form or suffer substatially higher game prices laughable, sorry but i dont accept that at all. As has already been stated, consoles have done well and survived up until this Gen fine without it, and devs & publishers have had to deal with all sorts of costs and expeses over the years, and yet they are still around. The switch from 2D to 3D was pretty damn expensive for dev and publishers, but the majority made it work and survived, and yet prices didn't shoot up dramatically because of this. Also just look at last Gen Xbox and PS2, with games like San Andreas, Killzone, Getaway, Brothers In Arms, Fable, Jade Empire etc, all these games had just as big teams working on them as anything this Gen, and incurred near enough the same to create and publish.

Also, this. You put it better than I did.

This whole thing is only becoming a trend now because these obnoxious publishers are finding out that they CAN get away with it. These games NEVER actually *needed* this sort of crap in order to survive/do well. Never. Legions of older (and even many recent) games prove this.

...as generations progress, gamers become more retarded.

No, they're not, it's just that marketing executives try to market their games to everyone, including non-gamers (even though non-gamers generally wouldn't buy an FPS / Beat 'em up in the first place *sigh* ).

sorry...they're still derpy in my eyes.

Agreed.

[retrosofer]

Also look at the Wii, i know some games have managed to implement a DLC thing in game, but largly all the rampant fleeceing of customers for extra cash hasn't made it over to the platform. All the passcodes, DRM, DLC has not been a problem on the Wii...

I *suspect* the lack of a HDD *may* have had something to do with it.

The fact Ninty have stated folk will be able to connect external USB drives to Wii U for game data storage and have also given the green light to third-party publishers to shill consumers with DLC via the console's Nintendo Network means that even Ninty's hardware has now fallen to this phenomenon.

Not really, the lack of any of these bad practices on the Wii such as pass codes, on disk DLC, season passes etc is more than anything down to the lack of an online network comparable to XBL & PSN. I never found the lack of a HDD a problem on the Wii, and i doubt its that fact that stopped most of the fleecing on that platform.