Fed Up of Being Nickel & Dimed This Gen!

[Freestyler]

I booted up my copy of Dragon Age today, after a massive 200hr marathon Mass Effect franchise run! I'd bought the game ages ago, I just never got around to playing it. Blame Fallout 3, Oblivion, Saint's Row 3, Batman: Arkham Asylum...

Problem? The "Online Code" expired April 2010, and is therefore unredeemable. So that's my "Free" DLC gone then.

Charming.

I wonder if this is the "Future" we're all expecting? DLC that only lasts the same year the game came out in?

[Mayhem]

Have you actually tried it? Many people report expiry dates on the codes don't seem to take effect...

[Negative Creep]

I booted up my copy of Dragon Age today, after a massive 200hr marathon Mass Effect franchise run! I'd bought the game ages ago, I just never got around to playing it. Blame Fallout 3, Oblivion, Saint's Row 3, Batman: Arkham Asylum...

Problem? The "Online Code" expired April 2010, and is therefore unredeemable. So that's my "Free" DLC gone then.

Charming.

I wonder if this is the "Future" we're all expecting? DLC that only lasts the same year the game came out in?

Only just started playing Dragon Age, but it looks like I'd have to spend about another £20 to get all the DLC and achievements. I somehow doubt I'll be doing that.........

[Freestyler]

Have you actually tried it? Many people report expiry dates on the codes don't seem to take effect...

Apparently you have to contact EA for a new code, much like Dragon Age 2 and it's March 2012 expired code. I know they'll give you a new one for the sequel (I read it on the Internet!!) so hopefully they'll cough up one for the first game.

I won't be buying any DLC for this I think, seeing as there's just so much of it! Seriously, as Negative Creep said it's just stupid! I can buy a brand new Kingdoms of Amalur off Amazon for £17.95! People are saying that's easily another 100hr+ game, so that's a way better pounds-to-playtime investment.

Publishers need to stop with this overpriced DLC censored. It might not seem a lot at the time, but all those mission packs quickly add up.

[The Beans]

Publishers need to stop with this overpriced DLC censored. It might not seem a lot at the time, but all those mission packs quickly add up.

You don't have to buy them so what's the problem?

I hope we see more of it. Lots and lots of extra game I can buy if I want. Sounds good to me.

[Megamixer]

Problem? The "Online Code" expired April 2010, and is therefore unredeemable. So that's my "Free" DLC gone then.

Charming.

I wonder if this is the "Future" we're all expecting? DLC that only lasts the same year the game came out in?

It does seem unfair. It's as if you're only allowed the free content as long as you can play the game within a certain time frame which - with the pressures/constraints of modern life/families etc. - isn't always possible. I really don't see why the codes have to expire at all since they're all single-use anyway. I can understand having to pay for a new one if you bought it pre-owned but surely buying a game should give you the right to decide when you play it?

Thinking about it, I have the Yakuza 4 collectors edition which has some DLC codes in it. Maybe they're expired now?

[samhain81]

You don't have to buy them so what's the problem?

I hope we see more of it. Lots and lots of extra game I can buy if I want. Sounds good to me.

Thats a load of bull. You can't use that reasoning for every aspect of DLC.

For optional extra missions, yes, you don't need to buy them, but Im sick of seeing DLC that extends the campaign to reveal a further ending, which some games have been known to do. Are you telling me you wouldn't feel cheated by that type of DLC? In common cases, people would have already completed the 'retail' game and maybe sold it on, or traded it on. Then, to hear a few weeks later, that you have yet to see the 'true' ending to the game, as the recent DLC has extended the story. It would well and truly **** you off.

[The Beans]

For optional extra missions, yes, you don't need to buy them, but Im sick of seeing DLC that extends the campaign to reveal a further ending, which some games have been known to do. Are you telling me you wouldn't feel cheated by that type of DLC? In common cases, people would have already completed the 'retail' game and maybe sold it on, or traded it on. Then, to hear a few weeks later, that you have yet to see the 'true' ending to the game, as the recent DLC has extended the story. It would well and truly **** you off.

Even with DLC that offers another ending you don't have to buy it!

In principle, there's no type of DLC out there at the moment that I feel cheated by. There's been some that has disappointed me and some that has really impressed me and a whole lot of it that lies somewhere between. Which is the same as full games in general.

If I bought a game and played through it and then right at the end all I got was a splash screen saying "Go to xbox marketplace to purchase the ending for this game" I'd be mad about it. Unless I'd been told in advance it was going to happen, in which case I'd have bought the game on that understanding.

If I was playing a shooter and once I'd run out of bullets I got a prompt to buy more bullets from the DLC marketplace I'd be mad about that.

But as long as I get a game that is recognisable as a full game with a beginning, middle and end and enough content to satisfy me for the asking price I'm not really going to get peed off at whatever comes out as DLC.

[Freestyler]

Some DLC is scandalously priced. 800MSP (£5.60) for a 30min addition? To a fifty hour game?
Using that pricing strategy the original game should be sold at five hundred and sixty pounds. £11.20 an hour is the "fair" DLC price, right?

If DLC expansions to Fallout 3, Oblivion and whatever can provide massive value, why can't others? Why should I have to pay 320MSP to use an in-game item for my Avatar that's already in-game?!

Don't forget EA's John Riccitiello has already gone on record saying they'd want to charge its customers per reload in FPS's.

"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time."

That's John at a Stockholders meeting blue-skying some ideas about charging you to reload your gun. He further goes on to state that you can make clip sizes smaller and it'll bring in even more revenue.
He thinks it's a very good idea indeed. Note; he says "when you're six hours into the game" as a way for getting this nasty piece of DLC culture thrust on you? That's to wait until your invested into the game to such a degree that you won't want to quit paying. Because you've already paid a lot (in terms of cash and time) to get to that point, and stopping would be wasteful.

It's how Cash-Shop MMORPGs of the past were skilled at gouging. They knew that once they had you at a certain time-spent level you were much more inclined to pay more, rather than risk losing whatever it was you'd already achieved up to that point. Spent 30hrs getting to Lv80? Then buy Resurrect Potions for five bucks each or watch all that work go to waste when we prema-death you!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OI ... r_embedded

[The Beans]

If DLC expansions to Fallout 3, Oblivion and whatever can provide massive value, why can't others? Why should I have to pay 320MSP to use an in-game item for my Avatar that's already in-game?!

Does everything in gaming provide massive value? It's subjective anyway. I thought the XBLA game Limbo was an absolute joke at 1200pts for a game that took less than three hours to complete and didn't actually have that much game in it in the first place. Lots of other people think it's one of the best gaming experiences they've ever had. Some things are going to offer better value to you than others. There's always going to be a range. From outright rip-off to astonishing value for money. Gaming has always been this way, long before DLC ever appeared on the scene. Asking for every piece of DLC to provide massive value is unrealistic IMO. It's like asking for every game to be brilliant. A great ideal to aim for but just never going to happen in reality.

If the publisher wants to charge for an in-game item then they can. It's their product. They can sell it however they want. That's just a fact of life. They can deliver it however they want, they can charge what they want and they can decide when you can and can't use it.
Why should I pay 320msp to use an in-game item for my Avatar that's already in the game? Because the publisher has decided that's what they want you to pay.
You decide whether you're going to pay what they want. If you don't like it you know what to do.

[FatTrucker]

I'm not really sure I agree with this as a general argument. If a company are releasing a game thats deliberately cut down or incomplete to make DLC an essential additional purchase to play the game properly then its fair to complain that they're ripping people off. The most blatant examples of this currently seem to surround the online components of things like the Call of Duty franchise.

I think as gamers, sometimes our expectations are a little unrealistic, game development for mainstream consoles is massively expensive, the core cost of games hasn't even close to kept pace with inflation while development costs have outstripped it many times over. New games at full RRP have a tiny window of commercial viability where the development, marketing and publishing costs plus profit need to be made. Beyond that window the pre-owned market and discounting of unsold stock pretty much eliminate any further profit from a title.

For the most part, paid for DLC extends the ability of a title to continue to generate profits well beyond a games limited shelf life, and purchase of online passes for pre-owned titles allows devs/publishers to recoup a little of the profit that game stores make by selling the same game multiple times over. its got to sting a bit commercially if 6 million gamers have enjoyed playing your title online but only 2 million of those gamers actually paid you any money for the game.
Its also worth considering that some of the more niche titles that wouldn't necessarily get a release only do so because of the DLC model. The potential for a smaller core of fans to keep paying for additional content means these titles can be developed and released in all territories with less risk, whereas without the DLC model a lot of the risk averse, marketing people at these publishers would never take the risk of developing a game that statistically has a global market unable to put the game into profit.

As far as on-disk DLC is concerned, again up to a point I don't really see an issue with it. So long as the game you've bought is essentially complete, and playable as intended, then the idea that various additions to the game/characters etc should be made available at a premium isn't necessarily wrong. Would it make any difference if they simply held those additions back and instead of including them on the disk, released them 2 months later as DLC make it any more palateable?
The game marketplace has changed and is continuing to change. If publishers can keep costs static at retail by making money through additional content then more power to them, at least it leaves consumers with the choice of wether they're enjoying a game enough to warrant paying for more content rather than allowing retail costs to hit upward of £60 with all extras included.

The bottom line is that where there's money to be made, any business will try to exploit a market to its maximum potential. While there are occasional exceptions who blatantly milk things for all they're worth and don't offer real value, for the most part DLC is a good thing. It allows people that want to, the ability to customise their game experience and the ability to extend a game's life way beyond its potential in its initial retail form. It helps keep costs at retail stable and it allows more games to be released than might not be 'commercialy viable' than in a market without it.
You have numerous tiers of games available for any budget (in the case of the 360, Retail, Arcade and Indy ranging from £40 to less than a £1). Access to the latest shiny blockbusters to remakes from just about every game type from previous gens. Across all platforms there are cheap accessible mobile games, free homebrew games, portals dedicated to releasing old games at massive discounts, weekly special offers (this week on Xbox Live I got the full retail releases of Conan and Blazing Angels for the 360 for £2.99). The games market has never at any point I can remember going all the way back to the 70's offered so much choice, so many releases, such easy access or for so many budgets on such a regular basis.

I like it.

[The Beans]

I'm not really sure I agree with this as a general argument. If a company are releasing a game thats deliberately cut down or incomplete to make DLC an essential additional purchase to play the game properly then its fair to complain that they're ripping people off. The most blatant examples of this currently seem to surround the online components of things like the Call of Duty franchise.

Agreed. If you have to buy extra stuff that is essential to play the game properly (as in completing the game or having to buy a weapon to get past a certain bit etc) then it's a rip-off. I don't know of any games that do this though. I'm out of touch with the COD franchise. I haven't played a COD game since COD4. What have they changed? I know they always add map packs, you see them on the marketplace all the time. The online Elite thing seemed like gloss to me, not actual core gameplay stuff. Is it actually required to play the game now? If there's an extra subscription you truly need to pay in order to play the game properly online it should be made absolutely clear to the initial buyer on the box or included in the game price at retail IMO. Or something. I always thought this stuff was optional.

[DreamcastRIP]

Great post, FatTrucker.

Just on this point alone though,

... I think as gamers, sometimes our expectations are a little unrealistic, game development for mainstream consoles is massively expensive, the core cost of games hasn't even close to kept pace with inflation while development costs have outstripped it many times over...

While that is completely true don't forget the physical cost of duplicating current-gen home console games on their DVD/Blu-ray Disc formats is a matter of pennies. Games for the likes of Mega Drive, SNES, N64, et al, came on expensive to produce cartridges... and commonly with nice chunky instruction manuals too unlike many current-gen games.

So the fact game prices have fallen in real terms has been partly offset by the significant manufacturing costs per unit the publishers have saved ever since the time CD/GD/DVD/BD-ROM based consoles became commonplace.

[The Beans]

Great post, FatTrucker.

Just on this point alone though,

... I think as gamers, sometimes our expectations are a little unrealistic, game development for mainstream consoles is massively expensive, the core cost of games hasn't even close to kept pace with inflation while development costs have outstripped it many times over...

While that is completely true don't forget the physical cost of duplicating current-gen home console games on their DVD/Blu-ray Disc formats is a matter of pennies. Games for the likes of Mega Drive, SNES, N64, et al, came on expensive to produce cartridges... and commonly with nice chunky instruction manuals too unlike many current-gen games.

So the fact game prices have fallen in real terms has been partly offset by the significant manufacturing costs per unit the publishers have saved ever since the time CD/GD/DVD/BD-ROM based consoles became commonplace.

Which has been massively offset by the rise in hard distribution costs such as fuel. And so on.
Costs are up. Across the board. Not just for games but for everything. All you're really pointing out is that cartridges are not even remotely viable these days.

[DreamcastRIP]

Great post, FatTrucker.

Just on this point alone though,

... I think as gamers, sometimes our expectations are a little unrealistic, game development for mainstream consoles is massively expensive, the core cost of games hasn't even close to kept pace with inflation while development costs have outstripped it many times over...

While that is completely true don't forget the physical cost of duplicating current-gen home console games on their DVD/Blu-ray Disc formats is a matter of pennies. Games for the likes of Mega Drive, SNES, N64, et al, came on expensive to produce cartridges... and commonly with nice chunky instruction manuals too unlike many current-gen games.

So the fact game prices have fallen in real terms has been partly offset by the significant manufacturing costs per unit the publishers have saved ever since the time CD/GD/DVD/BD-ROM based consoles became commonplace.

Which has been massively offset by the rise in hard distribution costs such as fuel. And so on.
Costs are up. Across the board. Not just for games but for everything. All you're really pointing out is that cartridges are not even remotely viable these days.

I hardly think the rise in fuel costs would impact much on the cost per unit to manufacture a video game relative to the huge per unit cost savings of no longer using game cartridges.

Cartridges "not even remotely viable", huh? Better go tell that to Nintendo then after the DS sold over 150 million units and its cartridge-based games made them mountains of cash. They've persisted with cartridges for 3DS too (not flash memory-based carts like PS Vita, but proper carts) so claiming "cartridges are not even remotely viable" is rather wide of the mark. Unless you were referring to home consoles only that is, then you'd of course be correct.