Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Ambros123
I was really stoked for ME3.... then I heard about how the ending was so shallow and about the DLC stuff.... then I bycotted ME3 until it's dirt cheap.  DLC is corperation greed plain n simple.  You spend 10-15 bucks for an hour of game time content which is what I experienced in ME2 which left me dissatisfied and felt cheated.  DA:O was when some corperate nut ball was like "hey... we can make some serious money on DLC stuff" and started the nickle and diming.

Even though I'm a gamer, the above logic doesn't make sense to me.

If we take this 'DLC is evil' logic, why did gamers accept expansion packs?

Granted expansions packs are a bit larger than DLC but they were also more expensive; around $40.

I don't think DLC is evil.  I do however think there are companies that will try to exploit it to get it's greatest possible profit regardless of the quality of the product.

Not all expansion packs were created equal or priced the same.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Xerith
Or, you know, you could add that content directly to the game for free and players would have more to do for free.... The amount of BS from developers coming out of Gamescom this year is astounding. 

You could tell the entire gaming world this, explaining it with pretty pictures, and they will show total outrage right up until the moment that Bioware has their next game's pre-order box available.

It's as if devs have found some futuristic technology that allows pictures of virtual hats in pre-order ads to release seratonin through the target audience's monitor.

I sense something, a presence I've not felt since...HYPNOTOAD!

Face it. We get charged twice as much for half a game today as a decade ago.

I am not a player that buys a game the first day it comes out. Matter of fact, I sometimes wait for the GotY edition that includes the DLC for half the games original price :)

Patience is a virtue.

It is also pretty sad that the new delivery platforms that allow for digital versions do not actually come cheaper than the old-fashioned boxed versions. In fact, the opposite is often true. They try to offer some crappy in-game item to justify the cost, but anyone with a basic understading of the supply chain can see that customers are not benefiting from these downloadable, digital versions...well, not benefiting anything else, but convinience. These version are typically also account bound, meaning that once you play through the campaing, you cannot resell the item.

Considering the cost saving that the sales of digital copies allow for the developers and publishers, it is simply amazing that consumers are not reaping any benefits.

It is an interesting logic that when we buy a digital copy, we still have to pay a price similar to MSRP that contains:

• manufacturing cost
• packaging cost
• delivery cost.
• Plus for additional things that go produce and market the boxes, like various overheads, graphic design, research and development, marketing and marketing materials.

Originally posted by thexrated

It is also pretty sad that the new delivery platforms that allow for digital versions do not actually come cheaper than the old-fashioned boxed versions. In fact, the opposite is often true. They try to offer some crappy in-game item to justify the cost, but anyone with a basic understading of the supply chain can see that customers are not benefiting from these downloadable, digital versions...well, not benefiting anything else, but convinience. These version are typically also account bound, meaning that once you play through the campaing, you cannot resell the item.

Considering the cost saving that the sales of digital copies allow for the developers and publishers, it is simply amazing that consumers are not reaping any benefits.

It is an interesting logic that when we buy a digital copy, we still have to pay a price similar to MSRP that contains:

• manufacturing cost
• packaging cost
• delivery cost.
• Plus for additional things that go produce and market the boxes, like various overheads, graphic design, research and development, marketing and marketing materials.

I would expect to see at least somewhat lowered price, say 5-10 euros in comparison to the boxed price at the retail store. Today, I can order a boxed copy from a retailer for that much cheaper (release day).

 

 

Excellent points. I've been asking the question for years, people argue that sever costs etc justify the price balance. I figured if that were the case Guild Wars AND GW2 could never afford to operate.

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes
To me its this or the initial price of the game goes up, with this method you get to decide whether you buy it or not the other way you have no choice and we know at the end of the day its all about money and gamers want to spend fuck all and get the world for it.

Isn't the standard US $60 game supposed to jump to US $70 a game this fall?

I think it has more to do with bang for the buck.  People want to feel like their investment was worthwhile.  Not everyone expects everything for free, but pretty much everyone wants to feel like they got their money's worth.  Which, is very subjective.

Games keep hitting record sales numbers in a genre that keeps listing dropping earnings.  So, either something is not adding up, or the profits are going to fewer makers.  But, just like most companies who layoff employees first and look for efficiency gains after in the face of their employees having lower morale and looking outside the company, the gaming industry is looking for ways to increase costs first to make up for lower bottom line profits.

 

Sorry I wouldn't know I still use pounds, shillings and pence this side of the pond.

 

I understand what you are saying but games are really costing so much more than they use to and like the music industry in order recoup those costs they put more money into fewer artists ie games and thus need to make the games appeal to a wider audience thus the perceived dumbing down of games, bigger sales and the lack of value seen. But the costs are still there and players want games to be bigger, better, prettier, cheaper and that isn't going to happen so you have DLC which at least gives the buyer the choice in the matter. This is no longer an industry where you can make AAA games with a one or two person team and £500 budget. Gamers have to wake up to that fact or support the indie industry like I do with music, though with games you have to lower your scope on what you are getting, luckily music isn't like that.

I posted it as US dollars as that is how it was presented to me.  I could have done the conversion, but is that exactly what you pay or is that rounded off to a nice sales effective number.  It's just something I heard about a game coming out in that time frame that will list for the new cost that others are supposed to follow.  I won't pretend to know the reason for it.

Not every cost increase is due to production cost increases or inflation in general.  I worked for a company  in an industry that had a cost evaluation every year at the same time.  That cost was the basis for what we charged after factoring in several operational costs.  Then there was another cost increase.  Which, appalled me.  They even had a name for it that they used.  Brand equity.  That was the term incorrectly used by them to describe increasing our costs in relation to the costs of our competitors to ensure that we all made more money.  Essentially...."If they can get that price for it, so can we.  And by asking a relatively equal price for it, we guarante that price and it's associated profit for all."  Between these companies, thanks to certain laws, they controlled all of the competing brands in that segment of the market.

I'm not saying that is what is going on here.  Just a true story that shows another side to how some companies work. 

Doesn't that just come down to charging what the market will bear and if it happens to be too much well that risk could really backfire so they still have to be careful. You can only go so far, with games for me as I've been under strain financially for the last couple of years I've been mainly buying old games and games on discount and if the price goes up to a price I deem unacceptable I will continue to buy that way, enough do that and the price will fall. Also my opening quote on that post was just a little joke.

We have Day One DLC and DLC that offer very little value for what is being offered for the same reason we have MMORPGs with Box Price+Sub+Cash Shops.Today's consumer doesn't place value on money and has been trained for decades to accept whatever coorporations stick to them because it's "How the free market works".

While it's true coorporations should be trying to maximize profits the breakdown is that consumers should be trying to get as much value as possible for their buck by voting with their wallets and actively telling coorporations what they dislike and refuse to put up with.These two basic market forces are supposed to balance each other out and if a product is good enough a fair medium is reached or the product fails.But today's consumer is lazy and waseful with their moeny so coorporations now get away with stuff they never would of in the past.

Originally posted by thexrated

It is also pretty sad that the new delivery platforms that allow for digital versions do not actually come cheaper than the old-fashioned boxed versions. In fact, the opposite is often true. They try to offer some crappy in-game item to justify the cost, but anyone with a basic understading of the supply chain can see that customers are not benefiting from these downloadable, digital versions...well, not benefiting anything else, but convinience. These version are typically also account bound, meaning that once you play through the campaing, you cannot resell the item.

Considering the cost saving that the sales of digital copies allow for the developers and publishers, it is simply amazing that consumers are not reaping any benefits.

It is an interesting logic that when we buy a digital copy, we still have to pay a price similar to MSRP that contains:

• manufacturing cost - Minimal a DVD's cost pennies to make
• packaging cost - Minimal boxes cost pennies
• delivery cost. - Minimal distribution costs are not as much as you think
• Plus for additional things that go produce and market the boxes, like various overheads, graphic design, research and development, marketing and marketing materials. - Digital distribution has its own similar overheads

I would expect to see at least somewhat lowered price, say 5-10 euros in comparison to the boxed price at the retail store. Today, I can order a boxed copy from a retailer for that much cheaper (release day).

 

 

Digital distibution is not that much cheaper and only a few comapnies can afford their own systems like Origin, Steam and Battlenet most of the others have to pay for access to these services as much as a shop so any difference in price is negligable to most of the gaming companies. 

Originally posted by Xerith
Or, you know, you could add that content directly to the game for free and players would have more to do for free.... The amount of BS from developers coming out of Gamescom this year is astounding. 

You blew my mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you asked Mr. Fernando if in their goal to make sure DLC is available from day one has somehow influenced the amount of content at launch, I wonder if he would answer truefully.   Because we all know that 10 years ago the game would of been longer and with more depth of play from day one.  Developers didnt have a cost effective way in place to milk us.  So it was actually in their best interest to make longer games, they had to make enough content at launch to hold us over until they could build box and ship more content.  No DLC download mechanic was in place.

One of the problems is they have X to spend on making their game and since games take more money to make these dayss X doesnt go as far so we end up with shorter games at launch and developers then nickle and dimeing their fans with DLC funded by the sales.  And as our friend Mr Fernando told us some of that DLC needs to ready at launch since games are SHORTER and EASIER then ever before.

Games are getting shorter and more expensive to make and irnonically this has benefited the developers not the gamers.  Imagine another industry where we pay more for less of something and people out there think its actually a good thing, developers and gamers alike.  I like DLC I like F2P games blaa blaa.  I like givng people a little bit of money at a time even though I end up spending more in the long run.

I just dont see it that way.

Originally posted by Calerxes
 

Doesn't that just come down to charging what the market will bear and if it happens to be too much well that risk could really backfire so they still have to be careful. You can only go so far, with games for me as I've been under strain financially for the last couple of years I've been mainly buying old games and games on discount and if the price goes up to a price I deem unacceptable I will continue to buy that way, enough do that and the price will fall. Also my opening quote on that post was just a little joke.

To an extent yes.  But not entirely.  It also decreases competition in a very controlled market.  In that state, you could only buy that brand from that distributor.  Exclusive.  Same with competing brands.  When all competing brands are ensuring they all increase prices at a relative rate regardless of external factors, your only choice is pay more or don't buy at all.

I didn't take it as anything personal or in a bad way at all.  Just tried to clarify it.

I'm personally on the wait and see for all games.  I'm not currently playing any games.  I could play some of the older games I own, but I don't currently have the desire.  Thank god American Football season is starting.

Sadly, a lot of people have no issue using credit to continue to fund these companies and their immoral actions.  That is, regardless of their economic standing.  We don't live in a time where the majority of people have much self control.

Originally posted by snapfusion

If you asked Mr. Fernando if in their goal to make sure DLC is available from day one has somehow influenced the amount of content at launch, I wonder if he would answer truefully.   Because we all know that 10 years ago the game would of been longer and with more depth of play from day one.  Developers didnt have a cost effective way in place to milk us.  So it was actually in their best interest to make longer games, they had to make enough content at launch to hold us over until they could build box and ship more content.  No DLC download mechanic was in place.

One of the problems is they have X to spend on making their game and since games take more money to make these dayss X doesnt go as far so we end up with shorter games at launch and developers then nickle and dimeing their fans with DLC funded by the sales.  And as our friend Mr Fernando told us some of that DLC needs to ready at launch since games are SHORTER and EASIER then ever before.

Games are getting shorter and more expensive to make and irnonically this has benefited the developers not the gamers.  Imagine another industry where we pay more for less of something and people out there think its actually a good thing, developers and gamers alike.  I like DLC I like F2P games blaa blaa.  I like givng people a little bit of money at a time even though I end up spending more in the long run.

I just dont see it that way.

How are they milking you? you don't have to buy it and if you feel the game wasn't worth the initial investment you don't buy another game from that company until you know its good value. When will the playerbase realise that with self control and self education you have the power and will always have the power. I'm not buying GW2 at release because I did not get into beta (yes I use marketing beta's as free trials) and I'm sure it'll be discounted in a couple of months time or there will be a fee trial because I have self control and I am not sucking up marketing rhetoric like many around here who will inevitably be outraged the game did not turn out what they thought it would be, but by then Ncsoft already have their money, so hard cheese is all they'd say. Gamers are their own worse enemies.

Originally posted by paroxysm

Originally posted by Calerxes
 

Doesn't that just come down to charging what the market will bear and if it happens to be too much well that risk could really backfire so they still have to be careful. You can only go so far, with games for me as I've been under strain financially for the last couple of years I've been mainly buying old games and games on discount and if the price goes up to a price I deem unacceptable I will continue to buy that way, enough do that and the price will fall. Also my opening quote on that post was just a little joke.

To an extent yes.  But not entirely.  It also decreases competition in a very controlled market.  In that state, you could only buy that brand from that distributor.  Exclusive.  Same with competing brands.  When all competing brands are ensuring they all increase prices at a relative rate regardless of external factors, your only choice is pay more or don't buy at all.

I didn't take it as anything personal or in a bad way at all.  Just tried to clarify it.

I'm personally on the wait and see for all games.  I'm not currently playing any games.  I could play some of the older games I own, but I don't currently have the desire.  Thank god American Football season is starting.

Sadly, a lot of people have no issue using credit to continue to fund these companies and their immoral actions.  That is, regardless of their economic standing.  We don't live in a time where the majority of people have much self control.

I agree gamers have got to man up and stop buying stuff they deem bad value but then many don't see it as bad value thats the problem, persoanlly I've never bought anything I have felt I got value with including FFXIV CE, should be getting a free month of FFXIV 2.0 soon.

Originally posted by Calerxes

Originally posted by snapfusion

If you asked Mr. Fernando if in their goal to make sure DLC is available from day one has somehow influenced the amount of content at launch, I wonder if he would answer truefully.   Because we all know that 10 years ago the game would of been longer and with more depth of play from day one.  Developers didnt have a cost effective way in place to milk us.  So it was actually in their best interest to make longer games, they had to make enough content at launch to hold us over until they could build box and ship more content.  No DLC download mechanic was in place.

One of the problems is they have X to spend on making their game and since games take more money to make these dayss X doesnt go as far so we end up with shorter games at launch and developers then nickle and dimeing their fans with DLC funded by the sales.  And as our friend Mr Fernando told us some of that DLC needs to ready at launch since games are SHORTER and EASIER then ever before.

Games are getting shorter and more expensive to make and irnonically this has benefited the developers not the gamers.  Imagine another industry where we pay more for less of something and people out there think its actually a good thing, developers and gamers alike.  I like DLC I like F2P games blaa blaa.  I like givng people a little bit of money at a time even though I end up spending more in the long run.

I just dont see it that way.

 

How are they milking you? you don't have to buy it and if you feel the game wasn't worth the initial investment you don't buy another game from that company until you know its good value. When will the playerbase realise that with self control and self education you have the power and will always have the power. I'm not buying GW2 at release because I did not get into beta (yes I use marketing beta's as free trials) and I'm sure it'll be discounted in a couple of months time or there will be a fee trial because I have self control and I am not sucking up marketing rhetoric like many around here who will inevitably be outraged the game did not turn out what they thought it would be, but by then Ncsoft already have their money, so hard cheese is all they'd say. Gamers are their own worse enemies.

I dont get milked because I dont pay for DLC but obviosly MILLIONS of people do.  So if I change the word I to the word gamers does that make more sense?

My point was games are shorter at launch because they can start delivering DLC immediately for an additional cost, this method was not available 10 to 12 years ago so developers had to make longer games to keep people busy until their expansions were ready.

I know this because Ive been gaming a long time, if someone was a new gamer the whole DLC from day one thing would just seem, well the way it has to be done.

I want day 1 DLC?! Total BS. Just launch the game as complete as possible, that's what I want.

Paid DLC = excuse to take more money, greed greed greed.

how about a poll

1/ who wants day one DLC  with a additional charge

2/who wants day one DLC included in the game ( included in the cost of the game  )

Originally posted by Xerith
Or, you know, you could add that content directly to the game for free and players would have more to do for free.... The amount of BS from developers coming out of Gamescom this year is astounding. 

hey, that ain't for free - you just paid $60 - you should get the whole game - including the stuff they preplanned to hold back for DLC

It amazes me that they could not predict there would be backlash for their obvious dollar grapping scheme. ME2 had the cerberus network which granted extra content (DLC equivalent) for free when you bought the game. ME3 then charges for it. I don't know maybe this is EA's business of "striking a balance" in maximizing profits and making the customers irate which has been going on for a very long time.

btw...

NOBODY IS WANTING DAY 1 DLC

they want it after 2-4 weeks.