Welcome to the new age of gaming. Over the past couple of years Downloadable Content (DLC) has become the new way to game. You get your stock game and then you have to pay for any additions you'd like to download onto the game. The system itself is by no means something to condemn, unless it's in the current state it is now. Let's look at Call of Duty Black Ops.
The game retails for $64.99 (as far as I know). With taxes that's around $70. The game itself is very playable without the extra content, but if you want the whole deal you need to dole out another $9.99. Now, many people may not see the problem with this, however there is one. Essentially the game, in it's "full package" as it were is a total of $80. Rewind the clock and you could get a full game for $65 or under.
So, it's obvious the gaming companies are just out for more money right? And they made fine money when games didn't have DLC. So, why not drop the price? And then add on the DLC for whatever it costs. This would increase DLC and game sales. People have no qualms paying for something a little cheaper, and then paying some extra money for extra things to get the full experience.
So if a new Call of Duty game would sell for $60 but the DLC is $10, sell the game for $50.
So you'd prefer if those new maps were never developed instead?
No I'd prefer the game be shifted back a couple months and the pieces be in them as part of the game.
Though, I think that charging money for extra maps is just lame. Additional quests or areas in a game is fine,
The difference is the other is like an expansion pack - therefore something you may actually consider buying, not an extension of what is already there.
Wouldn't they just consider those previous additions part of the full game and then create more DLC maps after the couple month delay?
What's done is done with the DLC's and they should look at that, my idea is a solution to it - it is definitely more beneficial to the "A-Game" companies since they can charge more for the game but it's also DLC money they receive as well.
Highfire, what I'm saying is that they're constantly working on creating new DLC. It's a process that, for most games, don't end until the sequel is released. For your idea to work, they would either have to keep working on it for ever and never release it, or they would have to stop creating DLCs after the release date.
No they don't, they probably have it set out like a calender - game release, map pack, map pack, sequel.
To put it very simplified.
Therefore why not have it Blank, Blank, Game (with map packs on), blank, blank, sequel?
I can see why some packs are there - vanity packs and expansion packs mostly, but I don't see why they have these iddy biddy additions which don't change the game that much for half its price.
Even at lower prices I feel its not entirely justified. Why not - like before in BF2, or Call of Duty 4 have them free?
Therefore why not have it Blank, Blank, Game (with map packs on), blank, blank, sequel?
Because then they're not getting any money. Sure, they'll give you the first stuff for free, maybe. But there's still massive incentive in creating DLCs if people are prepared to buy them.
Why not - like before in BF2, or Call of Duty 4 have them free?
Because all though you and the OP and I may not like it, there's one hundred million people lapping these things up with every instalment, so it's a great business move.
But there's still massive incentive in creating DLCs if people are prepared to buy them.
BOOOOYCCOOOOTTTT
Nar, it's unrecoverable to be honest.
Because all though you and the OP and I may not like it, there's one hundred million people lapping these things up with every instalment, so it's a great business move.
Indeed, but I don't find it morally justified - at least not entirely. I'd love to see a developer take their middle finger to the general industry and let them do it their way - that's why I <3 indie developers so much, they do it how they want to do it - mostly.
Anyway, a game that is done how I think it should be done will probably not become true - which is the case for nearly everyone I'd imagine. So yeah - I'll be quiet now.
omg lets all realize you dont need to actually buy them omg (btw acb has a lot of free dlc except for the davinci one which is expansion/map pack ((it gives you new sp missions and maps for online)) ) ps the cod 4 maps are not free for ps3
I only care for PC, not any other gaming platform.
No but seriously. It's the moral standard I'm talking about - I know it probably won't stop now that people have said they'd buy it and try to use some punctuation because now I have to piece together your post, yugioh6123
I know I don't need to buy them - but then it doesn't feel like I'm getting everything I would've when I got the game. It probably is a full game, yeah, but in the end there's a lot I'm missing out on that doesn't give anything new or innovative which is usually what needs to be brought in a sequel or expansion pack.
that's why I <3 indie developers so much, they do it how they want to do it - mostly.
Eh...Does Xgenstudios count as an idie developer anymore? See, what got me on this topic was the who Director's Cut of Stick RPG 2 XD The Xgen community currently hates me for speaking out against this whole idea of charging money for extra things. I thought I'd bring it to somewhere where I won't be chased off the forums.
obviously the OP has no distinction between DLC and mappacks.
Mappacks are a bit of a cash-in. 10 dollars for 3 maps? really?
DLC on the other hand, has never been better. Shivering Isles, all the Fallout and Borderlands expansions, Spore's extra creature parts, Battlefield Bad Co. Vietnam, Minecraft's consistent updates, all are excellent examples of how DLC is nowadays a wonderful way of getting extra content for a game while not paying too much.
The fact he used Black Ops is a bad example of bad map-pack pricing on Treyarch's part.
The fact he used Black Ops is a bad example of bad map-pack pricing on Treyarch's part.
It's good on their part because they know there's enough 12 year old ragers that would buy it.
Expansion packs that bring something new to the game already, yes, I'll buy it happily. Something that gives a new thing but same idea of a game? No thanks, unless it's a vanity pack and I love the game THAT much.
Like League of Legends, I wouldn't mind putting in real money for Riot Points because I'd like to help the game. That, and I want a skin.
But when I lack something core to the game (like maps) and they charge me for that... no, that's just not a high moral standard.
