Video game prices have remained the same for nearly 3 decades so why do we complain?

[bandicoot]

Not a good excuse. Many Indy companies are pumping out much better games on a significantly lower budget.

The main criticism I think we can all agree on is that once a company reaches a certain size money drives them more than quality of games.

Activision and similar companies are literally spending massive amounts of money to create algorithms to determine how to better market and sell their microtransactions to players, with tactics such as placing them into matches against people with gear and weapons only attainable through a paywall.

I don't know what else these companies could do to illicit more of a negative response.

 

[fdswer]

Activision and similar companies are literally spending massive amounts of money to create algorithms to determine how to better market and sell their microtransactions to players, with tactics such as placing them into matches against people with gear and weapons only attainable through a paywall.

I don't know what else these companies could do to illicit more of a negative response.

Shit is starting to get straight up predatory at this point. I am tired of starting a new game only to find most of the stuff locked behind a credit or loot box wall while being blasted with reminders on every screen to buy their fuck you points to unlock or buy more crates. The fact that it has started to find its way into full price single player games is extremely worrying.

 

[rob mafia]

at the low, low price of only $2100, can you really afford not to buy this game?

 

[Towelie by TKO]

This is something I've never understood. Madern gamers are so spoiled. With the recent backlash against EA I find myself having mixed feelings. On one hand I do think EA could have handled this better but on the other hand I'm not completely against loot boxes. Things have changed a lot since the early days of gaming. Think of all the work that goes into making these beautiful cut scenes. Everyone wants hundreds of hours of content and nobody wants to read text anymore therefore companies are paying top voice talent to record character voices.

Now go back in time when we didn't have any of these things and guess what? I still paid the same price for those games. I remember buying some N64 games for 60 dollars or more when they were brand new. If I remember correctly Sega Genesis games were priced at 49.99.

So why are so many people complaining about DLC?

The thing is, games have gone up in price, because DLCs are just parts of a full game, so if you want to factor in the price of a game, you MUST factor in the price of all the DLCs. If you also factor in game content that is cut to be added into special editions, you are paying a hell of a lot more than $60 to get everything a game has to offer.

On top of that, games are published for less money nowadays because of digital downloading. Publishers don't have to spend as much as they once did for making boxes, physical CDs and paying distribution costs to get them on retail shelves.

Remember when Expansion Packs came out a year or more after a game released, and added a significant amount of content to be worth the money they charged for it?

For example, Warcraft 3 was an incredible game. It had hours upon hours of quality single player story content, on top of a robust multiplayer with a custom game maker which gave birth to the MOBA genre. It was a full game for $60. Then, eventually it had the Frozen Throne expansion pack. It wasn't cut content, it was additional content! Lots of it too! Again, hours upon hours of single player story campaigns, big changes to the multiplayer, more custom game options, etc.

Compare that to Destiny 2. I blew through every bit of content D2 had to offer, except the raid, in 2 days. Then, I hear that there's more content coming! As paid DLC... just a month and a half after release of the PC version. If they are selling you paid DLC less than 3 months from the launch of a game, they are not selling you additional content, they are selling you cut content.

If $60 still bought you everything a game had to offer, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. Most games now are $95 at the least, often more when you factor in limited edition exclusive nonsense.

 

[Turtlejuice]

Not a good excuse. Many Indy companies are pumping out much better games on a significantly lower budget.

The main criticism I think we can all agree on is that once a company reaches a certain size money drives them more than quality of games.

What? Costing more to make is not a valid excuse for selling more copies? Actually seems like a perfrctly valid reason to me.

Better or worse is a matter of opinion. Most indie games are garbage. And of the ones that aren't garbage, most of them are alright at best.

Do you criticise other companies in other industries for "making money"?

DLC is not something new, Doom 2 was essentialy a Doom "DLC". GTA London was a GTA "DLC". Loads of games have had additional content released, those 2 are just off the top of my head.

 

[Turtlejuice]

I doubt you'll find many people disagreeing with you for the most part. Although it has been shown how day one DLC is, imo, perfectly acceptable depending on cost/content. What I mean is it isn't the same thing as "withholding" content.

I play a lot of games. I can't say Ive ever had the main story unable to be finished without buying DLC. I'm sure it's happened at some point, but I can't say I'm too worried about it because it seems so rare.

It's not common, but has happened on occasion.

My issue with day 1 DLC, paid DLC that is, is if they're available on day 1 they should be in the game. When you buy a game on launch day, it should be complete. Free DLC and cosmetics are exceptions.

 

[fdswer]

What? Costing more to make is not a valid excuse for selling more copies? Actually seems like a perfrctly valid reason to me.

Better or worse is a matter of opinion. Most indie games are garbage. And of the ones that aren't garbage, most of them are alright at best.

Do you criticise other companies in other industries for "making money"?

DLC is not something new, Doom 2 was essentialy a Doom "DLC". GTA London was a GTA "DLC". Loads of games have had additional content released, those 2 are just off the top of my head.

Dont think most people have a problem with good DLC or expansions its the fact that games are slowly being striped down and items are being repackaged as loot crates or paywalls. Its lazy and doesn't cost the companies much plus they charge an insane amount of money. And then they charge for actual add on content so its a never ending treadmill of money they are trying to squeeze out of people.

 

[rob mafia]

DLC is not something new, Doom 2 was essentialy a Doom "DLC". GTA London was a GTA "DLC". Loads of games have had additional content released, those 2 are just off the top of my head.

...that moment when someone clearly doesn't know what the D in DLC stands for.

 

[bandicoot]

What? Costing more to make is not a valid excuse for selling more copies? Actually seems like a perfrctly valid reason to me.

Better or worse is a matter of opinion. Most indie games are garbage. And of the ones that aren't garbage, most of them are alright at best.

Do you criticise other companies in other industries for "making money"?

DLC is not something new, Doom 2 was essentialy a Doom "DLC". GTA London was a GTA "DLC". Loads of games have had additional content released, those 2 are just off the top of my head.

Most AAA game titles are garbage as well, so that point is moot.

And if you're going to just claim every sequel to a game as DLC, there's nothing left for you to discuss with anyone here. That's just willful ignorance, and at best really stretching and embellishing the definition of DLC.

 

[Turtlejuice]

Dont think most people have a problem with good DLC or expansions its the fact that games are slowly being striped down and items are being repackaged as loot crates or paywalls. Its lazy and doesn't cost the companies much plus they charge an insane amount of money. And then they charge for actual add on content so its a never ending treadmill of money they are trying to squeeze out of people.

A lot off time though, people complain for the sake of complaining. Then after all that complaining, they go out and buy it anyway. It really doesn't matter to me as long as the DLC doesn't affect the main game. There are cases where the DLC models have pissed, Arma 3 for example, and as a result BI have cost themselves a long time customer.

 

[Turtlejuice]

Most AAA game titles are garbage as well, so that point is moot.

And if you're going to just claim every sequel to a game as DLC, there's nothing left for you to discuss with anyone here. That's just willful ignorance, and at best really stretching and embellishing the definition of DLC.

No it's not. Doom 2 was made to be an expansion for Doom, it was a few new maps and some new enemies. GTA London was literally an add-on for GTA, you had to put the GTA disc in the PS1 to be able to play it. Shen Mue and Shen Mue 2 were written as 1 game. Pac man and Ms Pac man were the same game with a new character.

Thinking that this is a new thing, is wilful ignorance.

 

[fdswer]

A lot off time though, people complain for the sake of complaining. Then after all that complaining, they go out and buy it anyway. It really doesn't matter to me as long as the DLC doesn't affect the main game. There are cases where the DLC models have pissed, Arma 3 for example, and as a result BI have cost themselves a long time customer.

Yeah there are the people that complain non stop about a game they spend lots of time and money on I dont understand that. But the DLC issue is starting to affect the base games more and more and it doesnt seem like its about to stop anytime soon.

 

[Turtlejuice]

Yeah there are the people that complain non stop about a game they spend lots of time and money on I dont understand that. But the DLC issue is starting to affect the base games more and more and it doesnt seem like its about to stop anytime soon.

Yeah, unfortunately the more that people buy it, the more it encourages devs to do it.

 

[fdswer]

Yeah, unfortunately the more that people buy it, the more it encourages devs to do it.

Yeah people have to draw a line in the sand with this. The people that go "quit whining and dont buy it" dont understand that its starting to get so bad that you might not have a choice soon, just look at the new battlefront.

 

[Bob Gray]

The thing is, games have gone up in price, because DLCs are just parts of a full game, so if you want to factor in the price of a game, you MUST factor in the price of all the DLCs. If you also factor in game content that is cut to be added into special editions, you are paying a hell of a lot more than $60 to get everything a game has to offer.

On top of that, games are published for less money nowadays because of digital downloading. Publishers don't have to spend as much as they once did for making boxes, physical CDs and paying distribution costs to get them on retail shelves.

Remember when Expansion Packs came out a year or more after a game released, and added a significant amount of content to be worth the money they charged for it?

For example, Warcraft 3 was an incredible game. It had hours upon hours of quality single player story content, on top of a robust multiplayer with a custom game maker which gave birth to the MOBA genre. It was a full game for $60. Then, eventually it had the Frozen Throne expansion pack. It wasn't cut content, it was additional content! Lots of it too! Again, hours upon hours of single player story campaigns, big changes to the multiplayer, more custom game options, etc.

Compare that to Destiny 2. I blew through every bit of content D2 had to offer, except the raid, in 2 days. Then, I hear that there's more content coming! As paid DLC... just a month and a half after release of the PC version. If they are selling you paid DLC less than 3 months from the launch of a game, they are not selling you additional content, they are selling you cut content.

If $60 still bought you everything a game had to offer, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. Most games now are $95 at the least, often more when you factor in limited edition exclusive nonsense.

Day one DLC, or even early DLC, is not automatically "cut content".

https://www.giantbomb.com/downloada.../day-one-dlc-not-as-evil-as-you-think-539098/

 

[Cygnus A]

What? Costing more to make is not a valid excuse for selling more copies? Actually seems like a perfrctly valid reason to me.

Better or worse is a matter of opinion. Most indie games are garbage. And of the ones that aren't garbage, most of them are alright at best.

Do you criticise other companies in other industries for "making money"?

DLC is not something new, Doom 2 was essentialy a Doom "DLC". GTA London was a GTA "DLC". Loads of games have had additional content released, those 2 are just off the top of my head.

I think you missed my point. These larger companies (Activision/EA/etc..) are listed on the stock exchange. Their primary goal is to make share holders happy. That means making more off each game than they did previously. Many many many of the top people at these companies are not gamers and are completely out of touch. They are simply business men looking to make money for the shareholders and themselves.

I am not totally against DLC, or micro transactions. I have bought many of them. However when they hold back a major part of a $60 game and then expect you to pay more to access the full game, they can fuck right off.

I understand these large companies are probing at various ways to increase revenue and I applaud those that either do it successfully, or backtrack when if fails. People were irritated at the DOOM DLCs. They backed off and all DLC is free now.

Do you support EA's Battlefront II business model?

 

[My Spot]

$60 isn't bad at all in 2017 considering how expensive cartridge games were in the 90s (specifically N64 and SNES).

 

[Hyperglide]

Not in Canada they have. I am not paying $80 bucks for a base game or $130 for some shitty gold/deluxe/uber package they have for most triple a games nowadays.

I can buy a cart of groceries for that. I usually wait till BF or Boxing day and pick up all the games from earlier in the year for 20/30/40 for a game. That's it.

 

[Hyperglide]

No it's not. Doom 2 was made to be an expansion for Doom, it was a few new maps and some new enemies. GTA London was literally an add-on for GTA, you had to put the GTA disc in the PS1 to be able to play it. Shen Mue and Shen Mue 2 were written as 1 game. Pac man and Ms Pac man were the same game with a new character.

Thinking that this is a new thing, is wilful ignorance.

Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction and Brood War for Starcraft I think was what started the snowball effect. Huge DLC back then or as they used to be called... "expansion packs"

 

[erhnamdjinn]

You don't have to buy it though. I also own Injustice II and I love that game and it also has a lot of DLC.

but some people want to complete the guns and characters, atleast in previous Battle front you could do that for $60 + $50 season pass, how is that the same as spending $2100.