212: The Downside of Direct Downloads

w-Jinksy

New member
May 30, 2009
961
0
0
Denmarkian said:
You're missing one of the key points of having direct downloads: they're cheaper.

If software distribution goes completely digital, there's absolutely no reason for the retail price of a new game to remain at ~$60 because the costs of designing the box art, disc art, manufacturing the disc, packaging the software, warehousing the merchandise, and transporting the merchandise to the retailer are gone.

None of those costs matter anymore, unless you're a complete idiot who wants to appease the physical-copy-fetishists and give them a box for a digital download game like Patapon 2.

I'll have to do some digging through Steam to get some better comparative pricing lists, but I'm fairly certain that brand-new titles released on Steam are not priced at the exact same amount as a new-in-box copy of the game at Best Buy.

--EDIT--

Okay, so there are several games that are the exact same price on Bestbuy.com and Steam:
Guild Wars Trilogy - $49.99
Fuel - $39.99
Spore: Galactic Adventures - $29.99
Prototype - $49.99

What the hell?!?

That completely shits over my entire argument. Fuck.

Well, I hope that in the advent of digital-only distribution we can see some more reasonable pricing models. I think that these pricing examples are there because the costs I mentioned at the beginning of my post were already factored in and need to be recouped before publishers can discount the price.

I absolutely love Steam for being a platform that grants me access to a lot of my games that were published before Windows Vista came out, and even where I can find anthologies of old games I had only one or two of. I mean, they've got a Space Quest collection for $15, I only ever had a copy of Space Quest IV and I don't remember how I got it. If I ever want to get it, I'm sure I'll always have that option, and it will never be out of stock because it only takes up server space for one copy instead of a warehouse full of unsellable boxes.
in the uk its way cheaper to buy things from game than off steam steam is like 2x 3x more expensive.
 

Brock_Sampson

New member
Jul 20, 2009
1
0
0
I have to agree that digital downloading going mainstream for consoles is a really bad idea. For PC's its fine because they have to spend thousands extra anyway to keep upgrading systems not to mention no one carries a large stock of PC games to begin with.
If consoles do go mainstream with digital downloads then Microsoft and Sony will both set the prices at what they want. Not right away they wont, not until they've wiped out the competition, but once it's gone there's nothing stopping them from raising their prices 2x or even 3x. You will have no choice to pay their price or simply stop playing all together.
So for any system that does come out featuring downloadable games only I will be boycotting it simply because such things hurt not only my wallet but the economy as well.
Plus for some people walking to the local game store is the only excersise they ever see, don't take that way from them :(
 

lritting

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1
0
0
There's a few key points missing from this argument:

The reason digital versions cost the same amount as physical media is currently because the Brick and Mortar stores that you love so much have the publishers over a barrel. GameStop threatens to give your games less shelf space or even not carry them at all if you even HAVE a digital version of your title, much less if you try to price it lower. Best Buy pulls the same crap, and then puts your game on sale for less than the digital version.

After GameStop makes threats like that, they proceed to push a used copy of your game on the consumer since their profit margin is so much higher (because they pay the consumer WAY below market value for their game and then price the used copy at a slight discount over retail), of which the developer sees $0 for the sale. That means that the game has to sell enough copies to at least break even within the first week or two. This, combined with rising development costs is why we're seeing so many developers closing down.

So, by all means, keep loving on GameStop and the other retailers. I'm sure that THOSE giant corporations have your best interests at heart.
 

wordsmith

TF2 Group Admin
May 1, 2008
2,029
0
0
Michael Comeau said:
Pandalisk said:
I like direct downloads, its just so much more easier for me, and it cuts out the costs of delivery to stores, though if this were to happen worldwide there would be alot of jobs lost in retailers, hmmm, though im not sure if its true, but Disks seem to work better than Direct downloads for me, in terms of speed and quality.
Yes, it cuts costs of delivery to stores, but does anyone think that the cost savings will be passed along to consumers? I'm talking about the days when brand new games are available for download from day one. Microsoft charges $150 for a small hard drive - they're not afraid to stiff us!
As a PC gamer... I can't really see how I'm disadvantaged. All my hardware comes from OCUK/Amazon/Play.com etc, so the whole "Physical retailers will take down the hardware element of sales" thing doesn't work. The few "computer" shops over here have low-medium components (I upgraded last easter- The best graphics card they had was an AGP 7600 GS, and I put one of those in my machine 3 years ago).

Any monopoly will cause prices to jump, that's why I can get a Terabyte hard-drive for my PC for £80, but it costs the earth to buy Xbox hard-drives. Your stipulated "ramping of prices" would lead to a downturn in people buying games, a downturn in profits, and so a downturn in prices. Rinse and repeat until the companies find out that selling a £40 game for £55 isn't acceptable.

The whole "trading in" thing struck me as odd as well... How does not being able to take my games back to the shop affect me as a PC gamer? I don't know ANYWHERE that buys used PC games, so that flies out the window too.

In short, I think that the protest against digital downloads is skewed in the first place. By buying into one side of gaming (that is, by buying a console), you essentially buy into a monopoly. Everyone kicks up to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft in the console market, and here's why.

Imagine gaming is a football. Microsoft, Bungee, Naughty Dog and Activision are having a kick-about (a casual game of football, non-official), and it's all fine. Bungee tries to tackle Microsoft to get the ball, and accidentally trips him in the process. Microsoft goes down like a sack of spuds, and starts yelling for a free kick. The others carry on playing, so Microsoft gets up, takes his ball and goes home. The others are unable to play unless they do as Microsoft says, so they have to play by his rules. Microsoft can do what he wants, and everyone has to put up with it.

Put that same situation onto anyone you like. The point is, if Microsoft says to an Xbox exclusive game "you will charge $50 squillion for this game", Xbox game has to do that. If Microsoft says that to a PC game (remember, although it runs on the OS, you don't have to ask Microsoft for the right to run it.) or a non-exclusive console game, the game can put the proverbial two fingers up and tell Microsoft to get stuffed, they'll just release it with Sony instead.

In conclusion, I guess I'm trying to pull at the main problem with "online sales becoming a monopoly". The gaming industry is ALREADY a monopoly, and has been since the very first exclusive. More online purchases won't affect that. If prices get hiked, gamers will reach a "saturation point", where they refuse to buy your game, no matter how brilliant it may be, simply because of the massive setup costs.
 

hansari

New member
May 31, 2009
1,256
0
0
Denmarkian said:
Well, I hope that in the advent of digital-only distribution we can see some more reasonable pricing models. I think that these pricing examples are there because the costs I mentioned at the beginning of my post were already factored in and need to be recouped before publishers can discount the price.
Wow, its like you had that moment of enlightenment, then got slapped with a case of amnesia.

Seriously...do you know why stuff isn't cheaper via download? Because the industry knows they can get away with it. They know fans won't complain beyond their forum boards about how unfair it is.

Besides, making games cheaper via downloadable content is just going to start the shift towards that medium. Which means many of the things mentioned in this article will inevitably happen.

The reason it hasn't is because all sides have too much to lose...
 

hansari

New member
May 31, 2009
1,256
0
0
lritting said:
So, by all means, keep loving on GameStop and the other retailers. I'm sure that THOSE giant corporations have your best interests at heart.
This article is hardly a love letter for giant store-chains. It addresses them as being an undeniably crucial part of the current workings of the video game lifestyle.

Besides, as mentioned in the article, there are other alternatives such as buying from other gamers over Amazon, Craigslist, EBay...
 

ennuionwe

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1
0
0
ZippyDSMlee said:
Digital distro is not cheaper for the consumer and its not better for them either.
Some might get their game a few days early but at what cost the game is under developed and hacked up for DLC(FO3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,every other new game made) for what.... a further push to gain more profit that they didnt earn.


They didn't earn it because the original core product is barely worth the asking price much less the extras that may add more content but never really fix the problems with the core product. I am getting to the point fck it I will pay for patches now just "finish" after its launched.... so I can belly up to the troth with the rest of the barn yard animails and get my fill too.....
I'd like to take a shot at this ever more popular complaint against DLC. First of all, expansion packs have been around forever. Nobody accused Blizzard of foul play in releasing "Brood Wars" or the "Lord of Destruction" expansions. My guess is people who attack DLC are confused about what's changed. The tradition of creating additional content for games and then charging for it is longstanding and shouldn't be controversial. The only major difference here is that you don't have to drive to the store to purchase the new content.
 

Michael Comeau

New member
Jul 27, 2009
30
0
0
wordsmith said:
Michael Comeau said:
Pandalisk said:
I like direct downloads, its just so much more easier for me, and it cuts out the costs of delivery to stores, though if this were to happen worldwide there would be alot of jobs lost in retailers, hmmm, though im not sure if its true, but Disks seem to work better than Direct downloads for me, in terms of speed and quality.
Yes, it cuts costs of delivery to stores, but does anyone think that the cost savings will be passed along to consumers? I'm talking about the days when brand new games are available for download from day one. Microsoft charges $150 for a small hard drive - they're not afraid to stiff us!
As a PC gamer... I can't really see how I'm disadvantaged. All my hardware comes from OCUK/Amazon/Play.com etc, so the whole "Physical retailers will take down the hardware element of sales" thing doesn't work. The few "computer" shops over here have low-medium components (I upgraded last easter- The best graphics card they had was an AGP 7600 GS, and I put one of those in my machine 3 years ago).

Any monopoly will cause prices to jump, that's why I can get a Terabyte hard-drive for my PC for £80, but it costs the earth to buy Xbox hard-drives. Your stipulated "ramping of prices" would lead to a downturn in people buying games, a downturn in profits, and so a downturn in prices. Rinse and repeat until the companies find out that selling a £40 game for £55 isn't acceptable.

The whole "trading in" thing struck me as odd as well... How does not being able to take my games back to the shop affect me as a PC gamer? I don't know ANYWHERE that buys used PC games, so that flies out the window too.

In short, I think that the protest against digital downloads is skewed in the first place. By buying into one side of gaming (that is, by buying a console), you essentially buy into a monopoly. Everyone kicks up to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft in the console market, and here's why.

Imagine gaming is a football. Microsoft, Bungee, Naughty Dog and Activision are having a kick-about (a casual game of football, non-official), and it's all fine. Bungee tries to tackle Microsoft to get the ball, and accidentally trips him in the process. Microsoft goes down like a sack of spuds, and starts yelling for a free kick. The others carry on playing, so Microsoft gets up, takes his ball and goes home. The others are unable to play unless they do as Microsoft says, so they have to play by his rules. Microsoft can do what he wants, and everyone has to put up with it.

Put that same situation onto anyone you like. The point is, if Microsoft says to an Xbox exclusive game "you will charge $50 squillion for this game", Xbox game has to do that. If Microsoft says that to a PC game (remember, although it runs on the OS, you don't have to ask Microsoft for the right to run it.) or a non-exclusive console game, the game can put the proverbial two fingers up and tell Microsoft to get stuffed, they'll just release it with Sony instead.

In conclusion, I guess I'm trying to pull at the main problem with "online sales becoming a monopoly". The gaming industry is ALREADY a monopoly, and has been since the very first exclusive. More online purchases won't affect that. If prices get hiked, gamers will reach a "saturation point", where they refuse to buy your game, no matter how brilliant it may be, simply because of the massive setup costs.
PC's, especially customized ones, are a lot different because you can interchange millions of parts. And the average person does not build/customize their own PC's. In fact, more and more people are going for Macs which have a rather small selection of options (and very overpriced ones at that!).
 

Michael Comeau

New member
Jul 27, 2009
30
0
0
Brock_Sampson said:
I have to agree that digital downloading going mainstream for consoles is a really bad idea. For PC's its fine because they have to spend thousands extra anyway to keep upgrading systems not to mention no one carries a large stock of PC games to begin with.
If consoles do go mainstream with digital downloads then Microsoft and Sony will both set the prices at what they want. Not right away they wont, not until they've wiped out the competition, but once it's gone there's nothing stopping them from raising their prices 2x or even 3x. You will have no choice to pay their price or simply stop playing all together.
So for any system that does come out featuring downloadable games only I will be boycotting it simply because such things hurt not only my wallet but the economy as well.
Plus for some people walking to the local game store is the only excersise they ever see, don't take that way from them :(
2X or 3X is a bit much - I'm thinking something just a bit more aggressive than the status quo, which is +$10 for a new console generation.
 

Chaos Marine

New member
Feb 6, 2008
571
0
0
As a PC gamer, most of your arguments don't really apply to me as I'm not ham-stringed by companies like MS or Nintendo but I do tend to purchase most of my games from online stores as they do tend to be quite cheaper than most other sources.
 

wordsmith

TF2 Group Admin
May 1, 2008
2,029
0
0
Michael Comeau said:
PC's, especially customized ones, are a lot different because you can interchange millions of parts. And the average person does not build/customize their own PC's. In fact, more and more people are going for Macs which have a rather small selection of options (and very overpriced ones at that!).
The "average person", maybe not. The "average PC gamer" learns PDQ about the workings of their machine, similarly to the way that a car enthusiast is more likely to know their way around an engine than an average person is.

I can only think of three reasons to buy a Mac.
1) "Macs don't get viruses"
2) "It looks pwetty"
3) Fuck Microsoft.

1) is totally untrue, the more people use Macs, the more viruses will be written for it. 2) Is purely a matter of personal preference, I think they look awful compared to my Thermaltake Lanfire case, and 3)... Fair enough.

The problem is, whilst PC components are set to a standard which is publicly available, Mac components are not. A company can produce components for a PC far more cheaply than they can for a Mac. This translates into more competition, which drives prices down, so PC parts are cheaper than Mac parts.
 

Michael Comeau

New member
Jul 27, 2009
30
0
0
wordsmith said:
Michael Comeau said:
PC's, especially customized ones, are a lot different because you can interchange millions of parts. And the average person does not build/customize their own PC's. In fact, more and more people are going for Macs which have a rather small selection of options (and very overpriced ones at that!).
The "average person", maybe not. The "average PC gamer" learns PDQ about the workings of their machine, similarly to the way that a car enthusiast is more likely to know their way around an engine than an average person is.

I can only think of three reasons to buy a Mac.
1) "Macs don't get viruses"
2) "It looks pwetty"
3) Fuck Microsoft.

1) is totally untrue, the more people use Macs, the more viruses will be written for it. 2) Is purely a matter of personal preference, I think they look awful compared to my Thermaltake Lanfire case, and 3)... Fair enough.

The problem is, whilst PC components are set to a standard which is publicly available, Mac components are not. A company can produce components for a PC far more cheaply than they can for a Mac. This translates into more competition, which drives prices down, so PC parts are cheaper than Mac parts.
Not buying that part about PC/Mac parts. There is no magic DRAM in a Mac. $100 for 2 more gigs is a joke.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
ennuionwe said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Digital distro is not cheaper for the consumer and its not better for them either.
Some might get their game a few days early but at what cost the game is under developed and hacked up for DLC(FO3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,every other new game made) for what.... a further push to gain more profit that they didnt earn.


They didn't earn it because the original core product is barely worth the asking price much less the extras that may add more content but never really fix the problems with the core product. I am getting to the point fck it I will pay for patches now just "finish" after its launched.... so I can belly up to the troth with the rest of the barn yard animails and get my fill too.....
I'd like to take a shot at this ever more popular complaint against DLC. First of all, expansion packs have been around forever. Nobody accused Blizzard of foul play in releasing "Brood Wars" or the "Lord of Destruction" expansions. My guess is people who attack DLC are confused about what's changed. The tradition of creating additional content for games and then charging for it is longstanding and shouldn't be controversial. The only major difference here is that you don't have to drive to the store to purchase the new content.

Please do compare traditional polished/whole expansion packs even if they are add ons to modern DLC, please do, and you will be laughed out of the room.

The trouble with DLC is how they develop the core game and the DLC its mostly rushed and frankly poorly prepared for the price asked for it., If the core game was 20-30 and dlc was 1-10 then it would not be to bad, but FO3 is about 100$ into game+dlc and its not really been fixed enough.

The trouble currently is not "more" or even "packaging" but "quality" because the average consumer dose not care and dose not want to care and that magnifies publisher/developer cost/quality cutting measures.

You can say nothing has changed in gamdome but popularity...if you want to be as simplistically shallow as the game industry... that is.
 

sgrif

New member
Oct 19, 2008
11
0
0
This argument is completely ridiculous. Games aren't priced what they are because of some knight in shining armor company making it that way. It's priced this way because that is what consumers are willing to pay for it! If Microsoft were to hypothetically get a monopoly on the system (which in America at least would be prevented by anti-trust laws) and were to hypothetically jack up the prices to unreasonable levels (which they already have the power to do, since developers pay licensing fees regardless of the media), another platform would inevitably enter the ring and sport affordable prices.
 

sgrif

New member
Oct 19, 2008
11
0
0
ZippyDSMlee said:
ennuionwe said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Digital distro is not cheaper for the consumer and its not better for them either.
Some might get their game a few days early but at what cost the game is under developed and hacked up for DLC(FO3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,every other new game made) for what.... a further push to gain more profit that they didnt earn.


They didn't earn it because the original core product is barely worth the asking price much less the extras that may add more content but never really fix the problems with the core product. I am getting to the point fck it I will pay for patches now just "finish" after its launched.... so I can belly up to the troth with the rest of the barn yard animails and get my fill too.....
I'd like to take a shot at this ever more popular complaint against DLC. First of all, expansion packs have been around forever. Nobody accused Blizzard of foul play in releasing "Brood Wars" or the "Lord of Destruction" expansions. My guess is people who attack DLC are confused about what's changed. The tradition of creating additional content for games and then charging for it is longstanding and shouldn't be controversial. The only major difference here is that you don't have to drive to the store to purchase the new content.

Please do compare traditional polished/whole expansion packs even if they are add ons to modern DLC, please do, and you will be laughed out of the room.

The trouble with DLC is how they develop the core game and the DLC its mostly rushed and frankly poorly prepared for the price asked for it., If the core game was 20-30 and dlc was 1-10 then it would not be to bad, but FO3 is about 100$ into game+dlc and its not really been fixed enough.

The trouble currently is not "more" or even "packaging" but "quality" because the average consumer dose not care and dose not want to care and that magnifies publisher/developer cost/quality cutting measures.

You can say nothing has changed in gamdome but popularity...if you want to be as simplistically shallow as the game industry... that is.
Because there's never rushed or poorly prepared expansion packs. >_> Even in recent days, just look at the latest Company of Heroes expack. Expansion packs aren't inherently better than DLC. The length and price is simply a factor of higher production costs, longer development cycles, and an environment where developers have more control over the exact price.

It's simple. If DLC is overpriced, or just plain bad, do what you would do with a game like that. Don't buy it. And certainly don't say DLC is inherently bad. Rock Band is a great example of DLC done right. So is TF2.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
sgrif said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
ennuionwe said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Digital distro is not cheaper for the consumer and its not better for them either.
Some might get their game a few days early but at what cost the game is under developed and hacked up for DLC(FO3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,every other new game made) for what.... a further push to gain more profit that they didnt earn.


They didn't earn it because the original core product is barely worth the asking price much less the extras that may add more content but never really fix the problems with the core product. I am getting to the point fck it I will pay for patches now just "finish" after its launched.... so I can belly up to the troth with the rest of the barn yard animails and get my fill too.....
I'd like to take a shot at this ever more popular complaint against DLC. First of all, expansion packs have been around forever. Nobody accused Blizzard of foul play in releasing "Brood Wars" or the "Lord of Destruction" expansions. My guess is people who attack DLC are confused about what's changed. The tradition of creating additional content for games and then charging for it is longstanding and shouldn't be controversial. The only major difference here is that you don't have to drive to the store to purchase the new content.

Please do compare traditional polished/whole expansion packs even if they are add ons to modern DLC, please do, and you will be laughed out of the room.

The trouble with DLC is how they develop the core game and the DLC its mostly rushed and frankly poorly prepared for the price asked for it., If the core game was 20-30 and dlc was 1-10 then it would not be to bad, but FO3 is about 100$ into game+dlc and its not really been fixed enough.

The trouble currently is not "more" or even "packaging" but "quality" because the average consumer dose not care and dose not want to care and that magnifies publisher/developer cost/quality cutting measures.

You can say nothing has changed in gamdome but popularity...if you want to be as simplistically shallow as the game industry... that is.
Because there's never rushed or poorly prepared expansion packs. >_> Even in recent days, just look at the latest Company of Heroes expack. Expansion packs aren't inherently better than DLC. The length and price is simply a factor of higher production costs, longer development cycles, and an environment where developers have more control over the exact price.

It's simple. If DLC is overpriced, or just plain bad, do what you would do with a game like that. Don't buy it. And certainly don't say DLC is inherently bad. Rock Band is a great example of DLC done right. So is TF2.
Traditionally speaking expansion packs were better, are they now? No, now adays you have a different design/development philosophy that's compounded by complex hardware if not complex design( modeling,ect) and since time is money things are cut, like quality, bug work,ect. Not to mention most DLC steals content from a other whole game...... DLC is currently not even on par with expansion packs of old, all it is is selling bonus features that should have been in most games free.

And how dose one know when something is bad when 90% of users are to dumb to know otherwise and 50% of critics have dumbed down their own reviews because the majority of games can't hold up to much criticism without falling apart, well that or they are just industry shills working paycheck to paycheck.

So what if devs have more control prices have gone up not down and quality has gone down not up, now design itself might have improved but pretty models/textures and superfluous under utilized physics/AI do not a game make.

Its because of this I wait till games are 20 or less, gone are the days spending 200$ every other month to get the best the industry has to offer, its not worth it anymore.

DLC has brought more damage to gaming than features/benefits, at least so far it has.
When you can upgrade a game like Ninja Gainden 2 on the 360 to the simga addition for less than 20$(or better yet release the updated version on the other console at normal retail price) and or when distribution is a bit more even handed between competing versions(360/PS3 versions of 'tales' games, here's a thought sale DLC to eqaule out the different versions make more money). All I see in DLC(if not in the industry as a whole) is a rush for higher levels of stupidity in a mad dash for cash.

IMO its simple its time to set game prices the same as film, its because as much as a watered down mass market medium, with the price drop you wont have as many issues with quality/price and you would easily double your market if you did so as everyone would come out of the wood work to buy new stuff vrs bargain bin shopping..
 

sgrif

New member
Oct 19, 2008
11
0
0
ZippyDSMlee said:
sgrif said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
ennuionwe said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Digital distro is not cheaper for the consumer and its not better for them either.
Some might get their game a few days early but at what cost the game is under developed and hacked up for DLC(FO3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,every other new game made) for what.... a further push to gain more profit that they didnt earn.


They didn't earn it because the original core product is barely worth the asking price much less the extras that may add more content but never really fix the problems with the core product. I am getting to the point fck it I will pay for patches now just "finish" after its launched.... so I can belly up to the troth with the rest of the barn yard animails and get my fill too.....
I'd like to take a shot at this ever more popular complaint against DLC. First of all, expansion packs have been around forever. Nobody accused Blizzard of foul play in releasing "Brood Wars" or the "Lord of Destruction" expansions. My guess is people who attack DLC are confused about what's changed. The tradition of creating additional content for games and then charging for it is longstanding and shouldn't be controversial. The only major difference here is that you don't have to drive to the store to purchase the new content.

Please do compare traditional polished/whole expansion packs even if they are add ons to modern DLC, please do, and you will be laughed out of the room.

The trouble with DLC is how they develop the core game and the DLC its mostly rushed and frankly poorly prepared for the price asked for it., If the core game was 20-30 and dlc was 1-10 then it would not be to bad, but FO3 is about 100$ into game+dlc and its not really been fixed enough.

The trouble currently is not "more" or even "packaging" but "quality" because the average consumer dose not care and dose not want to care and that magnifies publisher/developer cost/quality cutting measures.

You can say nothing has changed in gamdome but popularity...if you want to be as simplistically shallow as the game industry... that is.
Because there's never rushed or poorly prepared expansion packs. >_> Even in recent days, just look at the latest Company of Heroes expack. Expansion packs aren't inherently better than DLC. The length and price is simply a factor of higher production costs, longer development cycles, and an environment where developers have more control over the exact price.

It's simple. If DLC is overpriced, or just plain bad, do what you would do with a game like that. Don't buy it. And certainly don't say DLC is inherently bad. Rock Band is a great example of DLC done right. So is TF2.
Traditionally speaking expansion packs were better, are they now? No, now adays you have a different design/development philosophy that's compounded by complex hardware if not complex design( modeling,ect) and since time is money things are cut, like quality, bug work,ect. Not to mention most DLC steals content from a other whole game...... DLC is currently not even on par with expansion packs of old, all it is is selling bonus features that should have been in most games free.

And how dose one know when something is bad when 90% of users are to dumb to know otherwise and 50% of critics have dumbed down their own reviews because the majority of games can't hold up to much criticism without falling apart, well that or they are just industry shills working paycheck to paycheck.

So what if devs have more control prices have gone up not down and quality has gone down not up, now design itself might have improved but pretty models/textures and superfluous under utilized physics/AI do not a game make.

Its because of this I wait till games are 20 or less, gone are the days spending 200$ every other month to get the best the industry has to offer, its not worth it anymore.

DLC has brought more damage to gaming than features/benefits, at least so far it has.
When you can upgrade a game like Ninja Gainden 2 on the 360 to the simga addition for less than 20$(or better yet release the updated version on the other console at normal retail price) and or when distribution is a bit more even handed between competing versions(360/PS3 versions of 'tales' games, here's a thought sale DLC to eqaule out the different versions make more money). All I see in DLC(if not in the industry as a whole) is a rush for higher levels of stupidity in a mad dash for cash.

IMO its simple its time to set game prices the same as film, its because as much as a watered down mass market medium, with the price drop you wont have as many issues with quality/price and you would easily double your market if you did so as everyone would come out of the wood work to buy new stuff vrs bargain bin shopping..
Seems to me your argument isn't that DLC is worse than old expacks, but more that games today aren't as good as games in the "good old days"

And your price arguement is flawed as well. Since the previous generation of consoles (the most signifigant price change for developers) prices have gone up 20% while development costs have nearly tripled. While I don't think the overall quality of games has gone down, the innovation has, simply because developers can't afford to risk failing.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
sgrif said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
sgrif said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
ennuionwe said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Digital distro is not cheaper for the consumer and its not better for them either.
Some might get their game a few days early but at what cost the game is under developed and hacked up for DLC(FO3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,every other new game made) for what.... a further push to gain more profit that they didnt earn.


They didn't earn it because the original core product is barely worth the asking price much less the extras that may add more content but never really fix the problems with the core product. I am getting to the point fck it I will pay for patches now just "finish" after its launched.... so I can belly up to the troth with the rest of the barn yard animails and get my fill too.....
I'd like to take a shot at this ever more popular complaint against DLC. First of all, expansion packs have been around forever. Nobody accused Blizzard of foul play in releasing "Brood Wars" or the "Lord of Destruction" expansions. My guess is people who attack DLC are confused about what's changed. The tradition of creating additional content for games and then charging for it is longstanding and shouldn't be controversial. The only major difference here is that you don't have to drive to the store to purchase the new content.

Please do compare traditional polished/whole expansion packs even if they are add ons to modern DLC, please do, and you will be laughed out of the room.

The trouble with DLC is how they develop the core game and the DLC its mostly rushed and frankly poorly prepared for the price asked for it., If the core game was 20-30 and dlc was 1-10 then it would not be to bad, but FO3 is about 100$ into game+dlc and its not really been fixed enough.

The trouble currently is not "more" or even "packaging" but "quality" because the average consumer dose not care and dose not want to care and that magnifies publisher/developer cost/quality cutting measures.

You can say nothing has changed in gamdome but popularity...if you want to be as simplistically shallow as the game industry... that is.
Because there's never rushed or poorly prepared expansion packs. >_> Even in recent days, just look at the latest Company of Heroes expack. Expansion packs aren't inherently better than DLC. The length and price is simply a factor of higher production costs, longer development cycles, and an environment where developers have more control over the exact price.

It's simple. If DLC is overpriced, or just plain bad, do what you would do with a game like that. Don't buy it. And certainly don't say DLC is inherently bad. Rock Band is a great example of DLC done right. So is TF2.
Traditionally speaking expansion packs were better, are they now? No, now adays you have a different design/development philosophy that's compounded by complex hardware if not complex design( modeling,ect) and since time is money things are cut, like quality, bug work,ect. Not to mention most DLC steals content from a other whole game...... DLC is currently not even on par with expansion packs of old, all it is is selling bonus features that should have been in most games free.

And how dose one know when something is bad when 90% of users are to dumb to know otherwise and 50% of critics have dumbed down their own reviews because the majority of games can't hold up to much criticism without falling apart, well that or they are just industry shills working paycheck to paycheck.

So what if devs have more control prices have gone up not down and quality has gone down not up, now design itself might have improved but pretty models/textures and superfluous under utilized physics/AI do not a game make.

Its because of this I wait till games are 20 or less, gone are the days spending 200$ every other month to get the best the industry has to offer, its not worth it anymore.

DLC has brought more damage to gaming than features/benefits, at least so far it has.
When you can upgrade a game like Ninja Gainden 2 on the 360 to the simga addition for less than 20$(or better yet release the updated version on the other console at normal retail price) and or when distribution is a bit more even handed between competing versions(360/PS3 versions of 'tales' games, here's a thought sale DLC to eqaule out the different versions make more money). All I see in DLC(if not in the industry as a whole) is a rush for higher levels of stupidity in a mad dash for cash.

IMO its simple its time to set game prices the same as film, its because as much as a watered down mass market medium, with the price drop you wont have as many issues with quality/price and you would easily double your market if you did so as everyone would come out of the wood work to buy new stuff vrs bargain bin shopping..
Seems to me your argument isn't that DLC is worse than old expacks, but more that games today aren't as good as games in the "good old days"

And your price arguement is flawed as well. Since the previous generation of consoles (the most signifigant price change for developers) prices have gone up 20% while development costs have nearly tripled. While I don't think the overall quality of games has gone down, the innovation has, simply because developers can't afford to risk failing.
Good old days were flawed and lulzy but not this lulzy.

Not really it dose not matter cost of development to end user price is, consumers always set the price on what their willing to pay and as days linger on I see games needing that price edge to film to maximize profit, As older gamers start wanting more than a costly lulz fest to play with.

Its funny I see attempts at innovation all the time(Fo3,SW:Unleashed,Bioshock,ect) but what I do not see is polish and that last bit of effort to make a game shine much anymore "barely mediocre is good enough" is the catch phrase of the times, corporate mindset+willing public who can really blame them...well...us who shave off the wool and don black paint...but we are outcasted because we question to much....that and we small :p .

Yes I am harsh and wanting to much...but.... I see less and less of effort to polish something and more spam making, if we are forced to eat spam than it better cost like spam.
 

Michael Comeau

New member
Jul 27, 2009
30
0
0
sgrif said:
This argument is completely ridiculous. Games aren't priced what they are because of some knight in shining armor company making it that way. It's priced this way because that is what consumers are willing to pay for it! If Microsoft were to hypothetically get a monopoly on the system (which in America at least would be prevented by anti-trust laws) and were to hypothetically jack up the prices to unreasonable levels (which they already have the power to do, since developers pay licensing fees regardless of the media), another platform would inevitably enter the ring and sport affordable prices.
Another platform? Who's going to get into the console business? If you look at the actual financials of Microsoft and Sony, you'll see that console gaming isn't a very good business!

Good point on the anti-trust - I didn't consider that.