Change Call of Duty: Ghosts' Dog Into a Wolf For $2

[Something Amyss]

pfft...Publishers can't monetize THAT.

Timesaver packs. They're a thing. Really.

And honestly, as long as they don't make unlocking the content in-game ludicrous, I'm fine with them. I'm never going to use them, but not everyone has as much free time as me.

 

[ccggenius12]

I don't see how this is a bad thing, given the budget that was dedicated to making the game. The cost to purchase a game hasn't reflected the cost to make it in a while, it's why Tomb Raider sold millions of units and was still a financial failure. Little things like this that earn a large amount of money relative to the cost of development are the way companies pull in the cash. I wish I could find this elusive customer of which they speak that is DEMANDING the latest and greatest graphics, ballooning budgets far beyond a game's ability to recoup them, I imagine it would be similar to spotting a unicorn.
But, I digress. The point I am getting at, is that if the cost of games had kept up with the cost of production, we would be paying more for them than we are. Charging separately for stuff that isn't central to the game keeps the price down, and I support that.
As an aside, I wonder how much a AAA title would cost if, not only were they charging for the production costs of EVERYTHING, they also allocated the resources to treat all the employees who work on it like human beings. Things like living wages and reasonable hours. Would that double the price of the games? Would people still buy them at that price? *This space reserved for some proverb about the dissonance between sausage consumption and sausage manufacture*
To paraphrase ICP, "******* Capitalism, how does it work?"

 

[Dragonlayer]

Since their not forcing the DLC on anyone and it changes absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay, does it really matter?

It's another example of the industry's drive towards monetizing everything they can think of. Of course it matters.

Hardly.

People have been trotting that argument out since the Oblivion "horse armour" and for all the hair-tearing doom-saying, the industry has not transformed into a monetizing monster - now there are examples of DLC or paid content that fundamentally changes the gameplay (MMORPGs with pay-to-win mechanics spring to mind) but by and large, the stuff that is for sale is purely optional. Like Dead Space 3, where people whined that you could buy materials with real cash, somehow missing that materials were piss-easy to come by anyway!

 

[Dragonlayer]

Since their not forcing the DLC on anyone and it changes absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay, does it really matter? Some people might want a wolf guarding their backs, others a Dragon and others yet some sort of tentacle cat-girl robot in an SS. Handschar uniform - let them pay if they want says I.

Actually, it DOES matter. They've already set a painfully clear precedence with the last game by selling an obscene amount of "customization" for prices that don't match the worth. And to clarify here, these kind of optional things were most typically awarded in-game for doing actual work. Challenges, leveling guns, prestiging, all of that gave you cards, weapon skins, and the like.

This is no different, and the "Horse Armor" was much the same issue. It's a purely cosmetic item that implied use when there was none, and what many people claim is actually a rather insignificant additional health to the horse from it. Considering how generally shitty horses controlled, and the overbearingly popularity of Shadowmere as the invincible horse and storage chest, there was no reason to pay 2-3 bucks for it.

Specially considering said armor could bug out Shadowmere, thus robbing players of the best horse in the game.




These are the kind of things that shouldn't be sold through DLC, and instead should be earned through playing the game. And the price of slapping in a half-baked wolf skin on a simple asset is far below the price they are asking for.

But that's the thing right there! It's a purely cosmetic item and doesn't give you an advantage in any whatsoever! Ergo it doesn't matter if someone wants to buy it and someone else doesn't! And in both this COD and its immediate predecessor, there is still a huge amount of stuff that is unlocked through in-game progress: including the more powerful weapons and more effective perks.

 

[EHKOS]

Charging for cosmetics in a 60$ title... Remember when people had to unlock these kind of things in games? What happened to that?

The new Ratchet and Clank game still remembers.

OT: Ridiculousness at it's finest. That's really all there is to be said.

 

[EHKOS]

You know, I could repeat what everyone else is saying about this being overpriced crap (which I do agree with), but another thought popped into my head that I want to discuss real quick:

Would anyone here be willing to pay 2 dollars (or regional equivalent) to reskin a companion like this into a character from a different series / franchise that you're a fan of? How would you feel if, say, Riley could be replaced with a Volt-Tackling Pikachu or a Maniac killstreak replaced with Jim Sterling wielding his mini-Dafoe?

I did pay $5 for the Batman Beyond suit in Arkham City. But one could argue (not very well) that it is a bit beyond cosmetics as the wings are functional and they had to do some modeling work for it.

 

[Strazdas]

Now, a DOGE skin and revoice would be worth two bucks. Much want.

How would that go? The dog would speak in meme?
Much war. Tasty enemies.

 

[TomWiley]

SOLD!

No seriously, this doesn't make any sense. Why would I want a wolf instead of a GSD? I mean, why can't they just give me the wolf AND a GSD?

This doesn't make one lick of sense. This is the type of anti-innovation that is keeping this series back!

 

[lacktheknack]

Now, a DOGE skin and revoice would be worth two bucks. Much want.

How would that go? The dog would speak in meme?
Much war. Tasty enemies.

It would have to to be a proper doge.

Many bullets. Much scared. Such war.

Heck, I'd pay five bucks for a full on voice-acted doge.

snip

I like your avatar, dude.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

Since their not forcing the DLC on anyone and it changes absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay, does it really matter?

It's another example of the industry's drive towards monetizing everything they can think of. Of course it matters.

Hardly.

People have been trotting that argument out since the Oblivion "horse armour" and for all the hair-tearing doom-saying, the industry has not transformed into a monetizing monster - now there are examples of DLC or paid content that fundamentally changes the gameplay (MMORPGs with pay-to-win mechanics spring to mind) but by and large, the stuff that is for sale is purely optional. Like Dead Space 3, where people whined that you could buy materials with real cash, somehow missing that materials were piss-easy to come by anyway!

You're completely missing the bigger picture here. The industry has turned into a monetizing monster -- from EA to Activision/Blizzard to Candy Crush to Forza 5, it's certainly more common than it was ten years ago. Taken as a whole, it's totally irrelevant whether the items are cosmetic or P2W; monetization is an accepted industry standard now, and it's guaranteed to only become more prominent as time passes.

"Don't buy it" is meaningless advice to those who "don't buy it" to begin with, because the questionable spending habits of others are having such a noticeable effect on the rest of the culture.

 

[Wraith]

So much anger over something that cost $2. C'mon people it is not that bad.