Gamer Rage - Paying for a game you've already bought
- Thread starter JohnTomorrow
- Start date
Actually, in Assassin's Creed 2, you dont miss the end. You only miss a part of the lead up.Delusibeta said:
I don't know if anyone remembers an MMO by the name of Anarchy Online, (early sci-fi game) but they "did" have billboards in the game, and I think the intention was to have actual real advertisers up on those billboards. Game was by Funcom btw. I played that game for awhile (after they fixed their really, really bad release issues) and having ads would have fit ..for that particular game.
As for dlcs, I see people complaining about them all the time. Most stating of course that they "should be free". I don't agree with that premise, it takes money and hired employees to make those dlc, so it follows that if you wish those dlc to extend your game, you're going to have to pay for them.
If you disagree with paying for them, then don't buy them. Its a simple enough decision, and the ball is in your court in that case. Even still, when you mention this to those that complain, that doesn't pacify them. Its pretty much black and white for me, if I don't like what I am seeing, I won't buy, nobody is breaking my arm to spend that money, the choice is entirely mine.
As for dlcs, I see people complaining about them all the time. Most stating of course that they "should be free". I don't agree with that premise, it takes money and hired employees to make those dlc, so it follows that if you wish those dlc to extend your game, you're going to have to pay for them.
If you disagree with paying for them, then don't buy them. Its a simple enough decision, and the ball is in your court in that case. Even still, when you mention this to those that complain, that doesn't pacify them. Its pretty much black and white for me, if I don't like what I am seeing, I won't buy, nobody is breaking my arm to spend that money, the choice is entirely mine.
If they sneaked advertisement into more games maybe the price would go down a little? That sounds like a good idea. Also, the game devs are more than welcome to advertise other games of theirs into current games. Ubisoft do it all the time, and it doesn't remotely spoil anything.
Tim is kind of an idiot, so I wouldn't take anything he says or does as any kind of guidance. He can't even do a joke properly 90% of the time.JohnTomorrow said:
That said, there's 2 different things you're, ironically, whining about: In-game adds and additional fees.
In-game ads I'm ok with depending on how they're done. If it's just substituting some billboards with fake-products for real ones, what's the harm? If they're asking me to sit in front of an ad for several seconds while the game makes sure you've seen it, then I want something to justify covering that annoying, possibly a significant price reduction.
As for additional fees, like Pay-to-play model, they can fuck off. I don't want to rent a game, I wanna buy it. I can understand it in games like WoW where there are server costs, but even then it's just bad value for money. For other types of games, it's simple extortion. If you're glad to bend over and take it, then that's fine, I'm not. I don't approve of financial sodomy, sorry.
As for DLC, there are 2 kinds of DLC, 1 is bad, 1 is good:
1 - Content that's overpowering or basically essential, like official maps in multiplayer games, or better gear, etc, that's only available through paid DLC. This is called extortion. I paid for the full game, not parts of it.
2 - Decently priced DLC that's not mandatory, but that's interesting. Like additional skins and such. Like the character packs in Killing Floor. You don't need them to play the game, but they're a nice way to give yourself a pat on the back and throwing some additional dosh to the devs.
The issue that annoys most players is the fact that these ads are on top of large price tags, around 60 euros (equivalent to 74$, 49£) for a game to include ads in loading screens as well as this is comes off as greedy. Maybe if the price was dropped significantly I would accept "direct" ads. Those in the background aren't a problem, they do up immersion slightly. As long as they remain in the background
Well, I was going to state my opinion but then I saw this^ post which sums up my thoughts on the matter rather nicely. I don't mind ads, I don't play MMOs (or any other games that require a subscription cost...which is easy since I don't play anything online). Though I DON'T like having to pay for DLC but will if it's worth it. My gripe with that is that I already paid for the game, I want the WHOLE game. I don't want to feel cheated because the person who paid for better stuff is overpowered...but that's how biz works...doesn't mean I have to like it.Ironic Pirate said:
I don't mind paying for certain DLC, because you always have the option not to. True, you already bought the game and paid good money for it, and now they're asking for more. But it's not like it isn't a fair exchange of content for payment. But what really pisses me off is downloadable content in which you feel obliged to buy since if you don't, it means you're disadvantaged because everyone else has purchased it.
There's one big flaw with the Assassin's Creed 2 example. People look at them ripping content out and not even hiding it. My whole feeling when playing it was that they knew DLC would be coming and decided to work it into the game's narative. The important thing for me was that the key narative (REVENGE!!!) was handeled in the core content, and the DLC are just things that happened on the way. Yes they apply to the overall mythology of Creed, but not the core arc of Ezio.JohnTomorrow said:
As for the whole advertising, I've yet to see an ad that doesn't fit. If we find out in Creed: Brotherhood that the ancient assassians used Guinsue knives, I might have an issue. Then again, they're putting in multiplayer so I expect the campaign to fall apart.
I don't mind paid DLC or in game ads, or anything along these lines. The people who made the game charge for it, and they decide how much content you get for your buck, not us. Following this, we can't complain that the game is underfurnished for what we paid. You can claim that the game sucks, but you can't claim you've been ripped off for being given exactly what you paid for.
The Prince of Persia reboot. The game just ended rather abruptly, to see the end of the plot you had to buy the 'epilogue' dlc. Of course they didn't say outright that you had to pay to get the end of the game, but it was patently obvious. Went down like a lead balloon that one did.Amnestic said:
If I don't like it, I don't buy it - simple.
I don't feel this strange compulsion to purchase things I am going to be resentful about.
Ads in games - don't care.
Online subscriptions - don't play mmo's so, it's a non issue.
DLC - I've not come across the examples that have been mentioned in this thread. I don't usually buy games right away, so I am sure I'd hear of the issue before purchasing it and just choose not to. I did buy the Fallout 3 DLC...when it was on sale as the $25 GOTY edition. Other than that, I usually won't bother.
I don't feel this strange compulsion to purchase things I am going to be resentful about.
Ads in games - don't care.
Online subscriptions - don't play mmo's so, it's a non issue.
DLC - I've not come across the examples that have been mentioned in this thread. I don't usually buy games right away, so I am sure I'd hear of the issue before purchasing it and just choose not to. I did buy the Fallout 3 DLC...when it was on sale as the $25 GOTY edition. Other than that, I usually won't bother.
The only one of those you described that annoys me is subcription fees, since I hate the idea of paying to play a game I already payed for and am convinced that the developers pocket 99.9% of the subcription fees as disposable income. In game advertising can be annoying to, but it only bothers me if it's done badly, like if my boss in a super secret government organization is sending me on a suicide mission and makes a bad pepsi pitch after giving me the intel they have.
If only Fallout 3 had a Shivering Isles size expansion... now that was value for money. I hated Sheogorath though... ugh.Sebenko said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s and Axolotl covered my points pretty well, but I might as well toss in my own bits.
I have no problems with in game advertisements, as long as they don't start to get in the way and ruin the game. Is that Pepsi billboard indestructible? Or how about that pepsi vending machine? I can't throw that? Advertisements are fine as long as it isn't, to quote someone else around here, "Branded to the horses ass that I'm riding."
I have the biggest problems with DLC, however. While some of it is possibly because it is something that I cannot touch or physically have, it is much more along the lines of constantly being thrown in my face in the game.
For example, Fable 2 suffers pretty badly from this very poor design which is coming increasingly popular. I run around chatting with people, and apparently this guy has a quest. I walk up and chat with him, only to discover that this is actually content I need to buy if I want to do this at all! The thing about DLC is I want it to be simple little adds to the game, like new weapons and such, or extra little missions and such. I DON'T want it to be there, even if I have interest in getting the DLC. Its a damn bother, and it really presents the feeling that "We could have completed this with the game, but instead made it separate and are going to charge you for it!" DLC is NOT supposed to be advertised in the damned game. If you make a good enough game, people will grab your DLC without you bothering them with it in the game.
And finally....Yeah, people like physical things. Know why? Because computers and the like can really suck. Your hard drive fail? Guess what? All your stuff is gone. And you have little to no physical proof you even had it to begin with. It sucks to lose stuff, but it sucks even more when there is no way to physically get it back! We are physical things, and there isn't much to be done about it.
I have no problems with in game advertisements, as long as they don't start to get in the way and ruin the game. Is that Pepsi billboard indestructible? Or how about that pepsi vending machine? I can't throw that? Advertisements are fine as long as it isn't, to quote someone else around here, "Branded to the horses ass that I'm riding."
I have the biggest problems with DLC, however. While some of it is possibly because it is something that I cannot touch or physically have, it is much more along the lines of constantly being thrown in my face in the game.
For example, Fable 2 suffers pretty badly from this very poor design which is coming increasingly popular. I run around chatting with people, and apparently this guy has a quest. I walk up and chat with him, only to discover that this is actually content I need to buy if I want to do this at all! The thing about DLC is I want it to be simple little adds to the game, like new weapons and such, or extra little missions and such. I DON'T want it to be there, even if I have interest in getting the DLC. Its a damn bother, and it really presents the feeling that "We could have completed this with the game, but instead made it separate and are going to charge you for it!" DLC is NOT supposed to be advertised in the damned game. If you make a good enough game, people will grab your DLC without you bothering them with it in the game.
And finally....Yeah, people like physical things. Know why? Because computers and the like can really suck. Your hard drive fail? Guess what? All your stuff is gone. And you have little to no physical proof you even had it to begin with. It sucks to lose stuff, but it sucks even more when there is no way to physically get it back! We are physical things, and there isn't much to be done about it.
While the entire concept of "DLC" pisses me the fuck off, subscription fees are understandable. MMOs don't support themselves. The amount of hardware, software, and man-hours required to keep them running at all is staggering.
Since even the naming is a specious term designed to imply the only way to get extra content for a game is to give money pay for it, I try not to use that term. As microtransactions are simply cons. Tricking people into paying way more for content than they would normally. Horse Armor and the modern warfare 2 crap being the worst examples. To use the terminator 2 analogy, microtransaction content isn't a special edition, that for a few dollars more comes with the complete film and all sorts of extra content. Its several discs with about one to three minutes of extra content each for 5%-20% of the price of the movie each.
In-game advertising can also fuck off. I didn't ask for 90% of a game's cost to be graphics and voice acting. I just wanted shit to play, and I'm not going to be a source of income to support a business model that shouldn't exist. Ad placement in movies is typically extremely subtle, because they believe subliminal messaging exists. Ad placement in games can't be subtle, because theres no guarantee people would see it.
Also, yea, fuckley is a moron. I don't know if he was going industry cheerleader or actually complaining, as I'm not sure which one is dumber, and I'm sure as hell not going to go to his site to find out.
Since even the naming is a specious term designed to imply the only way to get extra content for a game is to give money pay for it, I try not to use that term. As microtransactions are simply cons. Tricking people into paying way more for content than they would normally. Horse Armor and the modern warfare 2 crap being the worst examples. To use the terminator 2 analogy, microtransaction content isn't a special edition, that for a few dollars more comes with the complete film and all sorts of extra content. Its several discs with about one to three minutes of extra content each for 5%-20% of the price of the movie each.
In-game advertising can also fuck off. I didn't ask for 90% of a game's cost to be graphics and voice acting. I just wanted shit to play, and I'm not going to be a source of income to support a business model that shouldn't exist. Ad placement in movies is typically extremely subtle, because they believe subliminal messaging exists. Ad placement in games can't be subtle, because theres no guarantee people would see it.
Also, yea, fuckley is a moron. I don't know if he was going industry cheerleader or actually complaining, as I'm not sure which one is dumber, and I'm sure as hell not going to go to his site to find out.
Yup. Content : Cost ratios were fine then too; since the developers were making new content for an established system* and the publisher already knew that the franchise was viable, both sides won out. You paid money, you got an expansion.Sebenko said:
(*ask any programmer out there; it's far easier to develop for a finished system than to create one yourself).
But ultimately, you could still pop the original game in and play through and it would at least seem like a finished game. You got your money's worth.
That's why I find a fundamental difference between traditional post-release DLC, and "We ripped it out of the finished product just to rip you off" DLC. The only reason why they wouldn't release the full product (which you have already paid full price for, by the way.) is for better marketing.
Think about what they did in Assassin's Creed 2. If enough people bought that DLC, then you can see the future of gaming. Imagine them charging 10 dollars extra on the full version of the game.
How many people would look at that price sticker and buy it?
Ok..so they hack off a part of an already finished product so that the price looks more reasonable. But you know what? The Content : Cost ratio was just skewed a bit further in the publisher's favor.
That's better marketing folks, and it adds no value at all to the actual product. None.
It's only there to fool you.
Day 1 DLC is all about shifting the cost : content ratios in favor of the publisher. There is no benefit for the customer.
Some may try to excuse it as the cost of doing business; but I see EA is back in the Fortune 500 with Squeenix, Activision-Blizzard, Ubisoft, and 2K Games all doing rather well for themselves despite the economic bomb.
The problem is in defining what counts as a "full game". How many hours of content are inherent in a "full" gaming experience, and how much can be considered superfluous? If the game has a full narrative unto itself, and any additional narrative is tacked on after the end of the story presented at the beginning (that is to say: the problems as stipulated at the beginning have been resolved), is that a complete game?Nmil-ek said:
I blanch only because it feels like there's a lot more complaint of "they're taking content which should be in the game out" than I've seen is deserved. I don't use DLC at all, so I can only speak to games in terms of their quality excluding DLC. I've yet to play a game which I thought required DLC to be 'complete'.
If you don't like the amount of "game" you get for the money you spend, don't spend the money.