Wouldn't work because most people who buy games don't know or care who makes them. There's no advertising component either to figure out what you're going to get when you buy a game. Will it have DLC? Microtransactions? BOTH? Will the DLC be stuff that matters like actual story content, or just cosmetic nonsense?rasputin0009 said:There's just not enough competition in the industry. You'd see more customer friendly practices if there wasn't only 6 big companies calling most of the shots. You would only need one of those companies to stop selling DLC and start selling full packages again. Imagine if EA just up and put out $70 games and started releasing DLC for free. Everybody would love them. But sadly, none of those 6 companies are active. They're just reacting and matching each other's practices.
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon is the ideal form of DLC (A really rare props to Ubisoft). It was a taste of something different that didn't need the base game to play, but ran off the same engine. It was great value for both the consumer and the publisher. And it helped sales of the base game at the same time.
Even those of us who care about gaming can barely keep up with what's in what. If EA stopped putting DLC in their games would anyone notice? How are they going to tell everyone that their product is better than Activisions because they did that? Would anyone believe them?
The only way to compete is price. That's why "free to play" gained any traction, because people were dumb enough to think it was cheaper than paying for a real game. "I could pay $60, or I could pay $0! What a value!" Except it's not a value, but you only find that out later.