Satosuke said:
So what if a special edition or 'game of the year' edition of a game is released a good chunk of time after the game's initial launch, with all the DLC included? That's a great way to get new players interested. And no, you're not stupid for buying the game when it's first released; all that means is you wanted to play the game now instead of later. And to be honest, unless it's a game-changing piece of DLC, I don't really give a fuck if there's retailer-exclusives offered at launch. If it doesn't effect the game, why would you care?
Jim spouted a lot more DERP than he normally does this week.
Frankly I'm surprised you're not more willing to wait till a price drop or for the "real" edition to come out with all the money you must spend on deviant art commissions. Ah, that was a cheap shot, I just can't stand watching deerunicorngiraffewolves gratifying the publishers who hate them.
Though, more to the point. By your argument, you're not even paying for the game anymore when you buy it new. You're paying for the dubious privilege of playing it first. And, oh boy, if publishers catch onto people like you, there's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Next thing you know they'll start having an "early access" fee you can pay to get the game a few weeks before everyone else and, sadly, people would pay for that.
You're also willingly paying more for less content. Take the people who bought MvC3. They dropped $60 on that game then, less than a year later, UMvC3 came out with more modes and characters. With that one, the way Capcom worked out the DLC is that buying the DLC as stand-alones cost almost double what it was to just buy UMvC3; basically taking a huge dump on the face of everyone who paid to play it first.
On to your new player point, if you are indeed just paying for the bragging rights of playing it first, shouldn't someone who buys the game new, even later on, get all the added DLC for free anyway rather than have the need for multiple "editions"? That would even give the publishers an excuse to keep the game at full price. Sure its 6 months later and still $60, but you're getting access to 6months of DLC at no additional cost. But no, instead you're left to deal with what are effectively a beta version of the game, which you paid full price for, and the complete edition of the game, which you now have to pay full price for.
Or, do the reverse of that and most, if not all, future DLC is included in the price of the game. You bought it on day 1? You get all the DLC forever for free. But, if someone buys it 6months later, used or otherwise, then they have the option of buying that backlog of DLC, thus allowing the publisher to recoup some losses from time,etc.
As far as retailer specific DLC, an increasingly high amount of it DOES affect the game. FF13-2, for example, has either in game weapons, a new in-game unit, or a real world book depending on where you purchase and for what system. Fortunately, this isn't very common practice yet, but it quickly might become so and would be a tool for publishers to dissuade people from buying from Gamestop cause they have the less appealing unique DLC. It also discourages people from buying from local, independent shops since they can't offer that little extra; in short, it is especially harmful to small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, why do you want them to fail? Why do you hate America, comrade?
