Danbo Jambo said:
Tbh, I think it rightfully takes advantage of those too impatient to wait a few months. But for the good of the industry I think a better balance should be struck.
I think all game companies should release a "final edition" a year or so after the initial release at 70-80% of the original price, and make that a standard practice both in order to make more money & provide a definitive version for people who'd sooner wait.
That kind of strategy could surely lead to an industry regularly shooting itself in the foot if early sales plummet. Plus, not "all game companies" could even do that given the drastic variation in budgets across the spectrum (indies to the biggest triple-A's), as well as the equally large variation in post-launch support (i.e. just what counts as new content that should be paid for, and then what price the 'final' version should be. who on earth'd set those prices relative to the content?).
Someone can correct me with actual figures, but don't most games - particularly triple-A's, and/or IP's with no major iterative MP modes - sink or swim on early sales? It's not easy to imagine the peculiar marketing landscape that might arise, as publishers sneak out releases with little fanfare, then maybe push when the 'complete' edition comes along. The current system is opportunistic and reliant on gullible punters, sure, but such an alternative would be absurdly chaotic and risky, and unless someone wants to address market forces at a governmental/cultural level, the publishers will screw the punters over on that 'complete' release.
