- Aug 24, 2013
AstaresPanda said:pretty simple you would think, but i guess its not greedy enough and thats what it all boils down to.[/quotTelHybrid said:DLC that expands on a complete game = acceptable.
DLC that completes an incomplete game (especially on-disc "DLC") = unacceptable.
I was thinking about it, this week you basically have two companies with different opinions:
EA: Gamers hate change.
Ubisoft: Gamers have accepted change.
Both companies are being ripped apart on these forums for their comments, but they can't both be wrong can they? I think they can, in that whichever position they take they seem to ignore TelHybrid's basic formula above.
I haven't played Black Flag, but from what I've heard from various people (the Zero Punctuation review, the Escapist Podcast etc) my feeling was that what most gamers liked about this game was engaging in various piratey activities which as I understand it were the things which unlocked the map and the other content Ubisoft gave people the option to buy. While many games think that these sorts of microtransactions are a pretty shadey business practice, it seemed like they didn't mind because they found these sections fun. Not only did they not feel the need to pay to unlock content, neither did they feel unlocking said content manually was all that grindy. Hence there were a lot less complaints about it than maybe there have been before, when this aspect hasn't been balanced so well.
What I think tends to infuriate gamers, is that both companies are starting out from a position that assumes the changes they are making are right and it is essentially the gamers responsibility to accept them. Often its not the changes the companies are making that are right or wrong: DLC can be good, free-to-play can be good, even microtransactions could potentially be good (I'm still not a fan). The issue is because its a new business model, there is negotiation between customers and publishers about the amount of value-for-money the customer is willing to accept. These spokesmen are always forcing the discussion onto whether gamers generally like DLC rather than whether their specific DLC provided value-for-money. (Except for those companies who feel confident that they are indeed provided good value for money)
That said, I think having to pay to unlock bits of content you could access if you played long enough is never acceptable. I think when you sell something, the price should directly reflect the effort you put into it and this sort of 'cheat code' type unlock is trivial to implement. I'm never going to buy such content on principle and if a game becomes unnecessarily grindy because the designers are trying to force players into making such purchases, I'm going to avoid the game. On the other hand, I'm not against buying a game with such purchases, if they are done in such a way that is doesn't affect my personal enjoyment of the game. If there are people who are happy buying such 'unlocks' I'll guess I'm okay with it, especially as I rarely used the old cheat codes anyway. I can understand why people who did like to use cheat codes would be upset at having to pay for them.