Endless DLC

[Starfox64x]

So i've noticed a trend in gaming lately... Games being released annually that are really not significantly different than the previous years installment... Most of the Mario games, CoD, most of the sports title... I think we've hit a point where most of these games have reached a point where they can't be updated anymore than they already have... so why are we paying full retail price for them year after year?

Why not on the next line of consoles make one game during the first year or two, and after that offer DLC to expand upon that game... With Super Mario, every year add another dozen levels with new items and modes... it's not like the basic formula of Mario has changed much since the NES days. if they DO come up with something new and cool, it probably won't be worth putting it onto a disc.... "Ooo, A NEW frog suit! with a couple new levels!" Is that really worht the processing of a new disc? shipping it across the world and paying retailers to carry them?

how about CoD and it's rivals? A few new levels, modes, guns, and gameplay changes does not require a $60 disc to be sent out... "Oh but what about the campaign?" Really? Do you REALLY think they care much abotu the campaign? Their advertising budget goes entirely to showing off the multiplayer. the single player is simply there so they have an excuse to jack the price up to $60. The bulk of the game's use if for multiplayer, so just release updates for it and have them pay DLC fees. if the fans want new campaigns, you can release DLC for that too. Team Fortress 2 has been running strong for years now, and i know the majority of their money comes from microtransactions, but maybe that's a sign that it's a system that WORKS.

I won't get into sports games too much, because i dont play them... but i can't imagine that any systems have changed, or rosters changed to a point where they HAVE to put it all onto a brand new disc every year...

So what are your thoughts?

[Penumbra]

Exacly the reason why im never going to buy another CoD (or military shooter) ever again. Apart from them bringing out the same game each year with a diffrent number on the end, I don't feel the developers respect me enough. Yes, im a traditionalist, when I buy a game, im doing the makers a favour not the other way around. The ME3 guys took the right step im releasing a bunch of free DLC for mulitplayer, I felt it made up for the well known atrocity.

The CoD and BF guys (maybe the MoH guys, but thats not fair to say given it ain't out yet) pretty much treat gamers as a sort of money cattle. (which in all retrospect we are) but $15 for three new mulitplayer maps? Then, in 3 months time $15 for another 3 maps? Or the alernative, buy all of them before their out for a discount price that could buy you many, better games?

I don't mind spending a stupid amount of money on games, if I didn't i woulnd't have spent roughly $100 on TF2. But I do that because I like Valve and possibly because Im a little reckless. Sure, Valve isn't perfect, everything you can buy on TF2 is pretty much free if you wait long enough and L4D DLC on the 360 cost money while its free on Steam (but thats more microsoft) but at least they respect gamers and understand we are the reason they got there in the first place.

But when I spend $100 on a game, spend a further $45 on DLC only for its sequal to come out a year later, with exacly the same concept. I feel dirty, used and ashamed that I fell for that trap.

My friend showed the perfect cycle of CoD games. He pre-orderd Black ops for $150. He spent weeks talking about it 'going to be the best CoD game ever'. When It finaly came out, he played it over a weekend claimed it sucked and never played it again. The other week, he pre-orderd Black ops 2 for $150......

[SonicRainb00m]

There is pretty much one reason this system exists:

MONEYMONEYMONEY

Ahem. There is an incredible amount of consumers out there that will buy a new game just because it's new. And the major titles like CoD and BF prey off of that. This also caters to the "instant gratification" desire that many people tend to have. "3 new maps for $15 that I could get right now?! YES!" That's a huge reason that these type of systems have been able to survive for so long. Valve, though, has a system that works, and that's why I play a LOT of TF2. If game developers want to be successful in the future, then they should adopt Valve's strategy.

[abc]

i highly agree, CoD is just a army of the exact same game with:

slightly (or no) enhanced graphics

Terribad community(which makes multiplayer EXTREMELY annoying to play)

a few new guns(might i add that theres always 1-2 guns that EVERYPONY USES ALL THE TIME)

New maps

The only strong thing about the new CoD is the zombies, but thats gonna get REALLY old REALLY fast

[Linkhopper]

Relevant video

[Penumbra]

Hey! You ,know what i've always wanted in a game? The choice not to actualy play the game at all! Well, Ubisoft has decided to bring out Micro transactions for all their up coming games. If you don't know what that means, think the TF2 store, but worse. (You pay real world money to gain items in-game that are in the game)

BF3 did a simmilar thing, giving the player the option of buying all upgrades for jets, tanks, ect with money (or MS points) opose to playing the game itself and unlocking them as normal. This gives everyone the option of getting everything before even playing the game. This ultimately takes away any sense of achivement from playing the game.

I know im bias towards Valve and their pretty much doing the same thing, but the're doing it with a free game. Anything you spend on a game thats free numbs the regret quickly. But when its a full priced game, spending money on the game for something that comes free with a bit of dedication and time once again, you get that dirty feeling.

Another thing that needs to be factored in, is what type of game these microtrasactions are going into. AC3 and Watchdog have m-t's in them and the're single player games. (Who buys Assasin's Creed for the Mulitplayer?) These m-t's rely on someone's need to one-up their enemies and dominate online. (Check your pants! Did they grow any bigger?) But on a single player game, when you're compleatly alone, there really is no reason to pay for something you're going to get anyway. So you're pretty much just paying for acomplisments, which understanbaly upsets others. Imagine you wasted time playing BF3 or CoD (or any other FPS where your value of a player is represented by what you have rather then how you play) you could literly spend days unlocking and upgrading and learing (though tactics that poker machines use) only to have some new player come along with everything you've got and more because he payed for it. I've never experienced that, but can guess the feeling. It pretty much another way of the developers saying 'We don't care how much you play our game'. Because, really, if you were given everything, how long would it be before it became boring? Its like watching a move where the ending is played at the start and sitting through it, dispite everything that happens is pointless. *ahem*starwars*ahem*

TF2 proved M-Ts can work (5 years running), on a free game with restrictions. The item drop system is all luck ratehr than accomplishments. Only 3 weapons are unlocked per class though achivements and like stuff brought from the store, they're dirty. (Not useable in crafting or not tradable) This hinders the more 'hard core' side of TF2, non-craftable items are reduced in value and not tradable items taint any item its crafted with. M-Ts can have a positive impact on a game, only if you use the profit for the game. And I bet, Ubisoft are just doing this for profit.

TL;DR: If you can pay, you don't have to play.

Repeat in head, but angry.

[Haseo]

If you can pay, you don't have to play.

But this is great if you just happen to have a busy life and can't put in the time to grind away for your items. I used to be dedicated to gaming alone, but going back to school and getting a job was much more important. Believe me, I'd put in the time, but it's better spent on refining my skills which will make money. Developers ARE thinking about the players, especially the older ones who just don't have as much time to game as they did back in the day. Besides, giving the option to allow Casual players to play your game results in more sales, thus more sustainability for the company, etc. I do agree though about single player microtransactions, it just DOES NOT make sense.

I remember when Valve released the ManCo. store, before the game went F2P. At first, I thought this was the worst thing possible to happen to the game since it could've lead to a Pay To Win format. But Valve has handled this wonderfully and is the best example of how all F2P games should be approached as. ArenaNet has also been doing a wonderful job with their Gem Market. The items on there either just boost your EXP/Mat/Item rate, guarantee salvage of upgrades, or change the asthetics of your gear. But what the greatest thing about it is, you can exchange in game currency for gems and vice versa. Even with this, boosters (the only thing ya need!) can be acquired via chests + keys. Like Fortress, the keys can be found, acquired after a story quest, or purchased. I've given both Valve and ArenaNet some dosh due to the fact that they've both provided FREE content at no additional cost.

Oh, and that little tidbit about someone having the best weapon on day one before you can even grind your way to earning it? Just because someone has a better weapon than you, doesn't mean that they have the skill to use it. Good players will just deem it as a handicap and learn the weaknesses of the player & weapon.

[Penumbra]

True.

But you wounldn't feel that you've wasted money buying stuff for a game you hardly play?

And im sure that some developers are thinking of the players, but I doubt Ubisoft are. The've pretty much run Assasin's creed into the ground and this seems like a last ditch effort to squeeze some more money out of it.

[Haseo]

True.

But you wounldn't feel that you've wasted money buying stuff for a game you hardly play?

Yes, I've had buyers remorse on some digital items. It depends on the game itself really, but usually I hardly spend that much dosh on digital goods 'cause sooner or later I'm going to stop playing X game in due time. Even if I don't have that much time as I did before, I usually find some time to grind away for what I desire, it just takes longer

[colour=#282828]And im sure that some developers are thinking of the players, but I doubt Ubisoft are. The've pretty much run Assasin's creed into the ground and this seems like a last ditch effort to squeeze some more money out of it.[/colour]

Oh well of course! I personally blame CoD for all the craziness in how expensive and required DLC is nowadays. The part that also rustles mah jimmies is when the DLC is actually already on the disc and all you do is buy a digital certificate to unlock it. I can understand since Microsoft LOVES to charge the living daylights out of game devs, but that doesn't stop the fact that one feels cheated out of something they technically own already.

[MegaMare]

I believe the solution to this problem is to sell the whole game in parts. For example, if i want to play the riveting story of Medal of Duty: Battlefield Fighters, I could pay just 15-30 dollars just for the campaign. If I'm a multiplayer junkie who wants to play yet another brown shooter, I could pay just the same amount of money to play only the multiplayer. This way you can save money playing the parts of the game you only want to play. You could also include special promotions and price cuts for buying the full game full price. This can work out perfectly for both the consumer and the developer's interests.