EPTOff-Topic General Discussion - Page 4218
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:31 Gahlo wrote: I just spent the last couple hours adhereing bublewrap to windows with a spraybottle of water. I've never felt so brainded while doing something. Just got linked that. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
fuck off with your DLC 2k | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
| ||
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:48 Requizen wrote: I mean, Devil's Advocate, you get 12 Hunters and 3 Monsters with the game (though you have to unlock some it it by playing). That's $135 "worth" of content for the $60 game (based on their value of "worth"). But, I still don't agree with it. The comparison doesn't work because you don't have the option to try the full game before you buy it. F2P gameplay models can justify the high cost of content because by being free to play first, they are giving you a guarantee of quality in that you only ever need to spend on content if you already like the game. You can't do that if the game locks itself behind a price tag because you're essentially saying "trust us, you'll like the game, and if you don't, too fucking bad". So by nature, traditional retail games have to give you content at a premium relative to F2P games because they don't have the insurance of "if I don't like the game, I don't have to spend a cent" (unless you pirate the game before buying it, but that's a completely different matter). | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:48 Requizen wrote: I mean, Devil's Advocate, you get 12 Hunters and 3 Monsters with the game (though you have to unlock some it it by playing). That's $135 "worth" of content for the $60 game (based on their value of "worth"). But, I still don't agree with it. No devil's advocate on this. The gaming industry in general took a large swing in 2014 towards gouging players for DLC for underdeveloped or incomplete games and dangling "season pass" nonsense with no known releases in the future. Like, how much did somebody save on the Bioshock: Infinite season pass when, afaik, the only DLC that game out for it was both episodes of Burial at Sea? Players have showed time and again that they'd do it. That by paying for it, they said it was okay. There's a reason why other game companies are upset with Riot about how they do their microtransactions. | ||
|
Crusnik
United States5378 Posts
At least my PC handles most games are high/max settings now so I don't need/want multiple copies any longer >.> | ||
|
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:53 Gahlo wrote: No devil's advocate on this. The gaming industry in general took a large swing in 2014 towards gouging players for DLC for underdeveloped or incomplete games and dangling "season pass" nonsense with no known releases in the future. Why? Because players have showed time and again that they'd do it. That by paying for it, they said it was okay. There's a reason why other game companies are upset with Riot about how they do their microtransactions. You guys are making a lot of assumptions about the current state of the base game. I haven't played it but it's been getting pretty good reviews. It's entirely possible that the $60 base game is actually fun and worth the cost devoid of the future DLC. That said I rarely spend $60 on games these days anyway. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:55 Crusnik wrote: One of the reasons I won't do it, but then again, I have 3 copies of Dark Souls 1 (360, ps3, and PC), at least 3 copies of Deus Ex Human Revolution, one on 360, one on PC, and the directors cut on PC. I've also bought all of the Mass Effect games on PC, PS3, and 360, again, because I loved them. At least my PC handles most games are high/max settings now so I don't need/want multiple copies any longer >.> But the real question is, did you buy DLC for any of those game? On February 11 2015 04:56 onlywonderboy wrote: You guys are making a lot of assumptions about the current state of the base game. I haven't played it but it's been getting pretty good reviews. It's entirely possible that the $60 base game is actually fun and worth the cost devoid of the future DLC. That said I rarely spend $60 on games these days anyway. Game is good =/= I will like the game. Even if your game is GOTY-quality, that does not change the fact that some people will feel like they have wasted their money because the game is not for them. Which means you still shouldn't add a microtransaction model akin to F2P games when F2P games are, again, hinged on the fact that someone can try the game and find out whether they like it or not without ever spending a cent on it. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:56 onlywonderboy wrote: You guys are making a lot of assumptions about the current state of the base game. I haven't played it but it's been getting pretty good reviews. It's entirely possible that the $60 base game is actually fun and worth the cost devoid of the future DLC. That said I rarely spend $60 on games these days anyway. A few of my friends were in the beta. They said it was a good game and entertaining, but the lack of variety made them shy away from paying anything more than $40 on the base and saying "hell naw" to the prospect of paying $60 and then buying DLC. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:58 Gahlo wrote: A few of my friends were in the beta. They said it was a good game and entertaining, but the lack of variety made them shy away from paying anything more than $40 on the base and saying "hell naw" to the prospect of paying $60 and then buying DLC. Essentially. I would have even been willing to pay $60 for the full game because I loved the alpha so much. But $60 before any DLC? Fuck no. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
That Riot prepaid card thing was awesome, so much free RP so I can sport some sweet skins and swag in summoner's rift. | ||
|
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
On February 11 2015 05:01 jcarlsoniv wrote: Essentially. I would have even been willing to pay $60 for the full game because I loved the alpha so much. But $60 before any DLC? Fuck no. They are selling the full game, it just happens to just contain what the base game offers now. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't subscribe to this notion that all the content is finished and the company is just holding it back to be released as DLC later. The new stuff probably just isn't done yet...and if you think you're entitled to that for free then I guess this game isn't for you. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 11 2015 05:01 mordek wrote: So far microtransaction-wise I have spent... $2 for a pack to get Golden Mekkatorque during Hearthstone beta. I have purchased MtG DotP 2013 and 2014... and I think that's it. #Thrifty&JuicyDad That Riot prepaid card thing was awesome, so much free RP so I can sport some sweet skins and swag in summoner's rift. I dumped all that RP into 6300ip champs I didn't have when they came on same. I think I got ~30 champions that way. lol | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:57 TheYango wrote: But the real question is, did you buy DLC for any of those game? I tend not to buy too much DLC, but I have friends that own every DLC for things like Skyrim or Borderlands or the like. Of course, that's completely different since those DLCs are completely new stories or gameplay portions that expand on the game. That said, I agree with the view that the DLC wouldn't be so stupid if it wasn't Day 1 and pushed. If they just put out the game with the base version (maybe collector's edtion for skins or whatever) and then 6 months down the road say "Hey, here's a new class for only $7.50!", it would still be a ripoff, but one that's much easier to stomach. | ||
|
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 11 2015 05:03 onlywonderboy wrote: They are selling the full game, it just happens to just contain what the base game offers now. Maybe I'm naive but I really don't subscribe to this notion that all the content is finished and the company is just holding it back to be released as DLC later. The new stuff probably just isn't done yet...and if you think you're entitled to that for free then I guess this game isn't for you. Ever hear of day 1 DLC? The excuse given for it is that they couldn't finish it in time for disk printing, so they couldn't have it ship with the base game and hit their deadline. The problem is that it is content that should have been in the base game but is almost never a free download. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On February 11 2015 04:53 Gahlo wrote: No devil's advocate on this. The gaming industry in general took a large swing in 2014 towards gouging players for DLC for underdeveloped or incomplete games and dangling "season pass" nonsense with no known releases in the future. Like, how much did somebody save on the Bioshock: Infinite season pass when, afaik, the only DLC that game out for it was both episodes of Burial at Sea? Players have showed time and again that they'd do it. That by paying for it, they said it was okay. There's a reason why other game companies are upset with Riot about how they do their microtransactions. Pretty sure the DLC trend started long before 2014. Day 1 DLC's bug me to no end. It's such bullshit that they purposely create content that's done, but put it behind a paywall when you've already dropped 60 bucks on the main game. Like what the fuck? | ||
| ||
