|
On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:28 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:56 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 01:42 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:41 WaveofShadow wrote:
Wow and now I'm diving into the gaming journalism rabbit hole and rumour has it Shovel Knight is joining SSB4.
That's insane. Yeah...I don't really think I'm going to buy sm4sh for WiiU. I don't want to support DLC characters from Nintendo. I'm seriously disappointed in them. Are you that opposed to DLC in general? There's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it's quality content. I don't see anything wrong with expanding a roster of a fighting game. I mean, it's one thing if you didn't pay full price for a game already. You could argue that SkullGirls $15 price tag is full price, and more DLC on top of that should bug me. But 1) the characters are very cheap, 2) SkullGirls quality is insanely high, and 3) characters are free for a few months after release. Sm4sh is already full price on two systems, and then you have to pay for more characters as they come out. I understand why they do it, but it's not something I'm going to support. On August 29 2015 02:06 WaveofShadow wrote:
I have a lot to say today:
So I just watched about half an episode of Geek + Sundry's Critical Role last night and holy shit.
Those guys up the bar of DnD EVERYWHERE. There was literally a point where one player had everyone else in the room crying. I know they're all actors but still that shit is god damn impressive. I may actually go back and watch the entire thing. It makes me want to play 8 more games of DnD and RP me goddamn heart out in every single one and on that note ASMO ARE WE ON NEXT WEEK. Wasn't it you who, a while ago, said you didn't understand why/how people watch D&D shows? We just have completely different ideologies when it comes to DLC then. I don't see anything wrong with paid DLC for a full priced release. Like a ton of the Fallout DLC was really good and I'm glad it existed rather than no DLC coming out for it. In the end I'd rather there just be more stuff since no one is forcing anyone to buy it. Right. Like, I'm not gonna rail against the people who choose to pay for it, I understand the desire for more content. It's just not something I will contribute to. That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice?
A little of both. Also the fact that they're all very different genres.
In league, all money I've spent has gone towards skins - completely cosmetic and options. I suppose I also did pay for rune pages at one point, which irked me then as well.
In HS, it's a CCG. I accept that when playing a CCG, buying packs/cards is part of it. However, the fact that you can make your own for free through dust is a huge bonus for me.
Looking at smash, it just feels dirty to have to buy more characters. Again, SG is similar, but also pretty different because of its low price point, incredibly high quality, and temporarily free new releases. Add onto that the fact that I strongly believe Melee's success as a competitive game is tied with the fact that it has been untouched for over a decade.
|
On August 29 2015 02:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:28 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:56 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 01:42 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:41 WaveofShadow wrote:
Wow and now I'm diving into the gaming journalism rabbit hole and rumour has it Shovel Knight is joining SSB4.
That's insane. Yeah...I don't really think I'm going to buy sm4sh for WiiU. I don't want to support DLC characters from Nintendo. I'm seriously disappointed in them. Are you that opposed to DLC in general? There's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it's quality content. I don't see anything wrong with expanding a roster of a fighting game. I mean, it's one thing if you didn't pay full price for a game already. You could argue that SkullGirls $15 price tag is full price, and more DLC on top of that should bug me. But 1) the characters are very cheap, 2) SkullGirls quality is insanely high, and 3) characters are free for a few months after release. Sm4sh is already full price on two systems, and then you have to pay for more characters as they come out. I understand why they do it, but it's not something I'm going to support. On August 29 2015 02:06 WaveofShadow wrote:
I have a lot to say today:
So I just watched about half an episode of Geek + Sundry's Critical Role last night and holy shit.
Those guys up the bar of DnD EVERYWHERE. There was literally a point where one player had everyone else in the room crying. I know they're all actors but still that shit is god damn impressive. I may actually go back and watch the entire thing. It makes me want to play 8 more games of DnD and RP me goddamn heart out in every single one and on that note ASMO ARE WE ON NEXT WEEK. Wasn't it you who, a while ago, said you didn't understand why/how people watch D&D shows? We just have completely different ideologies when it comes to DLC then. I don't see anything wrong with paid DLC for a full priced release. Like a ton of the Fallout DLC was really good and I'm glad it existed rather than no DLC coming out for it. In the end I'd rather there just be more stuff since no one is forcing anyone to buy it. Right. Like, I'm not gonna rail against the people who choose to pay for it, I understand the desire for more content. It's just not something I will contribute to. That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice? A little of both. Also the fact that they're all very different genres. In league, all money I've spent has gone towards skins - completely cosmetic and options. I suppose I also did pay for rune pages at one point, which irked me then as well. In HS, it's a CCG. I accept that when playing a CCG, buying packs/cards is part of it. However, the fact that you can make your own for free through dust is a huge bonus for me. Looking at smash, it just feels dirty to have to buy more characters. Again, SG is similar, but also pretty different because of its low price point, incredibly high quality, and temporary free new releases. Add onto that the fact that I strongly believe Melee's success as a competitive game is tied with the fact that it has been untouched for over a decade.
HS isn't a great example imo.
Watched Boogie pay over $300 in packs to collect the entire set which is likely FAR more than you'd have to pay to get what you want in MTG, especially because in MTG you have the option to buy singles but in HS you literally HAVE to buy packs in order to be able to make the singles you want.
|
On August 29 2015 02:46 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:28 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:56 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 01:42 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:41 WaveofShadow wrote:
Wow and now I'm diving into the gaming journalism rabbit hole and rumour has it Shovel Knight is joining SSB4.
That's insane. Yeah...I don't really think I'm going to buy sm4sh for WiiU. I don't want to support DLC characters from Nintendo. I'm seriously disappointed in them. Are you that opposed to DLC in general? There's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it's quality content. I don't see anything wrong with expanding a roster of a fighting game. I mean, it's one thing if you didn't pay full price for a game already. You could argue that SkullGirls $15 price tag is full price, and more DLC on top of that should bug me. But 1) the characters are very cheap, 2) SkullGirls quality is insanely high, and 3) characters are free for a few months after release. Sm4sh is already full price on two systems, and then you have to pay for more characters as they come out. I understand why they do it, but it's not something I'm going to support. On August 29 2015 02:06 WaveofShadow wrote:
I have a lot to say today:
So I just watched about half an episode of Geek + Sundry's Critical Role last night and holy shit.
Those guys up the bar of DnD EVERYWHERE. There was literally a point where one player had everyone else in the room crying. I know they're all actors but still that shit is god damn impressive. I may actually go back and watch the entire thing. It makes me want to play 8 more games of DnD and RP me goddamn heart out in every single one and on that note ASMO ARE WE ON NEXT WEEK. Wasn't it you who, a while ago, said you didn't understand why/how people watch D&D shows? We just have completely different ideologies when it comes to DLC then. I don't see anything wrong with paid DLC for a full priced release. Like a ton of the Fallout DLC was really good and I'm glad it existed rather than no DLC coming out for it. In the end I'd rather there just be more stuff since no one is forcing anyone to buy it. Right. Like, I'm not gonna rail against the people who choose to pay for it, I understand the desire for more content. It's just not something I will contribute to. That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice? A little of both. Also the fact that they're all very different genres. In league, all money I've spent has gone towards skins - completely cosmetic and options. I suppose I also did pay for rune pages at one point, which irked me then as well. In HS, it's a CCG. I accept that when playing a CCG, buying packs/cards is part of it. However, the fact that you can make your own for free through dust is a huge bonus for me. Looking at smash, it just feels dirty to have to buy more characters. Again, SG is similar, but also pretty different because of its low price point, incredibly high quality, and temporary free new releases. Add onto that the fact that I strongly believe Melee's success as a competitive game is tied with the fact that it has been untouched for over a decade. HS isn't a great example imo. Watched Boogie pay over $300 in packs to collect the entire set which is likely FAR more than you'd have to pay to get what you want in MTG, especially because in MTG you have the option to buy singles but in HS you literally HAVE to buy packs in order to be able to make the singles you want.
Except that buying singles/playsets is also quite expensive, MTG decks are twice as big, and if you're playing standard you have to buy new cards very regularly. $300 for an entire set in HS is peanuts compared to how much you spend in MTG for competitive decks.
Also, you don't have to buy all of your packs. You can grind quests and wins for gold, and get free packs through quest/tavern. Yes, it is much slower, but it is a technically feasible avenue.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:
That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice?
I mean, from a producer side this is just totally a false equivalence. Microtransaction content in an F2P game has to bear the developer compensation for the value of the core game and the microtransaction items itself because the core game is free and the developer is not being directly compensated by F2P players.
DLC content is meant to be self-valuing because the retail game is supposed to be self-sufficient value. So you can't really look at how microtransactions and DLC and compare how they're priced out in the same way.
|
How long til you americans catch up to proper timezone and we can start gamenight?
Also, was there some huge internet outtage yesterday in america?
|
United States23745 Posts
On August 29 2015 02:52 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:46 WaveofShadow wrote:On August 29 2015 02:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:28 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:56 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 01:42 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:41 WaveofShadow wrote:
Wow and now I'm diving into the gaming journalism rabbit hole and rumour has it Shovel Knight is joining SSB4.
That's insane. Yeah...I don't really think I'm going to buy sm4sh for WiiU. I don't want to support DLC characters from Nintendo. I'm seriously disappointed in them. Are you that opposed to DLC in general? There's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it's quality content. I don't see anything wrong with expanding a roster of a fighting game. I mean, it's one thing if you didn't pay full price for a game already. You could argue that SkullGirls $15 price tag is full price, and more DLC on top of that should bug me. But 1) the characters are very cheap, 2) SkullGirls quality is insanely high, and 3) characters are free for a few months after release. Sm4sh is already full price on two systems, and then you have to pay for more characters as they come out. I understand why they do it, but it's not something I'm going to support. On August 29 2015 02:06 WaveofShadow wrote:
I have a lot to say today:
So I just watched about half an episode of Geek + Sundry's Critical Role last night and holy shit.
Those guys up the bar of DnD EVERYWHERE. There was literally a point where one player had everyone else in the room crying. I know they're all actors but still that shit is god damn impressive. I may actually go back and watch the entire thing. It makes me want to play 8 more games of DnD and RP me goddamn heart out in every single one and on that note ASMO ARE WE ON NEXT WEEK. Wasn't it you who, a while ago, said you didn't understand why/how people watch D&D shows? We just have completely different ideologies when it comes to DLC then. I don't see anything wrong with paid DLC for a full priced release. Like a ton of the Fallout DLC was really good and I'm glad it existed rather than no DLC coming out for it. In the end I'd rather there just be more stuff since no one is forcing anyone to buy it. Right. Like, I'm not gonna rail against the people who choose to pay for it, I understand the desire for more content. It's just not something I will contribute to. That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice? A little of both. Also the fact that they're all very different genres. In league, all money I've spent has gone towards skins - completely cosmetic and options. I suppose I also did pay for rune pages at one point, which irked me then as well. In HS, it's a CCG. I accept that when playing a CCG, buying packs/cards is part of it. However, the fact that you can make your own for free through dust is a huge bonus for me. Looking at smash, it just feels dirty to have to buy more characters. Again, SG is similar, but also pretty different because of its low price point, incredibly high quality, and temporary free new releases. Add onto that the fact that I strongly believe Melee's success as a competitive game is tied with the fact that it has been untouched for over a decade. HS isn't a great example imo. Watched Boogie pay over $300 in packs to collect the entire set which is likely FAR more than you'd have to pay to get what you want in MTG, especially because in MTG you have the option to buy singles but in HS you literally HAVE to buy packs in order to be able to make the singles you want. Except that buying singles/playsets is also quite expensive, MTG decks are twice as big, and if you're playing standard you have to buy new cards very regularly. $300 for an entire set in HS is peanuts compared to how much you spend in MTG for competitive decks. Also, you don't have to buy all of your packs. You can grind quests and wins for gold, and get free packs through quest/tavern. Yes, it is much slower, but it is a technically feasible avenue.
That is one of the most generous uses of the word "technically" I've every seen lol.
|
|
|
I actually killed a DnD group Miscue was running because of RP. Turns out everyone else was in it for rolling dice.
|
On August 29 2015 02:53 onlywonderboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:52 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:46 WaveofShadow wrote:On August 29 2015 02:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 02:28 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 02:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 29 2015 01:56 onlywonderboy wrote:On August 29 2015 01:42 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
Yeah...I don't really think I'm going to buy sm4sh for WiiU. I don't want to support DLC characters from Nintendo. I'm seriously disappointed in them. Are you that opposed to DLC in general? There's nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it's quality content. I don't see anything wrong with expanding a roster of a fighting game. I mean, it's one thing if you didn't pay full price for a game already. You could argue that SkullGirls $15 price tag is full price, and more DLC on top of that should bug me. But 1) the characters are very cheap, 2) SkullGirls quality is insanely high, and 3) characters are free for a few months after release. Sm4sh is already full price on two systems, and then you have to pay for more characters as they come out. I understand why they do it, but it's not something I'm going to support. On August 29 2015 02:06 WaveofShadow wrote:
I have a lot to say today:
So I just watched about half an episode of Geek + Sundry's Critical Role last night and holy shit.
Those guys up the bar of DnD EVERYWHERE. There was literally a point where one player had everyone else in the room crying. I know they're all actors but still that shit is god damn impressive. I may actually go back and watch the entire thing. It makes me want to play 8 more games of DnD and RP me goddamn heart out in every single one and on that note ASMO ARE WE ON NEXT WEEK. Wasn't it you who, a while ago, said you didn't understand why/how people watch D&D shows? We just have completely different ideologies when it comes to DLC then. I don't see anything wrong with paid DLC for a full priced release. Like a ton of the Fallout DLC was really good and I'm glad it existed rather than no DLC coming out for it. In the end I'd rather there just be more stuff since no one is forcing anyone to buy it. Right. Like, I'm not gonna rail against the people who choose to pay for it, I understand the desire for more content. It's just not something I will contribute to. That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice? A little of both. Also the fact that they're all very different genres. In league, all money I've spent has gone towards skins - completely cosmetic and options. I suppose I also did pay for rune pages at one point, which irked me then as well. In HS, it's a CCG. I accept that when playing a CCG, buying packs/cards is part of it. However, the fact that you can make your own for free through dust is a huge bonus for me. Looking at smash, it just feels dirty to have to buy more characters. Again, SG is similar, but also pretty different because of its low price point, incredibly high quality, and temporary free new releases. Add onto that the fact that I strongly believe Melee's success as a competitive game is tied with the fact that it has been untouched for over a decade. HS isn't a great example imo. Watched Boogie pay over $300 in packs to collect the entire set which is likely FAR more than you'd have to pay to get what you want in MTG, especially because in MTG you have the option to buy singles but in HS you literally HAVE to buy packs in order to be able to make the singles you want. Except that buying singles/playsets is also quite expensive, MTG decks are twice as big, and if you're playing standard you have to buy new cards very regularly. $300 for an entire set in HS is peanuts compared to how much you spend in MTG for competitive decks. Also, you don't have to buy all of your packs. You can grind quests and wins for gold, and get free packs through quest/tavern. Yes, it is much slower, but it is a technically feasible avenue. That is one of the most generous uses of the word "technically" I've every seen lol.
I mean, it's not realistic, but it's technically feasible lol.
On August 29 2015 02:54 AsmodeusXI wrote:Wave we are certainly on this week.  Currently at a panel about GMless games. Always fun to see what's good from other systems! Edit: Also Wave... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gWc1rtv.jpg) Eldrazi indeed.
OH GOD THE ESGOGROTH ARE COMING
|
United States23745 Posts
On August 29 2015 02:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:37 onlywonderboy wrote:
That's interesting though. I'd say it's likely you've spent more money than the cost of a game + DLC on free-to-play games like LoL and Hearthstone. Is the fact it's technically free upfront enough to justify the money you're putting in later? Or the fact it's a choice? I mean, from a producer side this is just totally a false equivalence. Microtransaction content in an F2P game has to bear the developer compensation for the value of the core game and the microtransaction items itself because the core game is free and the developer is not being directly compensated by F2P players. DLC content is meant to be self-valuing because the retail game is supposed to be self-sufficient value. So you can't really look at how microtransactions and DLC and compare how they're priced out in the same way.
True. I thought he was weighing money into the equation more heavily, which clearly isn't the case.
While I'm responding, I disagree with your stance that developers shouldn't be able to profit from things people would make for free. I don't think it's fair to say a company shouldn't be able to make more of their own product and make money off of it just because someone has thousands of hours of free time to make it themselves and release for free.
|
I forgot how awful friday night gaming was. Back to single player games.
|
On August 29 2015 02:56 Seuss wrote:
I actually killed a DnD group Miscue was running because of RP. Turns out everyone else was in it for rolling dice.
Different groups are different, which is why the hardest part of DnD in my mind is getting the right group. Some people want mindless combat, others want RP, others just want to hang out and really don't have interest in Tabletop at all. And then of course, even if you get a group that can agree or at least accept one another, then you have to get a DM that fits in too. I've played with DMs that clearly just want to throw combat after combat at the group while the players want to solve puzzles and mingle with NPCs.
|
On August 29 2015 02:54 AsmodeusXI wrote:Wave we are certainly on this week. Currently at a panel about GMless games. Always fun to see what's good from other systems! Edit: Also Wave... Eldrazi indeed.
I know it's beautiful.
lol apparently one of the top comments on twitter (does twitter even work like that) was something like 'I wonder how many developers they could have hired for MTGO for that'
|
On August 29 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:
I forgot how awful friday night gaming was. Back to single player games.
We could play some MTG right now if you want :D
|
On August 29 2015 03:03 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:
I forgot how awful friday night gaming was. Back to single player games. We could play some MTG right now if you want :D
Sure. Where's that yanger man
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 29 2015 02:58 onlywonderboy wrote:
While I'm responding, I disagree with your stance that developers shouldn't be able to profit from things people would make for free. I don't think it's fair to say a company shouldn't be able to make more of their own product and make money off of it just because someone has thousands of hours of free time to make it themselves and release for free.
If someone is willing to make a better product than you for cheaper, then your product is not competitive, period. Someone having "thousands of ours of free time" isn't a factor here--if another creator ascribes less intrinsic value to work that is still of higher quality than what you produce, then you are overcharging for your product.
The only way this is maintained within the gaming industry is because of the massive barriers to entry when it comes to developing new games or content for games that allows large publishers to abuse an anti-competitive market and squeeze money out of their customers by cutting off the possibility of competitors emerging.
However, given how these barriers are coming down with cheaper game development tools and the explosion of indie gaming, I feel this kind of exploitative practice is behind the times.
On August 29 2015 03:06 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 03:03 WaveofShadow wrote:On August 29 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:
I forgot how awful friday night gaming was. Back to single player games. We could play some MTG right now if you want :D Sure. Where's that yanger man
Not available till after 5 eastern.
|
On August 29 2015 01:00 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 00:48 Numy wrote:
Abusing rules to be a dick is being a dick yes. I guess I'm more the kind of person that thinks the game itself is more important than the result. I would agree if we were just talking about playing against friends. But tournaments, though, different story. Edit: Damn, rules not written as abusable as I thought they were. Bastards. Any readers of Order of the Stick in here? Shit just got REAL.
I was thinking that it slowed down quite a bit in the last issues (not the frequency, but the pace of the story). I got it when I noticed today was the 1000th.
|
United States23745 Posts
On August 29 2015 03:06 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 02:58 onlywonderboy wrote:
While I'm responding, I disagree with your stance that developers shouldn't be able to profit from things people would make for free. I don't think it's fair to say a company shouldn't be able to make more of their own product and make money off of it just because someone has thousands of hours of free time to make it themselves and release for free. If someone is willing to make a better product than you for cheaper than you, then your product is not competitive. The only way this is maintained within the gaming industry is because of the massive barriers to entry when it comes to developing new games or content for games that allows large developers abuse an anti-competitive market and squeeze money out of their customers by cutting off the possibility of competitors emerging. However, given how these barriers are coming down with cheaper game development tools and the explosion of indie gaming, this kind of exploitative practice is behind the times. Show nested quote +On August 29 2015 03:06 Numy wrote:On August 29 2015 03:03 WaveofShadow wrote:On August 29 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:
I forgot how awful friday night gaming was. Back to single player games. We could play some MTG right now if you want :D Sure. Where's that yanger man Not available till after 5 eastern.
The cheaper part isn't a fair comparison at all. You're talking about an actual company that has to pay their employees as well as use internal resources to create more content. Of course they want to recoup and possibly even make money on it.
That's compared to someone who is making a mod in their free time and just releases it for free because it's a passion project. Don't get me wrong, I love mods, it's making Fallout 3 a much better experience, but I don't think it's that ridiculous for the developers of a game to be paid for their work, even DLC.
|
Oh shit preview for 'Ghost Song' right now.
I've followed the development of this a little bit.
Looks like a 'MetroidVania' I will actually purchase.
http://www.twitch.tv/twitch
|
United States47024 Posts
I don't buy the argument of treating the gaming industry as a free market in this regard, because it already isn't one. Game development is a very entrenched oligopoly--ESPECIALLY when it comes to console games. Which allows publishers to do some very abusive things with regard to pricing content that would not be sustainable in a freer market, but they can do it because of how hard it is for new producers to enter the market.
That there are still consumers buying abusively priced content isn't an argument for anything.
On August 29 2015 03:12 onlywonderboy wrote:
That's compared to someone who is making a mod in their free time and just releases it for free because it's a passion project. Don't get me wrong, I love mods, it's making Fallout 3 a much better experience, but I don't think it's that ridiculous for the developers of a game to be paid for their work, even DLC.
Come on now OWB, we both know that very little DLC profit turns into a dollar in an actual developer's pocket. I'm pretty sure most devs are salaried anyway, and DLC profitability has no impact on an individual developer whatsoever.
Even the developers at a company level probably only see a small fraction of DLC profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
