It’s worth considering that they may be locked in to DLCs because they made promised to backers about getting season passes.
Which can be easily resolved by putting out some custom decals or a starter weapons packs?
Edit: Especially at launch!
I am not sure what you mean about “DLC 2” here?
But it’s all content. As with many other things, the nature of content varies and I agree that content which adds, say, new missions or story elements is different than one that adds new character classes to an RPG (e.g.). But I wouldn;t say one is better or worse than the other (I mean I would always judge it by the details).
ME3 is not the only game that did this (for that matter now that I think about it I think Me2 either did this with a preorder bonus and an npc or also did a dlc for that guy; Zayeed?). I don’t think you see it often because Launch day DLC has never been super prevalent (as opposed to the now common practice of having 2-3 editions of the game).
But that brings me to a point, none of the Phoenix Point dlc is launch dlc? The cyber mod one is due two months after launch (I believe) and it’s the first. So I’m now confused about how we wound up including Launch DLC in the discussion. I mean it’s fine to discuss it, don’t get me wrong! But launch day DLC doesn’t apply here.
It inarguably and by define changes how one experiences the game. Whether it is crucial or for that matter any good is another matter entirely. ;)
I get that you don’t like it, but what they’re doing isn’t really that uncommon. Also, I think it’s worth reiterating @krayzkrok’s point. The wave of DLC basically sprang from the Epic Games deal. I’m sure they were considering DLC, and I suspect some of the unmet stretch goals will make their way into the DLC, but the Epic Games deal made it a reality (for better or for worse).
None of the fig packages included a season pass. IIRC, no DLC was officially announced as part of the original campaign (And no features were “shunted” to DLC, beyond missed stretch goals of course).
I see your point. Still, the bonus side quests and characters in a RPG is a very different beast compared to game play mechanics in a strategy game.
Just reading the blurps on DLC 1, “new approaches to tactical combat…” For a game that is based primarily on Tactical Combat, this would scream “buy me!” if released in any other cycle.
I’ve already addressed typical launch DLC (decals, bonus content that do not affect mechanics) vs changes to mechanics to core game play loop. If it’s so prevalent, you can surely justify it more easily than bring up another ME game (and the DLC does not change mechanics).
Then don’t try to take my money from a DLC before the game is even out.
=)
Well, ME was focused on story-telling and a character that detailed the relevant backstory of the galaxy was important to explaining the galaxy and how it got there, including the McGuffins. In practice, the game was a shooter who pissed on its setting and didn’t really need more uninspired writing, but in theory it was an important part of the game for its alleged genre.
The distinction is that is crucial is this.
When a game play mechanic is added in a strategy, it changes how you would interact with every other game system as well as units. In this sense, the entire experience changes.
With an addition of a story arc or character. How I play the other characters is not affected.
Unless the character you added affected every other characters or even just the central characters that I play. In that case, I’ll agree with you.
I think this is a good point. It’s a good idea to not talk about DLC until a while after release, but much like other moves they’ve made, they’ve shown themselves to be tone-deaf to customer concerns.
But it’s fine in the game works well without it. Bugs aside, Stellaris is about the same main experience with or without DLC, while Jarvis… no, Jarvik (?) could have left a hole in the story. In the end, it’s hypothetical, Jarvik mattered about as much as Shale, and I think I’ve read it didn’t matter in AC:whatever or FF:XV or any other game to date, as in, no fundamental parts were missing.
Of course, either way, “fundamental” is subjective.
That is true. Still isn’t the whole point of DLC about getting me to think that it’s “fundamental”? Or at least, it’s needed… Like that supermodel beside the supercar that you’ll imagine you’ll also get… haha
Edit: Not that I can afford a supercar… I cant.
Yes. It’s a fine line.
Haha I see what you did.
First I just want to make clear that I don’t think you are wrong or ‘bad’ for not wanting to buy the DLC. My main point is that developers probably aren’t trying to be sneaky, or fool people. They are just trying to make money like any business. Now if they promised feature X to be in the base game, took peoples’ money in kickstarter, and then said sorry we are pulling it out and putting into DLC - then I could understand some anger.
The value of a game is a personal decision, so I’m not arguing that it is the price people should be willing to pay. Some may be willing to pay more, some less - based on how much they want the game, disposable income, etc… My argument is that the company thinks that $40 is a reasonable price to put it at based on their budgeting, perceived value, etc… If they think a set of features X is worth / can sell for $40, then adding more features (via DLC) is going to cost some amount of money because they have to pay the people to work on it. It doesn’t get completed for free.
Now some developers do release some amount of free DLC. Probably because in their calculation it earns them more sales, good will for future developments etc…
Here is the main difference in our point of views. You see it as they designed a game, took stuff out, and are charging extra for the extra stuff. I see it as they designed a game for a particular price point, had extra features that didn’t make the cut, and then put out products with the rest of the ideas they deemed good and thought people would be willing to pay for.
The nice thing about DLC is that you can play the base game, then if you enjoy it and want more, you can choose to buy it. No need to buy it unless you’re a big fan of the game. Nobody was trying to ‘hide’ some true price. If you buy a car without 4 wheel drive and want 4 wheel drive you can pay more for the model with that feature. If I don’t care if i have 4 wheel drive than I can buy the cheaper model.
But that doesn’t mean they aren’t in the business to make money. Just because they got an investment doesn’t mean they shouldn’t expect to be able to charge for their work. Epic didn’t give them money so they can release work for free.
[quote=“cicobuff, post:448, topic:78339”]
My speculation is that this is a play on the “feelings”, justified or not, on the consumer’s behaviour of completeness. Many people, who have already spent $40 will not mind $30 more, we all hate playing a game that feels stripped down. How many buy ONLY Paradoxes’ base game and play it? I, for one don’t because I know how myself feel when I see all these mechanics and game systems I’m missing out.[/quote]
I agree that some people feel like they need all content, other wise they feel unhappy having something that they think isn’t complete. Not everyone is like this. I bought the base EU IV game and played it and thought it was pretty good. There are a lot of games that I’ve played where I don’t have all of the content.
I just don’t feel that not having all the content means a game feels stripped down. It can be a perfectly good game without extra content. I understand that some people can’t get past that and that’s OK. They aren’t wrong for feeling that way. It’s just how they feel. But I don’t think they should spin it as, ‘the developers are evil and trying to cheat me’.
I can’t speak directly to games because I’ve never made one. But I did develop software for a living at a variety of companies. There were always features that were identified during design and development that the project managers liked, but didn’t make that version because of development time and cost restraints. They were prioritized for the next version(s). Practically any additional work is going to cost that company money in wages paid to one or more people.
So, I don’t typically get upset at what is or isn’t included in game. If a game is good and I feel it’s worth the price I paid, then great! If they offer DLC that seems appealing to me than I buy it. If it doesn’t seem like the additions are worth the cost than I don’t buy it. It’s perfectly OK for you to decide that you don’t want to buy any DLC.
Sorry for such a long reply.
It’s not long at all. Thank you for replying, and being so gracious with the words you use. You’re one of my favourite people on Qt3. Among many others =).
I hope people don’t come away with the impression that I’m angry with the developers or anything. I’m basing my refund decision just on the DLC. Both it’s approach and pricing.
I have the observation to make.
DLC’s are principally sold on the basis on making you feel that you “need” the feature to have a “complete” game experience. (As are all products.)
It worked psychologically on me. That is, I’ll feel weird that I did not buy the DLC even if I am perfectly ok with a base game, (much more so when the DLC with mechanics is announced before the base game is even released.)
Therefore, their marketing psychology is spot on. It triggers my “need” for the DLC, yet I refuse to buy, because I had deemed the price will be too high. I’ll not spend beyond $60 for a good game nowadays, due to many other factors like bargains, time, other priorities etc.
So the DLC strategy had convinced me that I in fact needed them to be “complete”, and yet I do not value the game (base, DLC+base or whatever) at the price they want to extract from me.
So I find it ironic that I do not buy in, despite me buying into their marketing… =)
That’s really nice of you to say, thanks! I too enjoy reading your posts and am glad you are a member here.
I did incorrectly assume / perceive that you were angry about the DLC. That last post does help me understand your feelings about it. Thanks!
Isn’t the point of going Epic exclusive supposed to be an injection of capital to help smooth things like this out?
It’s one thing if you’re an indie dev with no support and you can’t keep the lights on long enough to get everything in that you want to, so you have to parse it out in DLCs. But if you just got cut a big paycheck, I feel like that scenario no longer applies to you.
I’ll just wait on it, it’s not like it was really on my radar in the first place.
That seems a good way to piss off people who put money to buy a game + season pass, and in the end the season pass is only some shitty decals and unlocked starting weapons.
That’s true. Yet, if the promise is for those who backed, and they’re still on Epic (they’ll have to be, else they would have refunded), then they could announce the expansions later, after they have observed how well the base game plays out.
But the selling of the season pass is completely their call and does not seem related to pleasing their kickstarters (the angry ones had already refunded), so it seems like shooting their own foot… or if I want to be more uncharitable in my interpretation… a cash grab…
As a backer, I do not totally agree with all the moves done by Snapshot Games, but if at the end of the day I can have a worthy successor of both the original and Firaxis X-Com, I’ll be the happiest boy in town, especially after the fiasco (in my opinion) of Phantom Doctrine and Mutant Year Zero.
By the way, I have $10 discount on the purchase of the Season Pass for Phoenix Point, if anyone is interested PM me. First come first served.
This was something I was wondering, as well. I remember it being a big deal at the time, I guess they went through those funds already as well?
Being realistic about it, they probably pocketed the money. There isn’t much reason not to and it gives them financial security regardless of how the game turns out. It’s not like Epic was paying them to finish the game, they were paying for exclusivity of the game they were already making without Epic.
I wouldn’t really hold it against them if it wasn’t for the DLC stuff tbh. And even then I don’t really, it just kinda looks crappy.