How do you define the "whole game"?

[fade]

I'm always curious about this. How do you define what the "whole game" is? There's a lot of hate for EA in the Reddit world today regarding the paid unlocks for characters like Vader. But this begs the question. Why are you entitled to Vader? How do you decide that? Where's the line where it's okay to charge for DLC?

I see a lot of analogies out there where old style DLC is compared to dessert or a side dish, while modern DLC is compared to missing fundamental ingredients. Okay, but by what definition? How do you decide something was a side dish or if it was supposed to be part of the main dish? I've seen time of development used as a defining characteristic, but why? Why are you entitled to something just because it was developed at the same time? Conversely, why are you okay not being entitled to something produced at a different time?

*EDIT*: Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not defending EA. Just genuinely curious.

 

[GasBandit]

To me, all assets and elements that would be expected to be part of the given main story arc should be included, along with any and all aspects that are advertised to sell the game. If the game's marketing can be argued to be saying "you can play Vader" then charging extra to play as Vader is bait and switch.

DLC done right should be what used to be called "expansion" content. Completely independent from the vanilla purchase, not "enhancing" the vanilla purchase because then it becomes a de facto case of making the vanilla purchase worse to make DLC purchases desirable.

It's important to note in this case that you CAN play as Vader in the vanilla game, but only after you have "unlocked" him with in-game "credits" that would take dozens of hours to generate... even if you bought the $80 "unlocked" version of the game that led you to believe would have that stuff included.

I thought the burger king comparison was very apropos. If I buy the combo meal, I don't want to "gain a sense of accomplishment" by waiting 10 hours for the fries I bought the combo for, and then being told I can pay extra to immediately have the fries I already paid for is mindblowingly unacceptable.

 

[strawman]

Lead gameplay developer David Robillard told Press-Start that the campaign will clock in at between 5 and 8 hours. Of course, this will depend on how you play, but that's the estimate he's provided as a general idea. "We thought that around 5-7, maybe 8 hours is probably a good amount of time…we wanted to stay very driven towards the Star Wars fantasy that the players are going to experience and not have it be drawn out."

If that's without DLC, then that's not terrible for $80 - $10 an hour of play time. If that's after spending a lot more for DLC, then it's not a great deal, but it's far from the worst deal out there. People pay less for movies ($5 - $10 at the theater, a lot less at home), but its comparable entertainment.

Games have changed, gamers have changed, and they are finally wising up to the razors and blades business model that makes mobile apps so profitable. If you don't like it, don't buy the game, shop elsewhere. If you gotta play that particular IP, you're gonna have to pay the cost.

It's a pretty straightforward mechanism - vote with your wallet.

 

[GasBandit]

 

[Ravenpoe]

I'm always curious about this. How do you define what the "whole game" is? There's a lot of hate for EA in the Reddit world today regarding the paid unlocks for characters like Vader. But this begs the question. Why are you entitled to Vader? How do you decide that? Where's the line where it's okay to charge for DLC?

I see a lot of analogies out there where old style DLC is compared to dessert or a side dish, while modern DLC is compared to missing fundamental ingredients. Okay, but by what definition? How do you decide something was a side dish or if it was supposed to be part of the main dish? I've seen time of development used as a defining characteristic, but why? Why are you entitled to something just because it was developed at the same time? Conversely, why are you okay not being entitled to something produced at a different time?

*EDIT*: Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not defending EA. Just genuinely curious.

Battlefront 2 has a previous game, Battlefront 1, to which we can look at, and in that game Vader was included right from the get go. There's been a history of late of sequels coming out with less than the original had, only with those missing pieces being offered as DLC.

 

[GasBandit]

A good example of "expansions" vs "DLC" is the way LucasArts handled X-Wing and its expansions.

X-Wing was a complete game. They generated new missions completely beyond the scope of the original game for the Imperial Pursuit and B-Wing expansion packs.

 

[figmentPez]

I'm always curious about this. How do you define what the "whole game" is? There's a lot of hate for EA in the Reddit world today regarding the paid unlocks for characters like Vader. But this begs the question. Why are you entitled to Vader? How do you decide that? Where's the line where it's okay to charge for DLC?

I see a lot of analogies out there where old style DLC is compared to dessert or a side dish, while modern DLC is compared to missing fundamental ingredients. Okay, but by what definition? How do you decide something was a side dish or if it was supposed to be part of the main dish? I've seen time of development used as a defining characteristic, but why? Why are you entitled to something just because it was developed at the same time? Conversely, why are you okay not being entitled to something produced at a different time?

*EDIT*: Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not defending EA. Just genuinely curious.

Personally, it's about value for money for me, not about some sort of arbitrary idea of what "should" be part of the game. That's why I usually buy GOTY versions of games. I don't like being nickel & dimed, especially not when it's as bad as the Saints Row or LEGO games do it. (and LEGO DLC almost never goes on sale.) Yeah, most of that stuff is cosmetic, but some adds gameplay, or useful functionality, and it's really hard to know which does what. I don't want to have to sort through a dozen different DLC descriptions, and then Google search because it's still not clear, and waste my time trying to figure out what's worthwhile to me... when I can just wait for a complete set. The more research I have to do to figure out what content comes with what, the less money I'm willing to pay. I'm kinda stubborn that way. But my "list of shame" is long and I'm enjoying playing "older" games, so it works out for me. Even though that means I'll likely never play GTA 5, or a lot of other games, I don't have time to play everything anyway.

I remember when Planescape: Torment had DLC costumes for Annah and Morte. They were free, and silly. Annah got a St. Patrick's Day leprechaun outfit, and Morte became a floating decorated egg for Easter. I imagine those would both be $0.99 microtransactions these days, and that makes me sad. It seems increasingly rare for developers to be able to say thank you to their fans with nice little extras like that.

--

A related problem, does anyone remember the uproar when Half-Life Blue Shift came with Opposing Force (in the US at least), and people who had bought Opposing Force were pissed because they now had to pay a higher price for the shorter Blue Shift?

 

[MindDetective]

The new DLC models are all about catching whales.

 

[GasBandit]

The new DLC models are all about catching whales.

True that. I have a friend who has easily spent $700+ on Mechwarrior Online, a game that is free to play.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Witcher 3 DLC and expansions is the best example of how to treat your customer base. *drops the mic*

 

[figmentPez]

The new DLC models are all about catching whales.

I was intrigued by Dauntless (a new PC game meant to be in the Monster Hunter style) until I realized it was going to be a F2P game, but one that also has $40 - $100 bundles of consumables, and subscriptions that increase loot drops, and basically a lot of the worst types of F2P bullshit. Maybe it'll turn out to still be playable for someone who can't sink that much into the game, but another part of me doesn't like the moral question of exploiting people with what amounts to a gambling addiction.

 

[Dei]

I spent a lot of money on LoL, but it wasn't so bad because at least I knew what I was getting for my money and it wasn't a random chance at something. That said, LoL was a very good free to play model at the same time, toxic onlineness aside.

 

[Far]

At least with lol spending money on RP for skins doesn't confer any kind of game benefit, beyond some skins changing visual and audio cues that can make it harder to see abilities. Cosmetic purchases have never bothered me.

 

[Mathias]

I'm always curious about this. How do you define what the "whole game" is? There's a lot of hate for EA in the Reddit world today regarding the paid unlocks for characters like Vader. But this begs the question. Why are you entitled to Vader? How do you decide that? Where's the line where it's okay to charge for DLC?

I see a lot of analogies out there where old style DLC is compared to dessert or a side dish, while modern DLC is compared to missing fundamental ingredients. Okay, but by what definition? How do you decide something was a side dish or if it was supposed to be part of the main dish? I've seen time of development used as a defining characteristic, but why? Why are you entitled to something just because it was developed at the same time? Conversely, why are you okay not being entitled to something produced at a different time?

*EDIT*: Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not defending EA. Just genuinely curious.

Cause I paid for the game and want all its features.

In addition to what Gas said. In olden days of yore (aka the mid to late 90s and early 2000s), one would buy a complete game. DLC was an expansion which effectively made the game ver. 2.0 and so on. It ADDED to the game. It was not part of the existing 1.0 version.[DOUBLEPOST=1510629072,1510628818][/DOUBLEPOST]

If that's without DLC, then that's not terrible for $80 - $10 an hour of play time. If that's after spending a lot more for DLC, then it's not a great deal, but it's far from the worst deal out there. People pay less for movies ($5 - $10 at the theater, a lot less at home), but its comparable entertainment.

Games have changed, gamers have changed, and they are finally wising up to the razors and blades business model that makes mobile apps so profitable. If you don't like it, don't buy the game, shop elsewhere. If you gotta play that particular IP, you're gonna have to pay the cost.

It's a pretty straightforward mechanism - vote with your wallet.

Voting with your wallet only works if you don't buy the game at all. Even then the Whale players make up like 80% of the Pay for Play content so the boycotters rarely make a dent.[DOUBLEPOST=1510629187][/DOUBLEPOST]

True that. I have a friend who has easily spent $700+ on Mechwarrior Online, a game that is free to play.

I don't get the Whale mindset. I guess its a fueled by addiction thing because 700 bucks in my mind registers to buying a whole console and computer parts; not an amount to spend and keep spending on one game.[DOUBLEPOST=1510629289][/DOUBLEPOST]

At least with lol spending money on RP for skins doesn't confer any kind of game benefit, beyond some skins changing visual and audio cues that can make it harder to see abilities. Cosmetic purchases have never bothered me.

Same. I don't mind the Overwatch model of lootboxes for skins that don't impact the game. I haven't dropped a dime other than the game itself and have legendary skins for all of my heroes.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I don't get the Whale mindset. I guess its a fueled by addiction thing because 700 bucks in my mind registers to buying a whole console and computer parts; not an amount to spend and keep spending on one game.

It's not all at once. It's 10 bucks here, 20 bucks here, 50 bucks here, and you do it again and again because the system is designed to mask the spending of money as much as possible. It's the same concept behind casinos giving you chips instead of money, or why some people can spend hundreds of dollars on dollar scratch off tickets, because they don't view it all lumped together.


And I say this as someone who has every hearthstone card... I really don't want to look at what I've spent on that.

 

[Mathias]

It's not all at once. It's 10 bucks here, 20 bucks here, 50 bucks here, and you do it again and again because the system is designed to mask the spending of money as much as possible. It's the same concept behind casinos giving you chips instead of money, or why some people can spend hundreds of dollars on dollar scratch off tickets, because they don't view it all lumped together.


And I say this as someone who has every hearthstone card... I really don't want to look at what I've spent on that.

I quit hearthstone when I realized you need to buy packs to get anywhere.

 

[strawman]

It's the same concept behind casinos giving you chips instead of money, or why some people can spend hundreds of dollars on dollar scratch off tickets, because they don't view it all lumped together.

Or buying coffee at their local overpriced coffee joint, or a cable subscription that includes their favorite sport, or a few beers at the bar, or a few joints, or, or, or. Spread any regular purchase out over time and it doesn't seem like a lot, but add it up over a year and how many people who are complaining spend far more on alcohol, their cable service, or hanging out with their friends at some bar.

The games provide entertainment, stimulation, amusement, an escape, trigger a variety of human motivational needs/desires/etc. It doesn't have to be an addiction, though certainly for some the game turns into a habit, which then becomes similar to an addiction (and some do allow it to negatively affect their life, though even then it's hard to claim addiction depending on your definition of addiction)

Honestly, if you have cable or satellite at all you can probably pay for the game and its DLC with just a month or three of your cable bill. Some people could pay for it with what they spend on soda pop in a month.

Could they sell it for less? Of course.

But why would they?

Even if you wanted to claim they are evil, it's a whole pyramid - the investors don't want a 2:1 return on their money, they want a 7:1 or better return. They wouldn't have invested, and you wouldn't have the game, if other investments provide a better return.

Similar to why we only get the types of movies we get, this is where the game industry is headed. They want people to pay $200 per game, but no one is going to spend that much money up front for "the whole game", so they nickle and dime you on an installment plan.

Bottom line, if it's not worth $200, then it's not worth it, move on to the next game. It's not as though there's a famine of games out there. Most of the people complaining about it probably have hundreds of hours of gameplay they have left unplayed on their steam account. Games they've probably spend several hundreds of dollars for over the years and haven't completed.

 

[figmentPez]

But why would they?

Because the purpose of a business is the fair and equitable exchange of goods and or services, and exploitative practices harm an industry in the long run.

 

[PatrThom]

To summarize what @stienman says above: A game won't fail until it gets too big to fail...and then fails. Until then, they will push to see just how much they can push, and so long as people keep pushing back, they'll keep pushing harder.

And to @figmentPez...I very much doubt the game industry cares about "the long run" any more than the motion picture industry does. If they did, they wouldn't (usually) put out such shitty sequels.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

...the purpose of a business is the fair and equitable exchange of goods and or services...

There is easily 2-3 times more human effort into this game than there was in the $60 games made 5 years ago. Rather than setting the price at $200 and telling players they either pay that or don't play at all they've followed a model that allows players to choose their price and level of content.

How is that not "fair and equitable"?

Spoiler: too short please elaborate

You are describing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

At this point we'd have to launch into a discussion of "fair and equitable"

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+man+hours+does+it+take+to+make+a+AAA+title+game

72,000 human hours minimum, 300,000 human hours (estimated) for GTA V
$50 to $200 million ($265 for GTA V, $150 for kotor)

Here's the kicker - this is all based on risk v reward. If the game is a flop, the investors lose out. If the game is successful, they get their investment back and a profit.

And the consumers get to decide what is fair and equitable - if you don't want to spend $80, wait a year or two and it'll be much cheaper.

Why can't that be considered fair and equitable? People who have the money, who want to play it sooner can pay more to do so, but if it's not worth it, wait.

So far as I can tell, everyone wins. If the investors weren't likely to get a huge payback, they wouldn't invest, and the game wouldn't be made or it would be made to much lower production values. Gamers, however, are incredibly demanding. "Go big or go home" really does seem to apply here. They aren't looking for simple 3 hours games with a short story and simple game mechanics. If you want a robust story, robust complex game mechanics, a high replayability due to allowing player choice with some variability, all that takes time and effort.

They are selling a $200 game. The market can't bear it, so they're trying a different business model to recoup the money they have to sell it for so it will have been worth the investment.

 

[Dei]

 

[fade]

Cause I paid for the game and want all its features.

In addition to what Gas said. In olden days of yore (aka the mid to late 90s and early 2000s), one would buy a complete game. DLC was an expansion which effectively made the game ver. 2.0 and so on. It ADDED to the game. It was not part of the existing 1.0 version.

Yeah, but both you and GasBandit more or less answered the question with the question. Still, "what defines 'all it's features'"? What defines the "complete game"? What defines something as part of the 1.0 version?

By analogy, is the S version of a car the complete car? Are you entitled to it if you buy the Sport model?

 

[DarkAudit]

By analogy, is the S version of a car the complete car? Are you entitled to it if you buy the Sport model?

A car with the current gaming model would have 4th and 5th gear as premium items and a 12 gallon fuel tank as DLC. F2D (free 2 drive) just gets a tiny 4-gallon tank. Sure, you'll still get to your destination, but hours behind the whales who want everything and are willing to pay for it.

 

[Denbrought]

A car with the current gaming model would have 4th and 5th gear as premium items and a 12 gallon fuel tank as DLC. F2D (free 2 drive) just gets a tiny 4-gallon tank. Sure, you'll still get to your destination, but hours behind the whales who want everything and are willing to pay for it.

Might want to rephrase, you seem to be bitching about a free car provided by a private entity.

 

[DarkAudit]

Might want to rephrase, you seem to be bitching about a free car provided by a private entity.

Sorry. I was trying to use a variant of the F2P tag so many people use when bitching about mobile games. Especially TinyCo games that make you slave to the RNG if you're not willing to buy premium currency like clams or pizza.

But yeah, everyone pays the same base price for a "car", but instead of plusher carpeting or an upgraded sound system as the options, things like gears and fuel capacity or maybe even brakes are the extra cost items.

 

[fade]

But, again, that's my question. How do you define those parts of the game as "gears" instead of "plush carpeting"? Why should I expect to have Vader unlocked? Why isn't Vader plush carpeting? He's not required to play the game like a gear is required to drive the car.

 

[Dei]

Because he is one of, if not THE most iconic character in Star Wars. He even had a whole (terrible) prequelogy for himself.

 

[strawman]

But, again, that's my question. How do you define those parts of the game as "gears" instead of "plush carpeting"? Why should I expect to have Vader unlocked? Why isn't Vader plush carpeting? He's not required to play the game like a gear is required to drive the car.

I think that's the point they are making - Vader is the main character of the game, and without Vader it's not worth playing. Unless you upgrade it sounds like you're playing some sort of stand-in character that isn't worth exploring or anywhere near as enjoyable as vader's storyline. So he'd be the body of the car - sure, you can play it, if you don't mind the wind rushing through your ears, bugs in your teeth, and no environmental control.

I can't evaluate the merits of that perspective, knowing nothing about the game, I just have to take their word for it that the base game isn't worth the price, and the "whole game" isn't worth the price you'd have to pay for it.

 

[GasBandit]

But, again, that's my question. How do you define those parts of the game as "gears" instead of "plush carpeting"? Why should I expect to have Vader unlocked? Why isn't Vader plush carpeting? He's not required to play the game like a gear is required to drive the car.

Because he is one of, if not THE most iconic character in Star Wars. He even had a whole (terrible) prequelogy for himself.

And, as others have pointed out, he was playable and unlocked in previous iterations of the game. They literally took him away and put him behind a paywall/grindwall.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I don't think the correct question is 'what is a whole game.' I think the reason players are finding this increased use of forced gambling systems shitty is because they feel their inclusion compromises the core game design. That rather than being focused on making fun games, developers are now strong armed by their publishers into creating games that cajole you into spending more money. The play experience is no longer of top concern.

For example, take the new Need for Speed: Payback. NfS has always been a title focused on the fantasy of being a street racer. Winning races, earning money, using that money to buy new parts for your car and eventually upgrade to an even better car. But because we live in the age of loot boxes, now when you go to the garage in NfS you do not get the fantasy of buying new parts for your car. Instead you buy loot boxes full of random 'cards' that add performance values to the car.

You know, because that fulfills the fantasy of being an illegal street racer. Magic cards that you obtain randomly.

 

[figmentPez]

How is that not "fair and equitable"?

My response was solely to "why would they not charge as much money as possible?" Which follows the commonly held belief that the purpose of business is to make as much money as possible, period. The very fact that you think that my statement is socialist shows how ingrained that idea is, even though it was not meant to say that $80 is an unfair price (in fact, it was a commentary on "whales" and the idea of bilking a few individuals for as much money as possible because they're vulnerable to such tactics, even if they may not realize they're being exploited.) Bilking customers for all they're worth is harmful to any industry, and it's very clear that many game publishers are out to make as much money possible, regardless of what it takes to do that. It's the video game equivalent of sub-prime mortgages. Thankfully the harm done probably won't cause a recession, but it's still doing some form of harm to the industry, be it creative limitation, the exploitation of whales or children, or even the shuttering of developers when publisher mandates go too far and kill what would have been good games otherwise.

There is easily 2-3 times more human effort into this game than there was in the $60 games made 5 years ago. Rather than setting the price at $200 and telling players they either pay that or don't play at all they've followed a model that allows players to choose their price and level of content.

And maybe we should be willing to pay $80 for a game like that, but that still doesn't justify the bait and switch tactic of "You can play as Vader! (if you shell out extra, or play the game in a way that's actively designed to make you want to pay out instead)"

And don't even get me started on "risk vs reward" when an SNES Final Fantasy cartridge cost $15 to make just for the physical media. Even with a price of $70, which at the time was outrageous, Final Fantasy 6's manufacture cost 20% of the retail price. Compare that to the pennies it costs to distribute a game via digital distribution, and the fact that you can keep selling that game at $40, at $20, at $5, at $1 and still keep making a profit until you've hit the very end of a long tail that rivals re-releases of the White Album. Selling games on cartridge was risk, too. Publishers are just able to invest more money into human effort now, instead of having to invest 20% into manufacturing costs.

 

[PatrThom]

For example, take the new Need for Speed: Payback. NfS has always been a title focused on the fantasy of being a street racer. Winning races, earning money, using that money to buy new parts for your car and eventually upgrade to an even better car. But because we live in the age of loot boxes, now when you go to the garage in NfS: B you do not get the fantasy of buying new parts for your car. Instead you buy loot boxes full of random 'cards' that add performance values to the car. You know, because that fulfills the fantasy of being an illegal street racer. Magic cards that you obtain randomly.

Yeah, about that:

Need for Speed: Payback can’t avoid its own bankruptcy

--Patrick

 

[Mathias]

Yeah, but both you and GasBandit more or less answered the question with the question. Still, "what defines 'all it's features'"? What defines the "complete game"? What defines something as part of the 1.0 version?

By analogy, is the S version of a car the complete car? Are you entitled to it if you buy the Sport model?

Can the 1.0 version stand on its own? If yes then it has all the required features and is complete. If it needs DLC to be enjoyable or if the DLC is obviously stuff removed from the complete game to make a buck, then no it's not complete.

Example: Warcraft III. The original has a complete story line, multiplayer, bug free. It's a complete game. The Frozen Throne then continues that storyline and adds new characters. It makes the game version 2.0., but doesn't add back any missing elements from 1.0.

Your analogy works towards my arguement (as Dark points out). Current games release the "S" model without the actual base components those are sold off as DLC. Warcraft III was a true S model. The expansion was the Sport. The whole model of what expansions used to be is perverted into a system of selling the S model without the necessary parts to begin with.

Developers don't make games anymore. A game has a beginning and an end and some replay value. The mobile additions sold today have no end and are designed to squeeze you out of money rather than meet a conclusive end.

Think about Nintendo games. Zelda BotW. I played the shit out of that game, but I can put it down. I can stop it for a month. I can come back to it. Same with Skyrim. Those are games. Now take a game like Hearthstone. I can't take a break. I can't stop it for a month or I fall behind. Ranked systems are another thing that grinds my gears. Almost all games have rankings now That's not replay value. It's addiction.

 

[figmentPez]

Also, keep in mind that Vader isn't the sole issue with SWBF2, there's also the whole pay-to-win bullshit of their loot drops. The multiplayer is the focus of this game, and you get huge bonuses to combat from what you get out of loot boxes.

 

[Mathias]

I don't think the correct question is 'what is a whole game.' I think the reason players are finding this increased use of forced gambling systems shitty is because they feel their inclusion compromises the core game design. That rather than being focused on making fun games, developers are now strong armed by their publishers into creating games that cajole you into spending more money. The play experience is no longer of top concern.

For example, take the new Need for Speed: Payback. NfS has always been a title focused on the fantasy of being a street racer. Winning races, earning money, using that money to buy new parts for your car and eventually upgrade to an even better car. But because we live in the age of loot boxes, now when you go to the garage in NfS you do not get the fantasy of buying new parts for your car. Instead you buy loot boxes full of random 'cards' that add performance values to the car.

You know, because that fulfills the fantasy of being an illegal street racer. Magic cards that you obtain randomly.

Yes! Thank you! This adds to my statement. It's more about making packaged addictions now than an actual game.