Export thread

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.

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.

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."

Click to expand...

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.

fade said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

fade said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

The new DLC models are all about catching whales.

MindDetective said:

The new DLC models are all about catching whales.

Click to expand...

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

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

MindDetective said:

The new DLC models are all about catching whales.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

fade said:

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.

Click to expand...

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]

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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]

GasBandit said:

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

Click to expand...

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]

Far said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

But why would they?

Click to expand...

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.

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

figmentPez said:

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

Click to expand...

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"?

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

fade said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

DarkAudit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Denbrought said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

fade said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

fade said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dei said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

How is that not "fair and equitable"?

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, about that:

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

--Patrick

fade said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Ravenpoe said:

I don't think the correct question is 'what is a whole game.'

Click to expand...

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

PatrThom said:

Yeah, about that:

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

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Well, the Need for Speed games have also sucked pretty hard in the last few years, the last few titles all being uninspired and lame. Trying to jump on the gambling for minors bandwagon can't help.

fade said:

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

Click to expand...

Can't you enjoy Mona Lisa's smile if her shoulders and torso are cut out? How is that not the "whole" then?

fade said:

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

Click to expand...

Oh, if you're just focusing on that single complaint instead of the whole issue (which I thought originally you were only using that as an analogy for the whole issue) then my answer would be that like most things in our social network driven modern lives, the majority of people just parrot what they hear without actually checking to see if it fits the argument they're making. The whole game dlc thing became a meme that people could copy-paste and doesn't actually fit every scenario.

GasBandit said:

Can't you enjoy Mona Lisa's smile if her shoulders and torso are cut out? How is that not the "whole" then?

Click to expand...

But my question, again, is, who gets to decide that those were supposed to be pieces of the Mona Lisa? It's my question every time I see that analogy.

fade said:

But my question, again, is, who gets to decide that those were supposed to be pieces of the Mona Lisa? It's my question every time I see that analogy.

Click to expand...

Obviously it's subjective, but the complaints of things being "cut out" of the whole stem from an established, noticeable pattern spanning decades. The type of content that would normally be included prior to the rise of the DLC business model being removed and offered as day-1 DLC. The exact nature of that content varies from game to game and genre to genre. But you're asking for objective quantification of a subjective (but broadly acknowledged) general trend, and that's not something you're going to get.

(broken out because SO MUCH happened in between)

figmentPez said:

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.

Click to expand...

The reason that gaming companies target the whales is because, well, that's where the money is. As the current real-life economy works to eliminate the middle class and push everyone into either "poor" or "rich," gaming companies are obviously not going to target poor people to make back their money, so they are going to design their money-making mechanics to appeal to rich people. However, it would seem insensitive to say, "Pay $200 to unlock every skin for every character," so instead they gate this content behind something like loot boxes, "...which can totally be unlocked with credits earnable in-game," except that earning it with in-game playtime might average out to literally more time than it's worth, depending on your wage.
...And that's the real thing, here. Everyone could spend the same amount of time working to unlock this "paid" content solely using in-game currency (which basically translates to $time) BUT because everybody's time outside the game varies in value, a person who gets paid 10x more for their IRL time is assumed to also be 10x more likely to cough up a microtransaction or two (or more), and so they are the ones who get courted once the IRL marketplace opens up.

I can't legitimately blame them for this, because a game is ostensibly made with the goal of making money, and so must cover itself with whatever honey the most currency will stick to, but unless the gameplay is literally "Cover yourself with honey and roll around in paper money simulator 2017," then I can and WILL blame them for money generation techniques that disrupt gameplay. If I see someone walking around with only 30 hours of playtime wearing a full set of items that would normally take 10-15hrs playtime each to acquire, I'm not going to think, "Wow they must be an awesome player," I'm going to think, "Guess who just got a new credit card!"

--Patrick

Well, ok. For one thing, focussing on a "handy shorthand" for a lot of different problems the gaming industry has at the moment and excluding anything else is pretty restrictive. If you really want just the answer to the question "who decides what is a full game?", your answer is simply "the designer". This doesn't mean anything, though. Tolkien could literally have written the LOTR and stopped and put "The End" when Frodo and Sam are on the slopes of Mount Doom and said "yeah, that's the end, it'spretty open, but it's an artistic choice". It would be a "full" story, but it wouldn't be complete.

One thing that can point to deliberate cutting of content and that irks me greatly is in-story, in-game pointers, possibly even mocking the player. "Oh no! We need to take Castle Cashcow! We'll lose thousands of soldiers! We might not be able to win! If only we had Elven Archers to help us whittle down the defenders! [click here to unlock Elven Archers for $5.99]."
Another way it's being "played" nowadays - but this doesn't completely line up with your question as asked - is deliberate gimping of the game. Setting aside whether or not it was as bad as some media let on, War for Mordor as presented (and I think some people here said it wasn't actually that bad but let me exaggerate for the argument) was pretty much 80% a game, then 30 hours of rinse-and-repeat the same generic procedurally generated missions until you had ground enough, then finally the end game. Or you could just buy your way past most of the grind. Making a certain part of the game deliberately tedious/annoying/un-fun but "possible" is a good way of being able to say you *can* finish it without paying, but pushing players towards paying extra.

PatrThom said:

I can't legitimately blame them for this, because a game is ostensibly made with the goal of making money,

Click to expand...

That's the trick, isn't it?

There are devs who want to make games, and to do so, they have to make money.

And then there are devs who want to make money, and to do so, they have to make games.

GasBandit said:

That's the trick, isn't it?
There are devs who want to make games, and to do so, they have to make money.
And then there are devs who want to make money, and to do so, they have to make games.

Click to expand...

That's one of my biggest complaints about artistry in general.
To be a successful artist, you ride the high generated by how much everyone likes your stuff and let it propel you to your next project...but that doesn't always pay the bills. So you trade "vision" for money, and the compromises begin.

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

Obviously it's subjective, but the complaints of things being "cut out" of the whole stem from an established, noticeable pattern spanning decades. The type of content that would normally be included prior to the rise of the DLC business model being removed and offered as day-1 DLC. The exact nature of that content varies from game to game and genre to genre. But you're asking for objective quantification of a subjective (but broadly acknowledged) general trend, and that's not something you're going to get.

Click to expand...

I mean if you want a specific example. Battlefield 3. EA was literally taking pre orders for a map pack of popular maps as DLC literally a month before the game launch. The maps already exist. They're ready to go. They should be packaged with ver. 1.0 of the product. Expansions used to be created AFTER a game's success. Like Gas is saying, games are developed and then systematically picked apart to sell components as DLC.

That's not a satisfactory answer for me, though. The same is true again for the car. The parts for the S are there ready to go, too. They're deliberately not installed on the Sport unless you pay more.

I'm pretty sure those maps were known community favorites from the previous games.

Mathias said:

I mean if you want a specific example. Battlefield 3. EA was literally taking pre orders for a map pack of popular maps as DLC literally a month before the game launch. The maps already exist. They're ready to go. They should be packaged with ver. 1.0 of the product. Expansions used to be created AFTER a game's success. Like Gas is saying, games are developed and then systematically picked apart to sell components as DLC.

Click to expand...

This is partly a production issue, though. It's cheaper to make extended content during the full production process than it is to make it later. Similar to making Lord of The Rings movies.

Since they filmed them all at once, why are we paying for three separate movies? Sure, there is post production that was done later, but there's a big advantage to doing all the pieces at once.

The basic story is incomplete without purchasing all the expansions.

What counts as the "whole movie"?

Why did they have several releases staged over several years on DVD and blu-ray, and why have collector's editions with statues?

Obviously anyone who wanted "the whole experience" was nickel and dimed to the tune of hundreds of dollars, and they made back their production costs and more just in the theaters.

The whole trilogy cost $230 million, and the first movie alone made nearly $1 billion. Altogether they had a revenue 10 times their cost. They could have given the expansions away for free and still made a bundle of money.

Instead they force fans to pay three times for the whole story, they force them to pay again if they want the special statues with the movies.

Then they figured out people will actually buy it all, so they produce one more movie, split it into three, and do it all over again with the Hobbit.

This, of course, damages the entire industry and the practice needs to stop.

Mathias said:

I'm pretty sure those maps were known community favorites from the previous games.

Click to expand...

There's also the Modern Warfare remaster, which took the maps that everyone remembered and wanted to play from years past and sold them as seperate DLC. Though, the remaster itself was bundled with another, more expensive game that you had to buy at the time whether you wanted to play it or not, if you wanted to play the remaster.

stienman said:

This is partly a production issue, though. It's cheaper to make extended content during the full production process than it is to make it later. Similar to making Lord of The Rings movies.

Since they filmed them all at once, why are we paying for three separate movies? Sure, there is post production that was done later, but there's a big advantage to doing all the pieces at once.

The basic story is incomplete without purchasing all the expansions.

What counts as the "whole movie"?

Why did they have several releases staged over several years on DVD and blu-ray, and why have collector's editions with statues?

Obviously anyone who wanted "the whole experience" was nickel and dimed to the tune of hundreds of dollars, and they made back their production costs and more just in the theaters.

The whole trilogy cost $230 million, and the first movie alone made nearly $1 billion. Altogether they had a revenue 10 times their cost. They could have given the expansions away for free and still made a bundle of money.

Instead they force fans to pay three times for the whole story, they force them to pay again if they want the special statues with the movies.

Then they figured out people will actually buy it all, so they produce one more movie, split it into three, and do it all over again with the Hobbit.

This, of course, damages the entire industry and the practice needs to stop.

Click to expand...

I don't get the need for sarcasm, but.... a movie is only so long. No one would release a 10 hour long movie. That's why.

This isn't even remotely the same issue as the maps are ready to go and should be bundled with the game on release because they're part of the overall ver 1.0 product; not a month later as a cash grab. A proper example of "appropriate" DLC would be additional weapons, classes, and extended maps and missions like a year later.

Mathias said:

..."appropriate" DLC would be

1. additional weapons, classes, and extended maps and missions
2. like a year later.

Click to expand...

Ok, so the whole thread is about these two points. What's the difference between appropriate DLC and a "whole game"?

I have a problem with #1 because I don't know what you mean by "additional". To me additional means "beyond the original game" which results in a circular definition. So the thread title is a question trying to understand what "additional" means.

Is the game unplayable without the DLC? Then it's not additional - it's essential. If the game is playable, but people are unhappy because their expectations weren't met, then it becomes a lot murkier, and that's what were trying to solidify.

What is the objective, measurable, widely agreed upon difference between additional and essential?

But #2 is interesting, could they move the release date of the DLC to November of next year and resolve the problem for you?

PatrThom said:

so they are going to design their money-making mechanics to appeal to rich people.

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the problem is assuming that every whale that's hooked is someone who is rich enough to afford to what they've spent.

fade said:

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

Click to expand...

What about when whats missing isn't so much cut out as it is locked behind pointless padding. The conceit of The Princess Bride is that it's the abridged version of some foreign language classic that has had tons of boring filler cut out. Imagine if, to read The Princess Bride, you had to read all the (nonexistent) chapters that were "cut" (not skim, actually spend time reading), unless you paid for the "abridged version DLC"? That's essentially what a lot of the microtransactions in gaming are doing these days. The have the good parts of the game, and then pad out the game with repetition... (Damn, I just realized you probably could make a lot of money by making a Wheel of Time abridged DLC that cuts out all the boring repetition in books 6 - 10...)

fade said:

That's not a satisfactory answer for me, though. The same is true again for the car. The parts for the S are there ready to go, too. They're deliberately not installed on the Sport unless you pay more.

Click to expand...

Okay, at what point would you consider a car not a full car? Obviously there is some point where you cut out a feature and it ceases to be a car. A/C is mostly standard these days, but it's still an optional extra, but what about a heater? If car companies suddenly made a heater an optional add-on, would you find that a reasonable thing to get upset about? What if they included tires, but ones that will only last you a year at best? What if seatbelts are extra, but you have to have them if you want to actually drive on public roads? A car is still a car without seatbelts, right? You technically don't need them if you just want to drive around on your own property.

So, yeah, some extras are suitable for the Deluxe version of a game, as some extras are suitable for the Sport version of a car. However, there are some pretty basic expectations that you'd go "hey, that's just being greedy" if you found out they weren't included in the base price.

stienman said:

But #2 is interesting, could they move the release date of the DLC to November of next year and resolve the problem for you?

Click to expand...

It's not the release date, it's the development timeline. I tend to agree with Matthias here that any content developed in parallel with the main game that is ready for release at the same time (or before) the main game should be included in the base price of the main game. If you later want to go back and revisit the series with additional content, you create that additional content later so that, by nature of temporal causality, it cannot be considered to have been "removed" from the game.

figmentPez said:

the problem is assuming that every whale that's hooked is someone who is rich enough to afford to what they've spent.

Click to expand...

The problem is that they don't care if the whale can afford to pay for it or not, just that they continue to pay.

--Patrick

What? Is this a point we're trying to argue?

I don't think it's their responsibility to ensure anything about how people spend their own money. No one is forcing any ones hand here. These are video games.

Maybe I'm not understanding the statement but I don't see how they should be held accountable for any bodies lack of restraint toward luxury purchases. If you can't afford them don't buy them.

This is not a defense of loot boxes in general but rather the sentiment that, admittedly I may have misinterpreted, companies are responsible for whales, rich or not, buying things they can't afford.

Far said:

What? Is this a point we're trying to argue?

I don't think it's their responsibility to ensure anything about how people spend their own money. No one is forcing any ones hand here. These are video games.

Maybe I'm not understanding the statement but I don't see how they should be held accountable for any bodies lack of restraint toward luxury purchases. If you can't afford them don't buy them.

This is not a defense of loot boxes in general but rather the sentiment that, admittedly I may have misinterpreted, companies are responsible for whales, rich or not, buying things they can't afford.

Click to expand...

So you're fine with the morality of bars knowingly profiting off of alcoholism? Casinos knowingly profiting off of people with gambling addictions? Because even Casinos aren't okay with that being their public image, and have recently started making public efforts to at least make it look like they're trying to prevent problem gambling.

Regardless of the legality of such, I think it's morally wrong to knowingly exploit addictive behavior in others. It's one thing to say "I'm not responsible for every poor college student who buys a PS4 with money they should be spending on tuition" and another thing to say "We're going to intentionally target people with gambling addictions, because we know we can bleed them dry." If this were an unintentional side effect of the system, that would be a moral quandary, but it's often stated as an explicit goal for game publishers to get absolutely the most money out of a person as they possibly can.

figmentPez said:

it's often stated as an explicit goal for game publishers to get absolutely the most money out of a person as they possibly can.

Click to expand...

Well, that is the way to make the most money as quickly as possible...if you're into open-pit mining.

--Patrick

I can tell what's a full game and what's a neutered experience when I see it (or play it). It's sort of like when I can tell the difference between a tastefully nude pic and pornography. There isn't necessarily a set of predefined criteria, instead I look at the end product and try to determine the creator's intent and subsequent actions.

And I'm an expert at pornography, so you can trust me on this one.

RE: Loot boxes

The fact that they aren't considered "gambling" means they aren't regulated, or age restricted. Are loot boxes something that should be subject to gambling regulation? I think that's a pretty important question.

Dei said:

RE: Loot boxes

The fact that they aren't considered "gambling" means they aren't regulated, or age restricted. Are loot boxes something that should be subject to gambling regulation? I think that's a pretty important question.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, the ESRB has decided that they aren't gambling.

The same ESRB that is owned by Activision.

Who just filed a bunch of patents to make their gambling even more addictive and targeted.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

Let's talk about just how much of a bait and switch this is. This content that can supposedly be unlocked by playing the game is locked beyond an absurd amount of time. To unlock everything in the game would take, I'm told, 4,528 hours. A year and a half of playing 8 hours a day. You can talk all you want about "well, if it's a good game, then you shouldn'tneed to skip any of the gameplay". Yeah, okay, but how far do you stretch that? Super Mario Bros. is a great game, but would it still be a great game if you were required to play world 1 - 1 for 15 minutes before you could unlock world 1 - 2? What if you had to play for an hour before unlocking just the second level? Admittedly, this is hyperbole, but how much time is unacceptable for unlocking content?

This is a huge part of why SWBF2 is not a "whole game", because it's pretending that you can get all of it's content with $80 + time, when it's not really a reasonable path to unlock the content. Especially when you get locked out of earning more credits if you play too much Arcade mode. "More credits available in X hours."

figmentPez said:

Let's talk about just how much of a bait and switch this is. This content that can supposedly be unlocked by playing the game is locked beyond an absurd amount of time. To unlock everything in the game would take, I'm told, 4,528 hours. A year and a half of playing 8 hours a day. You can talk all you want about "well, if it's a good game, then you shouldn'tneed to skip any of the gameplay". Yeah, okay, but how far do you stretch that? Super Mario Bros. is a great game, but would it still be a great game if you were required to play world 1 - 1 for 15 minutes before you could unlock world 1 - 2? What if you had to play for an hour before unlocking just the second level? Admittedly, this is hyperbole, but how much time is unacceptable for unlocking content?

This is a huge part of why SWBF2 is not a "whole game", because it's pretending that you can get all of it's content with $80 + time, when it's not really a reasonable path to unlock the content. Especially when you get locked out of earning more credits if you play too much Arcade mode. "More credits available in X hours."

Click to expand...

The problem with battlefront 2 is the problem that people have worried would happen when they started stuffing more and more microtransactions into games. It is a game designed to present a platform of purchase rather than a game designed around being played. It is an interactive store front first and a game second, and it affects every aspect of the game play.

Ravenpoe said:

Don't worry, the ESRB has decided that they aren't gambling.

The same ESRB that is owned by Activision.

Who just filed a bunch of patents to make their gambling even more addictive and targeted.

Click to expand...

Also, @Mathias' quote from earlier is so on point, it's not even funny:

"It's more about making packaged addictions now than an actual game."

I tweeted that to Jim Sterling. I think he'll appreciate it.

Dei said:

Click to expand...

"The campaign doesn't even have an ending. That's coming later."

I think this is definitively not a whole game.

figmentPez said:

"The campaign doesn't even have an ending. That's coming later."

I think this is definitively not a whole game.

Click to expand...

LOL! Stay tuned kids. The ending to the game's gonna be 10 dollar DLC!

So, it had to be pay-to-win because cosmetic items would have caused problems with Star Wars canon....



Yeah......

Mass Effect 3 has examples of both "good DLC" and "bullshit DLC".

Under "Bullshit DLC", I include "From Ashes" - that's day one, pre-installed DLC that you have to buy a code (or deluxe/collectors'/super edition of the game) to access. So much of the game was written including the assumption of having Javik the Prothean that it's more or less bullshit that it was cut out and put behind a paywall when it's already there in the game.

Under "good DLC", I include "Citadel" - it was essentially the writers and team having fun by making a really fanservice-filled adventure that adds to the game, but isn't necessary to consider it complete. It also adds a means to grind your credits so that you can fully upgrade all your weapons and what not, if you want.

The loot boxes for ME3MP... well, the best thing I can say is that they're easy enough to get just by playing multiplayer, so that buying them seems like a relatively poor choice. I'm mediocre, but playing 3 rounds on silver is generally enough for me to get a premium level loot pack. That's a little over an hour, depending.

Dragon Age (1 and 2 at least) had some of both kinds included in their games as well. I was super annoyed that a playable character that could have gone through the whole game was "buyable" from day one if you knew about it and/or paid more. It it's already there in the game, why not just charge a bit more? I don't understand why they do this other than gouging us for more money. Which has to be the only reason that they do it.

DLC well after the release that adds new content is totally fine.

IIRC, DA1 had Shale as the DLC bonus character, but she was available by default for all new copies of the game. I think she was meant to be a way of discouraging reselling the game, back before Bioware was using Origin as DRM.

I had to buy her later. I had played through an entire game before I had even heard of her.

"The lamp is a metaphor for consumerism."

--Patrick