aba1 said:
dyre said:
Well, that changes almost nothing at all...
aba1 said:
thaluikhain said:
Zhukov said:
*shrug*
I don't understand the rage over on-disc DLC. You're still paying X amount for Y content.
Exactly...it's a new way of doing it, yeah, but I don't see the issue.
If nothing else, you can always buy games that don't do this, the existence of those others isn't harming the children, inciting hatred, offensive to your country or any of the other usual complaints.
but that's is just it if games that do this do well then it says that people don't care and soon every developer will do this and well be stuck paying 300$ just to get everything in a game available to us that we already would have bought with the initial $80 we spent to begin with.
First of all, they're talking about on-disc DLC being no different than regular DLC
Second, that's one of the more ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've heard this week. They're trying to cut into the consumer surplus, which has its limits.
It is a much more slippery slope than you would think I mean look at mac alone they charge almost $2500 for a laptop worth $750 tops all the time. People often just buy things because they feel like they should or because it seems like it is cool rather than buying it because they need it. My main point is that if dlc is on the disks it is clear proof that all the people arguing against dlc were right because now since dlc does so well it is no longer stuff produced after the game it is just things cut out so they can charge extra so much so they they just put it on the disk still even it just proves how fast dlc is altering the market to the place so many anti-dlc people were trying to convince people to avoid
Chill bro, everyone hates DLC here. We're just saying on-disc DLC isn't any different from regular DLC.
The point is, the DLC system is a clear attempt by publishers to reach into the consumer surplus in the video game market. For example, let's say the average person is willing/can afford to spend $50 on a game, ok? But some people are willing/can afford to spend $70 on a game, and a few very rich people are willing to spend $100. The extra $20 dollars the sort-of rich guy is willing to spend and the extra $50 the rich guy is willing to spend is called "consumer surplus."
So, how do video game companies get that money? They can't charge different prices for the same game. So they add DLC. This way, the regular person spends $50, and the other people spend $70 and $100. Maximum profit.
Is this bad? Yeah, it sucks balls for the consumer. But there are clear limits. Consumer surplus has its limits, and once you hit that cap, you can't charge any further, DLC or not.
