PC or Console, the developers still need to get payed
- Thread starter TheComedown
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"content that used to be free" ive yet to see dlc thats been for a modding tool, they simply arnt putting them in, or releasing them later, its not "content that used to be free", its content that just isnt there.Hopeless Bastard said:
Edit: i was talking about the expansion packs
the expansion packs are where dlc started, they added new maps and new campaign levels, the passing was called dlc it did the exact same thing, yeah not quite as much but its the same thing. dlc now is simply used to add little nick naks, a new gun, or a new car or nothing other then new maps, rarely does dlc actually expand or add anything substantial to story or gameplay.Wolvaroo said:
If your argument is based on the idea that Activision can't afford to give away free content for Call of Duty because they are not making enough money from it then I think your argument may be weak. The market is very competitive which is tough for developers but you can't pretend that people will be happy paying a premium for something they can get for free elsewhere just by saying that developers need to get paid.
Am I going to feel guilty for shopping around and sharing deals with other people or complaining about people overcharging compared to the market? I am not. If I am an elitist for enjoying a more consumer friendly market and benefiting from people freely communicating about what is worth the money being asked then I can live with that.
Am I going to feel guilty for shopping around and sharing deals with other people or complaining about people overcharging compared to the market? I am not. If I am an elitist for enjoying a more consumer friendly market and benefiting from people freely communicating about what is worth the money being asked then I can live with that.
no Activision was just an example in the other thread, and are nothing more then just greedy whores. i never said anything about paying premium, i myself think they are way over priced... you've just made me think of something elseMore Fun To Compute said:
They cant get it else where not without modding tools.More Fun To Compute said:
While I don't really care about MW2 or AW I'll chip in my 2 cents worth or words on this issue.
I don't think that PC gamers (at least me) oppose paying for new stuff for a game, as long as it's actually worth the asking price. In this case it is not. That's pretty simple.
And talking about maps, there's the aspect of mapping tools and modding to consider. In all my years of playing games on the PC I've been able to find new maps for my games, made by the community and people who love the games. I, frankly, refuse to pay for a map pack just because Actiblizzion refuses to allow modding on their bland shooter.
I honestly think that the OP has the question all wrong. It's not a matter of PC gamers being stuck up and demanding privileges over our console brethren. It's a matter of console gamers allowing the devs to walk all over them. Console gamers should be demanding modding tools for their games, dedicated servers and free online gaming. That's what you should be doing. Not laughing when Actiblizzion and Ubisoft destroys games.
You should be demanding better games, not calling for PC games to be worse. And for the record, I'll much rather be an elitist than a person screaming for mediocrity out of envy. That's so petty.
I don't think that PC gamers (at least me) oppose paying for new stuff for a game, as long as it's actually worth the asking price. In this case it is not. That's pretty simple.
And talking about maps, there's the aspect of mapping tools and modding to consider. In all my years of playing games on the PC I've been able to find new maps for my games, made by the community and people who love the games. I, frankly, refuse to pay for a map pack just because Actiblizzion refuses to allow modding on their bland shooter.
I honestly think that the OP has the question all wrong. It's not a matter of PC gamers being stuck up and demanding privileges over our console brethren. It's a matter of console gamers allowing the devs to walk all over them. Console gamers should be demanding modding tools for their games, dedicated servers and free online gaming. That's what you should be doing. Not laughing when Actiblizzion and Ubisoft destroys games.
You should be demanding better games, not calling for PC games to be worse. And for the record, I'll much rather be an elitist than a person screaming for mediocrity out of envy. That's so petty.
So it is okay to recognise that a company is run by greed whores who are price gouging but complaining about it is not allowed because, "think of the developers." Developers are not children, actually, with Activision you can't be sure how they are running the business behind closed doors but I think that they have not yet started using child labour.TheComedown said:
I'm tired of this meme to attack PC gamers whenever they complain about anything. If you are a console gamer using this attack then you are honestly nothing more than a useful idiot for these greedy whores, in your words. You should be arguing for raising the level of console games and not getting angry at PC gamers who don't like their level being lowered.
They don't have to play that game. There are plenty of FPS to choose from.
Here's what I want. PC games that can be sold used (DRM is only CD keys and copy protection), proper modding tools for all PC games and dedicated server support for all PC games with multi-player. This is why I rarely buy new games any more.
I am not saying that all console gamers can go to hell, what I am saying is that I am not a console gamer so they can fight their own battles.
I am not saying that all console gamers can go to hell, what I am saying is that I am not a console gamer so they can fight their own battles.
Paying for DLC: Its ok as long as the DLC is worth the cash. 99% of the time, its NOT worth the cash. There is so much shameless milking of money for GARBAGE DLC that its completely devastating. I dont think I've ever paid for DLC and I never will as long as the quality is as it is.
Using a ton of special features/dlc at launch to get people to buy the original is fail. If I buy a game/product I should be able to resell it at whatever price I feel is alright. After all, its MINE. Moving the industry in the direction of "you're not buying a product, you're buying a licence to use it" annoys the hell out of me. Licenses become worthless sooner or later, why the hell should we pay for something like that? And full price? If all I'm buying is a license it should not cost so much.
If a product is good I will buy it, and I will keep it. Because I love the product. If you cant make me love the product you have failed and you dont deserve my money.
Using a ton of special features/dlc at launch to get people to buy the original is fail. If I buy a game/product I should be able to resell it at whatever price I feel is alright. After all, its MINE. Moving the industry in the direction of "you're not buying a product, you're buying a licence to use it" annoys the hell out of me. Licenses become worthless sooner or later, why the hell should we pay for something like that? And full price? If all I'm buying is a license it should not cost so much.
If a product is good I will buy it, and I will keep it. Because I love the product. If you cant make me love the product you have failed and you dont deserve my money.
The Shivering Isles for Oblvion was pretty good. It's like Alice in Wonderland on Acid. It lets you literally become a god. Most of the Fallout 3 DLC was good especially Broken Steel. Anything that gives you more time with the giant jingoistic McCarthyismesque robot is alright in my opinion. The strongholds you can download for Oblivion are also pretty cool although in all fairness, in Morrowind you could build your own for free. Pretty much all of the Bethesda expansions and DLC with the exception of horse armor and those spell books are worth it. As for the horse armor Bethesda more or less admitted it was a dumb idea with that old April Fools day sale where it was twice as expensive but all the other DLC was half off.brumby said:
Does anyone remember when DLC used to be called expansion packs? Was there this much backlash over expansion packs? The way I see it there's good DLC and there's bad DLC. Just like there was good expansion packs and bad expansion packs. It's up to you to decide if they are worth getting or not.
DLC of now is tons different than the Expansion Packs of the old days. DLC now days is barely 4-10 hours long and adds an additional small percentage of the content of the original game. Expansion Packs on the other hand were pretty much like a completely new game, with campaigns equal to or sometimes surpassing the original game. Call of Duty United Offensive is a great example. The UO pack cost roughly half of what CoD1 did, but added new stuff to MP, and a SP campaign the same length of the original, the freaking expansion pack was the same size as the original game.
DLC on the other hand is short, priced the same and generally worthless. Only DLCs that seem worth it now days are GTAIV, Borderlands and Fallout3 as they add significant areas and content to the game (in the EFLC for GTAIV, the disc versions don't even need GTAIV).
Also, from another point of view, DLCs are generally small content anyways. Map packs of yore were called just that and made no allusions to being anything else. In the case of the CoD:WaW map packs, they were charged for on PSN and X360 as those services require a charged fee or to cover the system license fees.
PC on the other hand doesn't have those fees tied to it. The WaW maps would have been charged for on PC, but Intel subsidized the packs in exchange for advertising on the loadscreens, and in this case the charge was for the associated bandwidth for distribution and the fact that a dedicated team produced the packs.
Valve on the other hand, releases content as updates on PC and uses the DLC model for the X360 as that is what Microsoft has as a requirement.
Just Cause 2 now is doing DLC pretty well. They tossed out a free vehicle update and the next two DLCs are weapon/vehicle/item packs for 3$USD. Which is pretty fair pricing considering the art asset creation and coding involved for stuff that simple.
Oh and, Horse Armor, the bane of all platforms and its new cousin the Stellar Steed in WoW, a mount for more than the cost of some games.
DLC on the other hand is short, priced the same and generally worthless. Only DLCs that seem worth it now days are GTAIV, Borderlands and Fallout3 as they add significant areas and content to the game (in the EFLC for GTAIV, the disc versions don't even need GTAIV).
Also, from another point of view, DLCs are generally small content anyways. Map packs of yore were called just that and made no allusions to being anything else. In the case of the CoD:WaW map packs, they were charged for on PSN and X360 as those services require a charged fee or to cover the system license fees.
PC on the other hand doesn't have those fees tied to it. The WaW maps would have been charged for on PC, but Intel subsidized the packs in exchange for advertising on the loadscreens, and in this case the charge was for the associated bandwidth for distribution and the fact that a dedicated team produced the packs.
Valve on the other hand, releases content as updates on PC and uses the DLC model for the X360 as that is what Microsoft has as a requirement.
Just Cause 2 now is doing DLC pretty well. They tossed out a free vehicle update and the next two DLCs are weapon/vehicle/item packs for 3$USD. Which is pretty fair pricing considering the art asset creation and coding involved for stuff that simple.
Oh and, Horse Armor, the bane of all platforms and its new cousin the Stellar Steed in WoW, a mount for more than the cost of some games.
The main points have been said already...
Removal of mod tools, map editors and dedicated server software = no other way to get extra content in the game, other than via buying it as DLC.
Consoles have thier own demons to deal with, namely Sony and MS who demand a portion of the profits in royality fees... and as percentage of free equals nothing they wont be happy to hear the words free content from the publishers.
PCs have no such issues but if the PC platform recieves too much extras the console market may decline, so the the need for DLC in PC games is artificially created.
Same with the Console second hand market, MS and Sony dont recieve royalties for games that get sold second hand, so they are also intrested in destroying that market... hence they aint complaining about the new copy DLC schemes floating about now.
You aint supporting the developers by buying DLC, only publishers... and please try tell me the publishers are poor and struggling to keep food on thier tables.
The moneybags have noted the popularity of a once niche little market and have adjusted the business so it siphons off money from the game makers to the moneybags, and stifled competition by inflating the costs of development out of small independant studios budgets.
Ironically its the Console players that are getting screwed the most, and they are the ones most vocal in defending the industry against naysayers.
They have to pay for content because of the royalties demanded by MS and Sony, they have to buy new maps because the Consoles were never made to allow for creation of content.
One could go as far as to say that modern day consoles are mere PC's with huge limitations on what can be done on them... bet MS would love to deploy a OS to the PC users that restricted what they can do on thier PC's (turn it into a desktop console), but that would give alternative OS's a foot inside the OS market and cost MS more that just a few disgruntled gamers.
There is a light in the PC world at least, indie games. I recommend :
Cave Story
La Maluna
Iji
Dwarf Fortress (for the brave and patiant only)
... just to start you off.
Removal of mod tools, map editors and dedicated server software = no other way to get extra content in the game, other than via buying it as DLC.
Consoles have thier own demons to deal with, namely Sony and MS who demand a portion of the profits in royality fees... and as percentage of free equals nothing they wont be happy to hear the words free content from the publishers.
PCs have no such issues but if the PC platform recieves too much extras the console market may decline, so the the need for DLC in PC games is artificially created.
Same with the Console second hand market, MS and Sony dont recieve royalties for games that get sold second hand, so they are also intrested in destroying that market... hence they aint complaining about the new copy DLC schemes floating about now.
You aint supporting the developers by buying DLC, only publishers... and please try tell me the publishers are poor and struggling to keep food on thier tables.
The moneybags have noted the popularity of a once niche little market and have adjusted the business so it siphons off money from the game makers to the moneybags, and stifled competition by inflating the costs of development out of small independant studios budgets.
Ironically its the Console players that are getting screwed the most, and they are the ones most vocal in defending the industry against naysayers.
They have to pay for content because of the royalties demanded by MS and Sony, they have to buy new maps because the Consoles were never made to allow for creation of content.
One could go as far as to say that modern day consoles are mere PC's with huge limitations on what can be done on them... bet MS would love to deploy a OS to the PC users that restricted what they can do on thier PC's (turn it into a desktop console), but that would give alternative OS's a foot inside the OS market and cost MS more that just a few disgruntled gamers.
There is a light in the PC world at least, indie games. I recommend :
Cave Story
La Maluna
Iji
Dwarf Fortress (for the brave and patiant only)
... just to start you off.
If only this could happen, but as mentioned before until console gamers stop letting themselves getting walked all over this isnt going to happenFlames66 said:
Indeed. I have been proposing for some time that we all band together as gamers regardless of console. The trouble is that Gamers only seem to care about their own console. I only care about the PC, Xbox gamers I know only care about the Xbox and so on. We need to join forces and fight oppression. Hopefully a charismatic leader will emerge to unite us.TheComedown said:If only this could happen, but as mentioned before until console gamers stop letting themselves getting walked all over this isnt going to happenFlames66 said:
Well apart from BC2 I don't play mainstream games, I only really play independent or small PC games, because they are the only ones where I can play and not get that nagging "this was made to make money" feeling in the back of my head.
Seriously, I don't give a s**t whether the developers (much less the PUBLISHERS) have to make money or not, if the game makes me feel like I'm being used then I'm not gonna be playing it. I play games that are created with love ... you know what I mean. Indie games also happen to be the only ones that actually DO something, that take an idea or mechanic as far as it'll go, I'm so sick of games sticking to the middle of the road so they can get the widest audience, how about they actually make something that pushes boundries? I want hardcore games, and the mainstream just doesn't provide that, because people whine and complain because they suck at it or can't understand it in 5 seconds.
In short, I want to play games made for mature people.
Seriously, I don't give a s**t whether the developers (much less the PUBLISHERS) have to make money or not, if the game makes me feel like I'm being used then I'm not gonna be playing it. I play games that are created with love ... you know what I mean. Indie games also happen to be the only ones that actually DO something, that take an idea or mechanic as far as it'll go, I'm so sick of games sticking to the middle of the road so they can get the widest audience, how about they actually make something that pushes boundries? I want hardcore games, and the mainstream just doesn't provide that, because people whine and complain because they suck at it or can't understand it in 5 seconds.
In short, I want to play games made for mature people.
yes this would be good and the leader should differently be a pc gamer (jk)Flames66 said:Indeed. I have been proposing for some time that we all band together as gamers regardless of console. The trouble is that Gamers only seem to care about their own console. I only care about the PC, Xbox gamers I know only care about the Xbox and so on. We need to join forces and fight oppression. Hopefully a charismatic leader will emerge to unite us.TheComedown said:If only this could happen, but as mentioned before until console gamers stop letting themselves getting walked all over this isnt going to happenFlames66 said:
But as long as there is the elitism this wont happen, and many of said elitists are just way to stubborn to see that if banded together the pc could pull out the console out from under the foot of the publishers, instead of just sitting there and just bitching that the consoles are ruining pc games.
what about tf2? that could be considered everything you described and main stream.L-J-F said:
i dont care about the publishers either, but if the developers are doing something good then they deserved to be rewarded for it.
Basically, before this generation of consoles, any extra content on the PC was free and usually used as a marketing tool (see: Unreal Tournament GOTY edition), or worthy of a seperate, optional, expansion pack (see Rome TW Barbarian Invasion and the like).
The difference between Expansion Packs and DLC is that the former is quite a bit longer and slightly more expensive, and a growing amounts of the latter tends to be effectively manditory for multiplayer games. Episodes of Liberty City would be the most recent example of the size of expansion pack we're talking about here. Sure, that may be only 2 DLC, but that would be the size of quite a few Horse Armour-type DLC which is popular these days. Quite frankly, only a few games put any sort of effort into their DLC, and the Stimulus Package is a very good example of bad DLC. To compare MW2 with UT2004, MW2 has 5 maps for $15, while UT2004 had about 6 or so maps (I forget the exact number) for $0.
Meanwhile, the PC gamers are being deprived of modding tools (which have been a tradition since the days of Doom) and the ability to create their own DLC. I suppose this is the heart of the problem: PC gamers used to go to Johnny Internet for their DLC needs and developers sold optional expansion packs (or, in a few rare cases, sold community map packs: see Final Doom). Now the PC gamers are being told that Johnny Internet can't create their own DLC, but the PC gamers must pay $15 for DLC created for the publisher. Oh, and by the way, if you don't buy the DLC, you're going to get kicked out then the game uses the DLC maps. Which will be often. This is a problem, since PC gamers traditionally got told "Right, base game players, go to *this section*. Expansion pack players, go to *that section*. Have fun"
To give credit where it's due, Fallout 3 provides several examples of "good DLC", optional bonus quests for a single player game if you so desire, GTA IV's DLC is basically two different, smaller GTA games, which follow the Expansion Pack Rules for multiplayer, and Just Cause 2 and Killing Floor give Horse Armour type DLC for sensible prices. 75p for a monster truck in a single player game? £1.50 for four characters, safe in the knowledge that you won't be kicked out if you don't buy them and all the proceeds will be split between Valve and Tripwire Interactive, two companies most people will be happy to support?
The difference between Expansion Packs and DLC is that the former is quite a bit longer and slightly more expensive, and a growing amounts of the latter tends to be effectively manditory for multiplayer games. Episodes of Liberty City would be the most recent example of the size of expansion pack we're talking about here. Sure, that may be only 2 DLC, but that would be the size of quite a few Horse Armour-type DLC which is popular these days. Quite frankly, only a few games put any sort of effort into their DLC, and the Stimulus Package is a very good example of bad DLC. To compare MW2 with UT2004, MW2 has 5 maps for $15, while UT2004 had about 6 or so maps (I forget the exact number) for $0.
Meanwhile, the PC gamers are being deprived of modding tools (which have been a tradition since the days of Doom) and the ability to create their own DLC. I suppose this is the heart of the problem: PC gamers used to go to Johnny Internet for their DLC needs and developers sold optional expansion packs (or, in a few rare cases, sold community map packs: see Final Doom). Now the PC gamers are being told that Johnny Internet can't create their own DLC, but the PC gamers must pay $15 for DLC created for the publisher. Oh, and by the way, if you don't buy the DLC, you're going to get kicked out then the game uses the DLC maps. Which will be often. This is a problem, since PC gamers traditionally got told "Right, base game players, go to *this section*. Expansion pack players, go to *that section*. Have fun"
To give credit where it's due, Fallout 3 provides several examples of "good DLC", optional bonus quests for a single player game if you so desire, GTA IV's DLC is basically two different, smaller GTA games, which follow the Expansion Pack Rules for multiplayer, and Just Cause 2 and Killing Floor give Horse Armour type DLC for sensible prices. 75p for a monster truck in a single player game? £1.50 for four characters, safe in the knowledge that you won't be kicked out if you don't buy them and all the proceeds will be split between Valve and Tripwire Interactive, two companies most people will be happy to support?
Yes, I read your post, thank you very much. Legit arguments through and through.Arcticflame said:
So your tip to every PC gamer is to stubbornly refuse to buy any kind of additional content that isn't free? Then we will look forward for an eternity of unfinished games since it's common knowledge today that you are expected to buy half of a game for full-price and then expand it with additional content. It's a pity that Valve and Dice seems like the only ones that got their senses right in this mess but at least they release good games so I'll think I make due.
The problem is of course that the big companies don't want to innovate, they make heaps of money just if they focus on mainstream. As everyone made damn sure to prove is that the Stimulus Package was terribly overpriced and it still became the most sold DLC of all time (Kanyee West pun not intended). Why change something that sells great even if the customer get's screwed over. All we can do is to pray that Valves vision and as you so accurate described it spreads. Though who will listen to a bunch of PC gamers nagging, they all see us as pirating scums anyway.
And games gotten worser over the past years? Feelin' bit nostalgic are we?