You know what ? I've been playing games since the era of NES,and every development team that takes itself seriously would always try to make their game as complete as possible.Sabiancym said:
There where times were developers where creating unlockable levels,scenarios,guns,and modes for their games to make people stay interested after they finish the main single player mode once,and there was a battle between developers on who will add more content to their games.
And once you would buy a game with a full price,you would get the full game.
Fast forward to the current generation.
The current generation brought as Achievements and DLCs.
These are two systems that both work together to achieve one goal: more money with less work for developers.
The achievements system is a cheap alternative to replace game content with just some points.
Instead of paying programmers and designers for days to add lots of extra content that would be included in the game,now they just write 3-4 lines of code and they give as achievements.
And with the spread of DSL they found another way to make money.
So actually all the extra stuff that would be added in full games before 2006, are now sold separately for extra money.
That means that we end up to pay double price to gain the content we would get 10 years ago with half the money,yay!!
For every 60$ you pay to buy a game,Nintendo,Microsoft,or Sony get 10$
They get dozens of millions each year by the games being sold alone. They are super rich already. They lower the price of their consoles to get more people to buy them so they can get more money from game sales. It's a marketing tactic.
Being adult means that you also have more things to spend on,instead of just making more money. In older times there where more innovational ideas and the overall content games had was more. People would buy a game just for looking at its cover 'cause they new that in the worst case scenario they could sell the game to somebody else if the game was really bad.
Nowdays games have become shorter,and developers AFRAID in general to try new things,let alone that some are rushing their games so much that actual products end up being worse than betas..
Someone has to read many reviews,and being extra careful before buying a game because he doesn't want to throw his money in to a trash bin.
And developers only make things worse by applying these "measures against used games" like Bioware did with Mass Effect 2 and the Cerberus Network.
If you want to spend your money on something,you want to know that this something will be good,and if you are not sure and you are taking a risk,you want to make sure that in case the risk turns bad,you loose the less possible.
NO,that's not true. If gamers were wiling to spend more,the only things developers would do would be to cut even more content out of their games since there would be no penalty.
I remember in the age of Atari consoles there where games costing 80$ and they where crap.
By gaming technology you mean something new,like the motion controls Nintendo introduced us ?
The fact that we don't get innovational things like these that often isn't because corporations lack the money to invest on something like that,but is will that they lack.
People called Nintendo crazy back in 2006 when they said "we're going to utilize a new way of controls".
They are just so afraid to take risks..
They have a proven working formula and they don't want to do something never ever done before because they are so much scared that it could flop.
And a bigger cost wouldn't add anything to how long a game lasts either.
Bethesda managed to make a game so huge like Oblivion and sell it at 60$ at first year,and 25$ the year after,and still make money out of it.
They where working for 5 years on it,and they got paid enough to buy id software and the rights for Fallout.They made enough money,and they can make huge deep games already.
A higher price would only mean less costumers,and that's something they don't want.
