The "Don't like it, don't buy it" attitude towards add-ons in games is stupid...

#31robat223Posted 4/28/2014 6:42:50 AM
Rancid_Skank posted...
robat223 posted...
I was definitely on the train of "if some people end up buying it then it will get worse for all of us soon." I was right. The slippery slope fallacy may be a fallacy, but hey sometimes it actually does turn out that way.


This is very subjective.

Using FPS games for example, many people like to play them long term - a couple of years or more. Considering many FPS games ship with 12 maps (or less at times) people are generally crying out for new content after a few months.

If the dev team creates and drip feeds extra maps in packs of 4 over an 18 month period after launch it's going to keep these people interested, keep them playing, and attract new players as the title is obviously being well supported.

Then throw in a season pass to get all these new maps at a reduced rate (with sometimes even a few nice extras - see BF4) - how can this be considered a bad thing by anyone?

Even microtransactions can have their place - I recently went back to a game from XBLA that I bought years ago and bored of at the time, but now was revisiting it looking to 'complete' it. The game itself probably cost me about 4 quid when I got it, but when I went back to it I saw that the in game store had been updated with loads of additional weapons and costumes after launch that added in game benefits. I could have carried on playing and finished the game with the base content, but for an extra 3 or so I got a load of new items AND near unlimited lives that meant it was far more fun when I played through it with a friend online - again, how is this a bad thing? It kept me interested years after release, and gave the devs more income.

I have money, I want to spend it on games and game content. This mindset bleeds into the 'great Capcom debate'. Why should the vocal minority who cry on the internet because Capcom have released a new iteration of Street Fighter dictate what I want? I like Street Fighter. I particularly like Street Fighter IV. If they care to throw an update out for 15 with a few extra characters, some new moves, and a few balance tweaks then I will throw my money back at them and enjoy it. Why should that then bother anyone else?

The moaners in this thread can keep playing their handful of games with no DLC/microtransactions and their principles (as obviously, with all the crying and verbal boycotts they do online they wouldn't be hypocritical and go out and buy games that resort to these 'shady' practices anyway would they?), and I'll carry on with my 250+ 360 games (to date) I have on my gamer card, along with my 4 versions of Final Fantasy 4, 3 versions of SFIV, season passes for Bioshock Infinite and Battlefield 4, and eagerly await new Titanfall maps without them.


Well you used to get free DLC maps with your FPS games for the first year or two when you got tired. Halo 2 springs to mind. Even then the paid DLC maps would eventually become free. Again because people started buying it started costing everyone money. If everyone had the discipline I had then there would still be more free things. It is kind of like the prisoners dilemma.
---
Gamertag= Robat93
PSN= thegreatusurper
#32Rancid_SkankPosted 4/28/2014 6:48:42 AM
robat223 posted...
Rancid_Skank posted...
robat223 posted...
I was definitely on the train of "if some people end up buying it then it will get worse for all of us soon." I was right. The slippery slope fallacy may be a fallacy, but hey sometimes it actually does turn out that way.


This is very subjective.

Using FPS games for example, many people like to play them long term - a couple of years or more. Considering many FPS games ship with 12 maps (or less at times) people are generally crying out for new content after a few months.

If the dev team creates and drip feeds extra maps in packs of 4 over an 18 month period after launch it's going to keep these people interested, keep them playing, and attract new players as the title is obviously being well supported.

Then throw in a season pass to get all these new maps at a reduced rate (with sometimes even a few nice extras - see BF4) - how can this be considered a bad thing by anyone?

Even microtransactions can have their place - I recently went back to a game from XBLA that I bought years ago and bored of at the time, but now was revisiting it looking to 'complete' it. The game itself probably cost me about 4 quid when I got it, but when I went back to it I saw that the in game store had been updated with loads of additional weapons and costumes after launch that added in game benefits. I could have carried on playing and finished the game with the base content, but for an extra 3 or so I got a load of new items AND near unlimited lives that meant it was far more fun when I played through it with a friend online - again, how is this a bad thing? It kept me interested years after release, and gave the devs more income.

I have money, I want to spend it on games and game content. This mindset bleeds into the 'great Capcom debate'. Why should the vocal minority who cry on the internet because Capcom have released a new iteration of Street Fighter dictate what I want? I like Street Fighter. I particularly like Street Fighter IV. If they care to throw an update out for 15 with a few extra characters, some new moves, and a few balance tweaks then I will throw my money back at them and enjoy it. Why should that then bother anyone else?

The moaners in this thread can keep playing their handful of games with no DLC/microtransactions and their principles (as obviously, with all the crying and verbal boycotts they do online they wouldn't be hypocritical and go out and buy games that resort to these 'shady' practices anyway would they?), and I'll carry on with my 250+ 360 games (to date) I have on my gamer card, along with my 4 versions of Final Fantasy 4, 3 versions of SFIV, season passes for Bioshock Infinite and Battlefield 4, and eagerly await new Titanfall maps without them.


Well you used to get free DLC maps with your FPS games for the first year or two when you got tired. Halo 2 springs to mind. Even then the paid DLC maps would eventually become free. Again because people started buying it started costing everyone money. If everyone had the discipline I had then there would still be more free things. It is kind of like the prisoners dilemma.


I paid for Halo 2 maps when they came out. They were made free later down the line. Similar with certain Halo 3 map packs - paid at first, free a few years later when the player base dropped off.

Even so, where's the incentive for developers to make additional content for free? maybe if a game is failing it would be a way to boost purchases of the main game, but otherwise why would they? We would still be in the realm of Mortal Kombat 2 with a handful of maps for the duration of it's existence.

If anything, it's progress.
---
GT: RancidSkank
PSN: Rancid_UK
#33robat223Posted 4/28/2014 6:55:08 AM(edited)


I paid for Halo 2 maps when they came out. They were made free later down the line. Similar with certain Halo 3 map packs - paid at first, free a few years later when the player base dropped off.

Even so, where's the incentive for developers to make additional content for free? maybe if a game is failing it would be a way to boost purchases of the main game, but otherwise why would they? We would still be in the realm of Mortal Kombat 2 with a handful of maps for the duration of it's existence.

If anything, it's progress.


The incentive for the developers is clear. If you treat your customers well in Halo 2 then they are more likely to speak well of it (increasing Halo 2 sales) and perhaps more importantly are more likely to buy Halo 3. People wonder why Capcom is kind of struggling... well just maybe you took your customers for granted one too many times. SimCity sold well despite its PR disaster, but how will the Sims 4 do?

Also you are simply incorrect with Halo 2 and Halo 3. Both games had at least 3 free maps released over time, and they were free at all times. You did not pay for all of the Halo 2 and Halo 3 maps.

---
Gamertag= Robat93
PSN= thegreatusurper
#34Bellum_SacrumPosted 4/28/2014 6:56:06 AM
If you weren't buying those TC, season passes would not exist. But there you are, buying DLC and whatnot that you don't like.

It is of course other people's fault, amirite?
---
"Now go ahead and leap ignorantly to the defense of wealthy game companies who don't know or care about you."
#35Rancid_SkankPosted 4/28/2014 7:06:15 AM
robat223 posted...


I paid for Halo 2 maps when they came out. They were made free later down the line. Similar with certain Halo 3 map packs - paid at first, free a few years later when the player base dropped off.

Even so, where's the incentive for developers to make additional content for free? maybe if a game is failing it would be a way to boost purchases of the main game, but otherwise why would they? We would still be in the realm of Mortal Kombat 2 with a handful of maps for the duration of it's existence.

If anything, it's progress.


The incentive for the developers is clear. If you treat your customers well in Halo 2 then they are more likely to speak well of it (increasing Halo 2 sales) and perhaps more importantly are more likely to buy Halo 3. People wonder why Capcom is kind of struggling... well just maybe you took your customers for granted one too many times. SimCity sold well despite its PR disaster, but how will the Sims 4 do?


I've already established that the maps weren't free for Halo 2, they were made free later down the line, but you had to buy them at release. People didn't buy Halo 3 because they heard their friends got some free maps in the past - that would be ridiculous. They bought it because Halo 2 was considered the pinnacle of console based online multiplayer FPS games, and knew Halo 3 would offer a similar experience.

Capcom are 'struggling', yet are responsible for some of the biggest gaming franchises in modern gaming history. People hated RE5, yet more than 5m went out and bought RE6. Regardless of all the fanboy tears, similar numbers will go out and buy 7 I'd wager, and that's just one of their franchises. They may be struggling by comparison to past sales, but the new consoles, new game releases in their franchises, and subsidiaries from DLC and transactions will still see them through no issue.

How will the 'Sims 4' do? It will have massive sales and be hugely profitable. Again, you're confusing the vocal minority on the internet with the wider gaming public. Many Sims 4 players won't even play other games and not only will they buy the vanilla game, if my wife is anything to go by they will also buy 12 expansion packs and countless digital content like daft little dresses or sinks, throwing even more money at EA, just because they want to.
---
GT: RancidSkank
PSN: Rancid_UK
#36Blade_KirbyPosted 4/28/2014 7:12:05 AM
This topic is stupid.

"Don't like it don't buy it" is the EXACT response consumers should be using when they don't like a business' practices.

Speak with your wallet, move on with your life, and let others do the same.
---
"Ok when Terramorphous dies we're all gonna whip our ***** out and whoever has the biggest one gets all the loot." - Gnarrkill
#37RockguyKevPosted 4/28/2014 7:14:05 AM
I've only bought DLC for 3 games - Borderlands 2, Oblivion and Skyrim. I'd like to personally thank everyone who made that possible because in all three cases they greatly increased the game experience.

Come to think of it, maybe I bought a COD map pack once. Crash on MW2 was a pack wasn't it? If so, I also thank myself for making this possible.

In other words, I have no problem with DLC or microtransactions or locked content or any other nonsense you kids are whining about these days because I'm an adult and realize nobody owes me anything.
#38avidgamer4Posted 4/28/2014 7:15:22 AM
People who work vote with their wallets. People who sponge off their parents make topics like this because their allowance is $10 a week.
#39kidwgmPosted 4/28/2014 7:15:49 AM
leathelj posted...
Don't like it don't buy it. It is a legit arguement same as vote with your wallet. Don't like kinect don't buy xb1. Simple as that it applys to every thing.


Basically this. I enjoy purchasing some additional content because its worth it to me. However, if its not worth it to you I understand then you can simply not buy it. What's the matter of gamers having a choice?
---
Currently Playing: LEGO The Hobbit, PvZ and Titanfall.
(Owner: gaming PC, 360, PS3, 3DS, Wii, WiiU, Xbox One)
#40NairodmaticPosted 4/28/2014 7:15:58 AM
Rancid_Skank posted...
Nairodmatic posted...

I don't do any of those. I'll throw in a few more:

Don't pay more to play multiplayer on consoles.

Don't buy digital titles.

Don't pay more than $29.99 for new games.

As a matter of fact, I buy almost every title used because these games aren't worth $59.99. This industry is not exempt, and should not be exempt from the used market.


I'd love to see your gamercard... It must have been a fairly barren gaming generation for you considering most of the big AAA releases have DLC and multiplayer, and the XBLA had some of the best games all gen.

What did you play, Perfect Dark Zero for 8 years? :/


Whoops, didn't realize this was an Xbox forum. I won't start "hatin" on MS though, I'll just say their consoles aren't for me. :)

I actually took the time to add (most) of the games that I own on the collections feature of this website. Just click my username.

I'd like to think that I have a few AAA's-that I bought used-and I enjoyed almost all of them, too.

I'm a solo gamer. I *rarely* even do couch co-op. DLC, f*** that.

...You know what, as long as the DLC doesn't "affect the main storyline", then whatever. I still won't buy it, though.

Oh yeah, never played Perfect Dark Zero. I have PD on 64 though. Good game.
---
Gaming since '82. Born in Detroit. Raised in Detroit. Live in Detroit. Play in Detroit. Work in Detroit. I am Detroit.