This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Which would you rather have? (DLC Discussion/Hypothetical Situation/ Poll)

#1GeminiX7Posted 3/7/2014 1:12:56 PM
Which scenario would you prefer? - Results (56 votes)
Option A: Up the cost of games to $79.99 but all DLC is now free and included.
30.36% (17 votes)
17
Option B: Things stay just the way they are, for better or worse
55.36% (31 votes)
31
Option C: Base price of games decrease/DLC, Season Passes, and F2P models become the industry standard.
14.29% (8 votes)
8
This poll is now closed.
Okay, I'm asking this as a general question as I'm currently in between when it comes to the subject of DLC.

On the one hand, I realize that the cost of purchasing games has largely remained about the same while just about everything else has increased, meaning the devs are spending more time and money and recieving much less compensation for it, and that games on the whole are technically cheaper than they've ever been if you count for inflation.

That said, many of the increasingly common practices of some content makers, like Season Passes and on-disc DLC are simply despicable. Being sold a game piecemeal is bad enough, but when you are expected to spend the full price of the game, then pay nearly the same amount for all of the "extra" content(I'm talking things like Map Packs and extra characters, not so much aesthetics) that was clearly made during the production of the base game, it's enough to make anyone doom and gloom on the state of the gaming industry(and I'm usually annoyed by all the pessimism).

So, I thought I'd ask a hypothetical situation. Would you rather:

A. Get rid of DLC, but raise the average cost of games to $79.99. Expansion-pack level DLC (think Shivering Isles or Old World Blues rather than Horse Armor) would still exist, and free to play models could still exist as well, but everything would go back to "The way they were". Aesthetic and character DLC would return to being unlockables and such, Future DLC not on the level of Expansions of the game would still come out, but would be free. The price of games would increase to $80 but there would still be cheaper games(scaled accordingly). For the sake of the argument not devolving to doomsaying speculation, we'll pretend its a perfect world and companies won't try to abuse this - no more Season Passes, no Online passes, no more little extra charges for things that were not charged in the past. Also, the amount of extra content(or base content) would not decrease due to loss of incentive.

B. Things stay the way they are. The price of games don't increase or decrease, the DLC system remains largely the same, and we keep on trucking along the way we are going.

C. The prices of games are reduced even further(20-30 for standard releases) and DLC is increased/the free-to-play model becomes a standard for the industry as a whole, with all of the good or bad that comes with it.

Which would you guys rather have? (Note: Option A's $80 is just an arbitrary number I chose to represent what I think games would cost if they didn't stay the same price for many generations. If the actual number would be higher, use that instead)
---
NNID/PSN/GT: GeminiX7
FC: 0748-3100-6541 [FS: Tangelia, Ivysaur, and Maractus]
#2AWarAmp84Posted 3/7/2014 1:39:56 PM
B. At least this way we have an option.
---
Toronto Maple Leafs fan for life. Best game of all time: Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Gamefaqs mods are a joke.
#3bigphil2003Posted 3/7/2014 1:55:37 PM
Surprised so many people vote for A, there are loads of games I play but never touch the DLC so why would you want to pay for it up front?
Also, if you'd paid up front there just wouldn't be an incentive for the devs to make good DLC.
---
Rest In Peace Stretch - We miss you homie
#4pothocketPosted 3/7/2014 2:04:04 PM
AWarAmp84 posted...
B. At least this way we have an option.


C actually gives the consumer the most options and would be best for both sides (developer and player)
#5fiasco86Posted 3/7/2014 2:07:40 PM
B. Stay

Just fix completion calculation algorithm to only include DLC you've purchased.
---
Check out the Game Conquerors on YouTube and let me know what you think! Constructive criticism welcome.
http://www.youtube.com/IveConqueredThatGame
#6GeminiX7(Topic Creator)Posted 3/7/2014 2:27:06 PM
bigphil2003 posted...
Surprised so many people vote for A, there are loads of games I play but never touch the DLC so why would you want to pay for it up front?
Also, if you'd paid up front there just wouldn't be an incentive for the devs to make good DLC.



I said for the sake of argument to assume this wouldn't be the case. Or at least for the price of admission you'd get the most complete version of the game possible.

Also, for anyone who thinks the idea of paying $80 for a game is ludicrous when "They've never cost that much", think about this for a moment:

The minimum wage for the US in 91 was $3.80/hr. It's now almost $8/hr, more than double what it was. Games during that era ran between $40 - $80 (costs weren't really standardized then - a major reason disc games became more popular) and if you paid for those games today, with inflation, they would cost somewhere around $80-$142 per title (as of 2012 at least). Games nowadays, on the other hand, only cost around $60, which would be the equivalent of paying around $35.00 back then.
---
NNID/PSN/GT: GeminiX7
FC: 0748-3100-6541 [FS: Tangelia, Ivysaur, and Maractus]
#7SheepinatorPosted 3/7/2014 2:43:07 PM
Oh look, it's another terrible gamefaqs poll. First, the options are biased. There are two options for gaming to be cheaper than now, and one for it to remain the same. Second, this:

Being sold a game piecemeal is bad enough, but when you are expected to spend the full price of the game, then pay nearly the same amount for all of the "extra" content(I'm talking things like Map Packs and extra characters, not so much aesthetics) that was clearly made during the production of the base game, it's enough to make anyone doom and gloom on the state of the gaming industry

I've played hundreds of games on 360 and PS3, and I've never seen a single game where I'm "expected" to pay up to $120, nor have I seen any game where all that content was "clearly made" during the production of the game. So the final Borderlands 2 DLC and the last BLOPS2 map packs, were finished a year ago, is what you're saying?

ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) must rise because the cost to make the games keeps rising, and gamer expectations keep rising, and GameStop keeps taking billions from gamers and not returning it to the industry, and more powerful consoles means more content required to fill them, and so on. So take your pick between price rises for all, or optional DLC and MT.

GeminiX7 posted...
The minimum wage for the US in 91 was $3.80/hr. It's now almost $8/hr, more than double what it was. Games during that era ran between $40 - $80 (costs weren't really standardized then - a major reason disc games became more popular) and if you paid for those games today, with inflation, they would cost somewhere around $80-$142 per title (as of 2012 at least). Games nowadays, on the other hand, only cost around $60, which would be the equivalent of paying around $35.00 back then.

True, and back then a game could easily be made by a handful of people inside a year. Now it might be a team of hundreds for years, with the salary increases you'd expect after 20 years too.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#8GeminiX7(Topic Creator)Posted 3/7/2014 2:53:18 PM
Sheepinator posted...
Oh look, it's another terrible gamefaqs poll. First, the options are biased. There are two options for gaming to be cheaper than now, and one for it to remain the same. Second, this:

Being sold a game piecemeal is bad enough, but when you are expected to spend the full price of the game, then pay nearly the same amount for all of the "extra" content(I'm talking things like Map Packs and extra characters, not so much aesthetics) that was clearly made during the production of the base game, it's enough to make anyone doom and gloom on the state of the gaming industry

I've played hundreds of games on 360 and PS3, and I've never seen a single game where I'm "expected" to pay up to $120, nor have I seen any game where all that content was "clearly made" during the production of the game. So the final Borderlands 2 DLC and the last BLOPS2 map packs, were finished a year ago, is what you're saying?

ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) must rise because the cost to make the games keeps rising, and gamer expectations keep rising, and GameStop keeps taking billions from gamers and not returning it to the industry, and more powerful consoles means more content required to fill them, and so on. So take your pick between price rises for all, or optional DLC and MT.

GeminiX7 posted...
The minimum wage for the US in 91 was $3.80/hr. It's now almost $8/hr, more than double what it was. Games during that era ran between $40 - $80 (costs weren't really standardized then - a major reason disc games became more popular) and if you paid for those games today, with inflation, they would cost somewhere around $80-$142 per title (as of 2012 at least). Games nowadays, on the other hand, only cost around $60, which would be the equivalent of paying around $35.00 back then.

True, and back then a game could easily be made by a handful of people inside a year. Now it might be a team of hundreds for years, with the salary increases you'd expect after 20 years too.


1. Terrible poll? How do you figure? There's no bias in the options, A is essentially taking the old school approach to getting a "complete" game for the inflation adjusted price. B is keeping things exactly as they are, and C is lowering/completely removing the base cost of a game with microtransactions being the focus on revenue. Warframe would be, IMO, an example of a game that does it well.

2. I don't hate all DLC. I actually regularly buy DLC in most cases. But in many cases, like with the CoD and Battlefield series, yes, buying the DLC is largely required to get the full experience of the game (Getting locked out of playlists and the like because you are missing maps) and the cost of these season passes costing almost the equivalent of the base game itself with no garuntee that later DLC will be worth the asking price, but nonetheless required. This also goes for things like P2W models some F2P games employ. Sure, the game is free, and you can still technically enjoy the game without being "the best" but being neutered because you are expected to shell out extra cash just to be able to compete isn't reasonable(well, at least for games that aren't completely F2P)
---
NNID/PSN/GT: GeminiX7
FC: 0748-3100-6541 [FS: Tangelia, Ivysaur, and Maractus]
#9SheepinatorPosted 3/7/2014 3:01:33 PM
GeminiX7 posted...
1. Terrible poll? How do you figure? There's no bias in the options, A is essentially taking the old school approach to getting a "complete" game for the inflation adjusted price. B is keeping things exactly as they are, and C is lowering/completely removing the base cost of a game with microtransactions being the focus on revenue. Warframe would be, IMO, an example of a game that does it well.

A - is the equivalent of base game plus 4-5 map packs for CoD, BF, BL2, for $80 instead of the current $110. You want free content for a year after release, for a price increase which is basically just inflation factored into the original retail game.
C - some games already have F2P models, like ME3, I think Forza 5, and you're asking them to be halved in price (never mind inflation, right!).

GeminiX7 posted...
buying the DLC is largely required to get the full experience of the game (Getting locked out of playlists and the like because you are missing maps) and the cost of these season passes costing almost the equivalent of the base game itself with no garuntee that later DLC will be worth the asking price, but nonetheless required.

You're whining that a map pack comes out and you either can't play it, or you have to buy it.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#10GeminiX7(Topic Creator)Posted 3/7/2014 3:34:21 PM
Sheepinator posted...
GeminiX7 posted...
1. Terrible poll? How do you figure? There's no bias in the options, A is essentially taking the old school approach to getting a "complete" game for the inflation adjusted price. B is keeping things exactly as they are, and C is lowering/completely removing the base cost of a game with microtransactions being the focus on revenue. Warframe would be, IMO, an example of a game that does it well.

A - is the equivalent of base game plus 4-5 map packs for CoD, BF, BL2, for $80 instead of the current $110. You want free content for a year after release, for a price increase which is basically just inflation factored into the original retail game.
C - some games already have F2P models, like ME3, I think Forza 5, and you're asking them to be halved in price (never mind inflation, right!).

GeminiX7 posted...
buying the DLC is largely required to get the full experience of the game (Getting locked out of playlists and the like because you are missing maps) and the cost of these season passes costing almost the equivalent of the base game itself with no garuntee that later DLC will be worth the asking price, but nonetheless required.

You're whining that a map pack comes out and you either can't play it, or you have to buy it.


ME3 is F2P? I'm assuming ME3 is Mass Effect.

Also, I obviously gave three choices, and your opinions seem to coincide with B, so whats the issue? You aren't arguing for your point, or even questioning the validity of other points, but are instead trying to fight the idea that any opinion other than your own is wrong and there shouldn't even be a discussion of the issue.

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with DLC for the most part, and yes, I believe Season Passes and on-disc DLC are not good for the consumer or the industry on the whole. Honestly though, aside from some exceptions, I actually lean towards B(or A) personally. But I am trying to present the top three arguments I see from people who have thoughts on the issue while not completely screwing the developers either.

If you have no problem with the way things are, choose option B, speak your peace and move on(or stay awhile and debate), but the whole "How dare you have different opinions and values than me!?!" thing is starting to get old.
---
NNID/PSN/GT: GeminiX7
FC: 0748-3100-6541 [FS: Tangelia, Ivysaur, and Maractus]