Ubisoft: "Players are more open to DLC now."

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Xbox One
  3. Ubisoft: "Players are more open to DLC now."

User Info: metroidman92

metroidman92
3 years ago#31
LooksLikeRain posted...
SigmaLongshot posted...
LooksLikeRain posted...
I fully support DLC. It's the only reason game prices haven't gone up in ages, yet they are increasing more expensive to make.


You are increasingly becoming one of my most-revered posters on here. You actually have a level head when you comment.

If you appreciate basic arithmetic, you'll appreciate that income must defeat expenditure in order to justify the expenditure's existence. If you get a grand a month, you can't live in a two grand a month apartment. Easy.

In terms of game development it's a bit like this - people expect to pay forty-five quid for a game because that's what they've paid for the past seven years (last generation). The only problem is the expenditure has more than tripled in the field of AAA development. Let me reiterate that - tripled.

Corners are cut. Prices are raised. Content is tacked on. But the truth is simple - profits are getting very, VERY lean. Those DLC packs you hate? They're not bringing the Titanic back up, they're slowing the descent.

Personally, I calculated it, and based on what I get paid (in my low-to-middling position) to develop games, and we're looking at, like, £8,950,000 just for the studio to pay staff for a year, now.

The sheer amount of staff and man-hours it takes to produce a AAA title is astronomical now.


I hear you, man. It's common sense. I like to use the cheeseburger analogy for DLC haters. They've been buying cheeseburgers for a dollar. Now they want bacon, fries, and a soda with the cheeseburger....but still want to pay just a dollar for it.


When you take off the bun, condiments, and cheese and charge extra for them, yeah I have a problem.

Things like unlockable skins, levels, and weapons shouldn't cost extra.

If the devs want to add MORE skins, maps, and weapons later, fine. I'll pay for em. But don't take core content out just to make it paid DLC. That's wrong and just a s*** move all around.
Now go drink 'til it feels like you did the right thing.
My name is Oberyn Martell. You killed my sister, prepare to die.

User Info: ComradeRyan

ComradeRyan
3 years ago#32
The only DLC I find acceptable are expansion packs. I will never give into nickle-and-diming DLC practices.
We must reverse Citizens United, Restore our Democracy, and Save the Republic. Join the Fight for Free and Fair Elections in America!
http://www.wolf-pac.com

User Info: AzaneAzer

AzaneAzer
3 years ago#33
I look at games like Super Mario, if world 2-8 were DLC and cost more than World 1, but World 1 still sold for a full game, it wouldn't be genius marketing, it'd be exploiting.

And when sales of said game didnt meet expectations because of exploitation, PEOPLE MUST BE PIRATING OUR GAMES!

User Info: scoobydoobydont

scoobydoobydont
3 years ago#34
I'm more open to waiting a year or so for the GOTY edition.
"Why do you expect me to be rational? I'm a troll..." -Izraeil
http://i.imgur.com/8LUhEFG.jpg http://i.imgur.com/kVabIeU.jpg

User Info: Syn_Vengeance

Syn_Vengeance
3 years ago#35
Capcom said the same thing, look at them now lol.
Currently Playing: COD: Ghosts, Battlefield 4.
Waiting For: COD: Advanced Warfare, BF: Hardline, The Division, Rainbow Six Seige.

User Info: AzaneAzer

AzaneAzer
3 years ago#36
Syn_Vengeance posted...
Capcom said the same thing, look at them now lol.


Capcom took a step over the line in the sand, Ubi has been dangling over it for years, and EA is just over it, but is too large or fat to move immediately.

User Info: N3xtG3nGam3r

N3xtG3nGam3r
3 years ago#37
SigmaLongshot posted...
LooksLikeRain posted...
I fully support DLC. It's the only reason game prices haven't gone up in ages, yet they are increasing more expensive to make.


You are increasingly becoming one of my most-revered posters on here. You actually have a level head when you comment.

If you appreciate basic arithmetic, you'll appreciate that income must defeat expenditure in order to justify the expenditure's existence. If you get a grand a month, you can't live in a two grand a month apartment. Easy.

In terms of game development it's a bit like this - people expect to pay forty-five quid for a game because that's what they've paid for the past seven years (last generation). The only problem is the expenditure has more than tripled in the field of AAA development. Let me reiterate that - tripled.

Corners are cut. Prices are raised. Content is tacked on. But the truth is simple - profits are getting very, VERY lean. Those DLC packs you hate? They're not bringing the Titanic back up, they're slowing the descent.

Personally, I calculated it, and based on what I get paid (in my low-to-middling position) to develop games, and we're looking at, like, £8,950,000 just for the studio to pay staff for a year, now.

The sheer amount of staff and man-hours it takes to produce a AAA title is astronomical now.


While i agree with most of what you said, there are still things that dont add up (and i dont mean numbers).

I dont get how a small team, of say--10 people, begin to make a game, get it kickstarted to the sum of less than 100,000$ (probably actually half of that) and make a quality game.

There are kickstarted games on Steam that are offering alpha access, that have very small teams, and while they arent AAA quality, i can tell you that adding another 20-30 people wouldnt make it that way. But time will.

These AAA companies take less and less time to make these AAA games, and thats why its so expensive. If they stuck with a smaller, more devoted team, with more specialized skillsets, we would get more quality games. I'd rather CoD have one developer, that releases a game every 3 years or more, than 3 different ones releasing each year.

Maybe im wrong, but it seems to me that games used to be much better quality when its a small team of devoted developers that all share the exact same idea about what they want to deliver. Also, publishers have added to the ever growing issue of finance when it comes to getting your games released. Not all publishers, but EA and Activision dont care about quality games, just taking the developers money for their creation, especially when its a successful one.
ASUS p8h61-M (Rev 3.0) | Intel CORE i3 2100 | 8GB Dual-Channel DDr3 | 500GB HDD | 600w PSU | nVidia GTX 770 4GB GDDr5

User Info: AzaneAzer

AzaneAzer
3 years ago#38
N3xtG3nGam3r posted...
Maybe im wrong, but it seems to me that games used to be much better quality when its a small team of devoted developers that all share the exact same idea about what they want to deliver. Also, publishers have added to the ever growing issue of finance when it comes to getting your games released. Not all publishers, but EA and Activision dont care about quality games, just taking the developers money for their creation, especially when its a successful one.


To be fair, it is the Publisher's job to take a product and extract as much money from it's install base as possible. It's why the most successful publishers are often the most hated, because they use scummy tactics to get rich.

Yearly games with a copy pasted engine are much cheaper to make than games from scratch, it's no wonder why you see so many Madden Syndrome series' now.

That being said, Game Development is going up heavily because of Waste too, you hit on it a bit, that Kickstarter titles cn push out games in ~a year for 1% of a AAA game's price, and the quality hit usually shows itself in the Graphics department alone, games like Binding of Isaac cost nearly nothing beyond the Developer's Labor and Creativity to produce, but got core gameplay down so perfectly that the hand drawn graphic style didn't stop it from going platinum, and the other Indie gold mine example is Minecraft, sporting graphics that are worse than NES quality, but getting simple gameplay perfect.

The biggest hole I've seen has been advertising though, Tomb Raider reboot outsold it's original series, shattered sales records over one of the Ps1's iconic series', game was a financial disaster because they spent more money on advertising and "hyping" the title than they did on the entire series combined, they're only recouping losses now, because of the cheap ports and steam moving cheap copies off for PC.

Executives don't look at the right reasons most of the time... They label all of the reasons for failure as Piracy, and forget it.

User Info: lunchbox2042

lunchbox2042
3 years ago#39
DLC is fine as long as it adds to the game and is released post launch. I'm not about paying for content locked on the disc or day 1 updates.

User Info: LooksLikeRain

LooksLikeRain
3 years ago#40
metroidman92 posted...
LooksLikeRain posted...
SigmaLongshot posted...
LooksLikeRain posted...
I fully support DLC. It's the only reason game prices haven't gone up in ages, yet they are increasing more expensive to make.


You are increasingly becoming one of my most-revered posters on here. You actually have a level head when you comment.

If you appreciate basic arithmetic, you'll appreciate that income must defeat expenditure in order to justify the expenditure's existence. If you get a grand a month, you can't live in a two grand a month apartment. Easy.

In terms of game development it's a bit like this - people expect to pay forty-five quid for a game because that's what they've paid for the past seven years (last generation). The only problem is the expenditure has more than tripled in the field of AAA development. Let me reiterate that - tripled.

Corners are cut. Prices are raised. Content is tacked on. But the truth is simple - profits are getting very, VERY lean. Those DLC packs you hate? They're not bringing the Titanic back up, they're slowing the descent.

Personally, I calculated it, and based on what I get paid (in my low-to-middling position) to develop games, and we're looking at, like, £8,950,000 just for the studio to pay staff for a year, now.

The sheer amount of staff and man-hours it takes to produce a AAA title is astronomical now.


I hear you, man. It's common sense. I like to use the cheeseburger analogy for DLC haters. They've been buying cheeseburgers for a dollar. Now they want bacon, fries, and a soda with the cheeseburger....but still want to pay just a dollar for it.


When you take off the bun, condiments, and cheese and charge extra for them, yeah I have a problem.

Things like unlockable skins, levels, and weapons shouldn't cost extra.

If the devs want to add MORE skins, maps, and weapons later, fine. I'll pay for em. But don't take core content out just to make it paid DLC. That's wrong and just a s*** move all around.


I never felt like anyone was taking core content out of the game. Every DLC I buy feels like extra content. Can you provide some examples?
Hatred outlives the hateful.
  1. Boards
  2. Xbox One
  3. Ubisoft: "Players are more open to DLC now."

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived