Zelda Breath of the Wild - Wii U vs. Switch

[casterofdreams]

It could be like the Witcher 3 DLC. Where the first one was just a few things, the second one was a substantial amount of gameplay in side stories.

I sure hope they do. I feel it actually follows the same formula as the Witcher 3 with the DLC. A few little extras, something a bit larger in scope, and a huge finale.

I could be remembering things wrong but I believe Witcher 3 added a few quests, three sets of armor, some weapons and other useful things outside of the season pass. The pass itself added a whole new questline on the main land and the second part added an entire new land. I think it was all handled well.

So similar. Next we would need to judge quality and for that we'd have to wait. Ultimately I am getting the season pass on day one. I just have to wait until the end of the year to see it all.

[MrPopo]

Not a fan, won't support that. I'll play the game, but I'm not paying more for digital extras they held back to squeeze more money.

I don't think you understand how development cycles work.

[Stark]

Not a fan, won't support that. I'll play the game, but I'm not paying more for digital extras they held back to squeeze more money.

I don't think you understand howdevelopment cycles life works.

FTFY

[Tanooki]

Stark I'll take your edit over his, because that is how it has become...squeeze people for every penny possible.

I get how development cycles work just fine thank you. Doesn't mean I have to like, appreciate, or support those kind of tactics in where I place my money. I grew up playing on carts. They worked or they didn't, and if they didn't, a recall replaced them in rare instances. You bought a game, that WAS the game, done. If they wanted to do more you bought something called a sequel, which also was a full game as intended. Eventually on PC you could buy expansion packs that needed the main game installed, but that expansion was a full blown added campaign that was independent yet not from the original. It was a choice to play more of the game but not have parts of the original package held back to do so as it was designed after the fact (like United Offensive that add-on CD for the original Call of Duty.)

DLC and Microtransactions have been a curse as much if not more than selling beta level games for $60 a pop to then use the buyers to fix other issues and then slap down multi-GB sized patches to fix the issues they should have caught in their first place on a closed console format.

Unless DLC is free or is later included in a GOTY I don't touch it. If a game happens to withhold part of the functional title to rip me off for further funds beyond retail I don't buy it. Truth is I'm barely excluding myself from any real game of value doing so other than not getting in day one with some massive online multiplayer mechanics I'm not into. Just because some company decides to go one route doesn't mean they're the only one making a style of game (outside of controlled IPs) so there's always somewhere else to turn.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I love listening to a kid not in the games industry tell a guy in the games industry how the games industry REALLY is.

[ElkinFencer10]

I love listening to a kid not in the games industry tell a guy in the games industry how the games industry REALLY is.

[MrPopo]

I get how development cycles work just fine thank you.

Clearly you don't, so let me take the time to enlighten you. First the coders get feature complete, then you go into a final QA pass (hopefully they were smart and doing continuous QA so it won't take too long). That's going to find bugs that need remediation, but it probably doesn't require the entire team of devs. So you need something for that portion of the staff to do. Then it goes into certification, which is a system imposed by the console manufacturers to ensure the game meets the various standards of the platform. Now, since Nintendo owns the platform it should just be a case of running the test pass and not worry about it coming back rejected (as they'd be watching over the style guide at all times during development) but it's not a 100% sure thing. Then it goes to manufacturing, which has a shockingly long lead time. So now you have a bunch of staff that is currently not working on a project. DLC is one way of keeping them busy and providing additional value for the customer. Have you ever played a game to completion and said "you know, I want a little more"? That's the itch DLC scratches. Usually it gets started by the aforementioned devs who need something to do during the QA process. You're probably not ready to have them work on a new title yet.

Sure, back in the day when a dev team was 5-10 people you didn't have to worry about these staffing concerns. But you do have to worry about it now. And the fact that you're unwilling to accept is sad.

[isiolia]

Stark I'll take your edit over his, because that is how it has become...squeeze people for every penny possible.

I wouldn't say that it is. I can understand not loving DLC, and I've outright not bought games because of how it was handled. However, it's understandable from a business point of view.

Aside from that though, logically speaking, AAA video games generally cost a lot more to produce now, but have largely maintained their MSRP over time, right? SNES and Genesis games were often the same $50-60 new that games now are, with some carts hitting $80 or more due to memory costs. PS1 games and the like dropped things some, since discs were cheaper to make, but it wasn't uncommon for N64 games to be $70 or more.

If things were comparable now, then standard new game pricing would be pushing $100...which it's not. In the U.S. anyway (sorry, Australia ). Arguably, an accurate comparison between that (or packaging, etc) would probably account for those differences, I'd say. It wouldn't be uncommon that you'd be talking a CE, with DLC, by the time the relative prices lined up.

I'd much rather have one disc with all the stuff on it, so that I don't need to worry about the state of PSN or whatnot in 20 years, assuming I want to play the game then. Cost, however, just doesn't pan out in most cases. You do have fringe examples like sim games with thousands of dollars in potential DLC, though I assume they don't intend for any one customer to buy all of it.
Most of the time, the main game is being made available relatively cheaper than ever, even if the retail packaging is sparse and there's more content to buy.

[marurun]

Most of the time, the main game is being made available relatively cheaper than ever, even if the retail packaging is sparse and there's more content to buy.

No, stop making sense. Logic is verboten! We will duel only with RAW EMOTION!

[Tanooki]

Clearly you're dicking with me trying to talk down to me to get your rocks off how cute. I know how it works I worked in it. Just because I don't choose to support DLC or microtransactions doesn't make me blind to that fact it exists. I'm not talking from a business perspective, clearly it milks them more money, but one of the buyer. I don't work for them so what benefit do I get from them charging more and more fees as I'm not getting a paycheck. The industry other than getting into DLC and IAP type stuff has not changed all that much from 15 years ago.

Yes I've still played games and wanted more, that's why I wait for sequels or after the fact expansion packs. What I do not want is to get most of a game then have a planned rest of it at an up charge. I do not see a wrong in that. I get AAA budgets are huge but they perhaps need to look inward on the whole in the industry and figure maybe games don't need to cost a hollywood sized budget to get great sales. If it's sad so be it, but I could not care less if their staffing ends up being laid off. Perhaps they need to have projects better lined up once one is done and into the next. Maybe budgets should be cut back and projects made with more modest input so they don't live on the wire so much? Lots of things could change, but until people push back against it they won't as it works when you have people lining up like lemmings yearly.

I get the big budgets, but have you not noticed for some years now in general I don't buy big budget games pretty much at all? Do you see me often pop up in the modern gaming threads going on about the latest digital purchase or gushing over how awesome Call of Duty or some sports title is? That's because I don't because I walked away from it almost completely. I don't want to get tangled in that mess, or if I do, it's when there's a GOTY release or a steep cut. At rare times I do make the exception say with the PS3 Uncharted trilogy but in general, no, outside Nintendo as they never were known for playing those games and being rigid about not dropping prices for years. As it is now I'd rather support the small developer who throws their goodies up on GoG or Steam who can put out a fantastic package that rivals in quality without all the baggage, same goes with Android too.

It's comical you all can not handle someone that doesn't agree with your idea of the ideal modern gaming development and release world and get all snotty and rotten about it with cheap shots and stupid jabs.