Bungie cuts off Destiny owners from existing content for DLC

[Tanooki]

Hah 2006? Why should complaining about being bled dry for content that's often already made and sometimes already on the disc be something of the past? If you quit complaining or worse start supporting it, they'll push even harder to give you the bill cosby treatment. Maybe we should all roll over and let them turn every physical and digital rental release into a big train of microtransactions that'll cost us far more without realizing it in many cases? No thanks.

[noiseredux]

bitching about DLC is so 2006.

I think every game I bought this year was DLC.

[dsheinem]

Hah 2006? Why should complaining about being bled dry for content that's often already made and sometimes already on the disc be something of the past?

DLC is a big reason that the price of retail games haven't kept pace with inflation and production costs. You should be glad it has become the primary model for AAA (and other) titles lest you be BLED DRY in another fashion and bitch about games costing ~$90 like they used to.

If you quit complaining or worse start supporting it, they'll push even harder to give you the bill cosby treatment.

For fuck's sake you're acting like a giant asshole. Keep the "rape jokes" to yourself and piss off.

[lwcook]

That's assuming that every single person out there pays for and respects DLC. I for one never buy it. I find the concept fairly repulsive charging for added content on a game. A full second game using the same engine like they used to do on discs, sure. But we find often this stuff is already made and held back, or in a more sleazy way left on the disc hidden so you just pay to unlock what you already kind of paid for.

People like me who don't buy it are being locked out of certain things, even if it's not every single week with this game, despite paying for the general access and that isn't right. If they want to have DLC level strikes give it its own icon and let the non-payors use the existing spot.

You do realize that an expansion pass (for the first 2 DLC packs) was available at lanuch,right? I'm not sure you picked the right path if you expected to be fully invested in an MMO-type game and not get the DLC when it hits when you know from the start that's the model of the game.

[Jmustang1968]

And, often times that stuff is only created and budgeted for with the promise of potential DLC revenue. If that potential didn't exist, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all. So, it is usually for more content for those who enjoy it and it is worthwhile support post launch.

[Tanooki]

Wow good, real mature I'm the asshole and out of my mind for not supporting being squeezed by DLC abuse. Have fun with it, that's your choice. And no, we wouldn't be paying $90 for games now if they didn't do it, we're paying $90 or more now because they are doing it. Look at the stuff not released on console but computer, they seem to get alone just fine in many cases with far cheaper prices with no DLC both small and large projects. It's a factor of greed and bad business model, not necessity.

jmustang: Again that kind of is the bad outdated business model they're using which is squeezing out so many physical releases. They need to re-think how they budget and develop instead of just repeatedly pounding the consumer for more. I'd rather a game not get released then sorta lie, sell it for $60 then grease another $20, $50, $100+ out of people on the back end. What used to be part of a game when it came out now gets put to the size as 'packs' just to supposedly give more to the player when it's just placing back what would have been there a decade earlier. You could a decade ago get a Tiger Woods Golf game with like a couple dozen golfers and all the PGA courses of that year. Now instead EA has put a few golfers and some courses, then they squeezed people for more in individual packages. The press had a field day with that as it in turn made a formerly $50-60 game like a couple hundred bucks which is outrageous.

[dsheinem]

Wow good, real mature I'm the asshole and out of my mind for not supporting being squeezed by DLC abuse.

No, you are acting like an asshole by making "rape jokes" and comparing DLC to rape.

And no, we wouldn't be paying $90 for games now if they didn't do it, we're paying $90 or more now because they are doing it. Look at the stuff not released on console but computer, they seem to get alone just fine in many cases with far cheaper prices with no DLC both small and large projects. It's a factor of greed and bad business model, not necessity.

As you are demonstrating here and have demonstrated in other threads, you are clearly ignorant of the economics of the game industry. It is maddening, and I feel like I am talking to a small child.

I will try to break it down very simply for you.

pre-DLC era:
-New games at MSRP cost (in today's money) $70-$90+
-Games generally stayed at the original retail price (or no more than 30-50% off) for a very long time (typically years), in part because there wasn't a ton of competition for gamer dollars, so many games simply had a longer "shelf-life" where they could be a top seller.
-The vast majority of retail games from the 16-bit era through to the sixth gen (PS2 era) generally cost $50K - $10million to make.
-Expansion packs and add-ons were only profitable and feasible for the biggest, most successful games - and usually only on PC...

post-DLC era:
-Considering inflation, games cost less than ever when brand new at full MSRP.
-In part, because of the increased competition for gamer dollars, it isn't uncommon for games to be reduced by 50-65% or more of original MSRP within six months of their release (e.g. the new Wolfenstein, which came out in May, was $15 recently on Amazon). There's a ton of games, shelf lives are short.
-The vast majority of retail games cost between $15million-$200million to make
-DLC, which is indeed factored into development costs and helps push a game towards profitability, gives players who enjoy the base game an option to buy more content for costs that are typically much lower than old add-ons and expansions and are typically available on all major platforms.

There has never been more quality new content more cheaply available in the history of gaming. The alternative to DLC content is most likely pricier games, free-to-play games with lots of micro-transactions, etc. If you enjoy video games, you should be glad DLC exists to keep it a vibrant, sustainable medium for development.

I can get wishing that DLC stuff was released on physical media, but that is a separate discussion from the economic viability or utility of DLC as such. DLC is not "raking players over the coals" or some such, it is allowing them to get more from games they enjoy and to keep the companies that make them afloat. It is a business model that benefits the industry and the consumer, and is hardly an example of "greed".

[Exhuminator]

I kind of see DLC in the same light as I used to see expansion packs for PC games back in the late 90s. Anyway, I agree with dsheinem that right now gaming is the cheapest it has ever been, certainly when you factor in inflation. Not only for physical releases, but all the crazy cheap deals you can get for downloadable games. Even hardware is the cheapest I think I've seen overall, compared to what I was paying a decade or two decades ago. Certainly buying a nice gaming PC today is significantly cheaper than it was in the 90s or 80s. The biggest surprise for me has been the quality of some mobile games I have bought for 1-5 dollars. Yeah I know most mobile games are trash, but there are some out there that are amazingly good, extremely easy to acquire, and cost almost nothing. You never saw that sort of thing ten years ago.

I do wonder if all these cheap prices are good for the sustainability of the market overall though in the long run.

[Tanooki]

Well then I'm an ah and proud of it because it is a form of financial rape in how much of it is handled. When you leave off parts of a game, courses, characters, mini campaigns to squeeze the wallet further that should have been included that's how I see it. Not all forms of DLC are slimy though. When you get into the tablet side of optionals with cheaty items that speed along development for a cost. Totally optional costumes, color changes, music bits, differing skins for a person/transport/building of sorts that's totally cool. Destiny isn't the only crook here, Bioware was great with it on the Mass Effect series, especially #3 with their crap ending, then 'buy this' to get the revised better ending garbage or just in general any of them where they hold back full worlds unless you pay more after the fact sucks as stuff like that was unimaginable just a few years ago.

I'm not ignorant of the economics of the industry. I really tire of people using the 'in todays money' argument for everything. It's a bullshit cop out to justify the arguing in favor of things. I guess given what the NES went for in 1985 we should be paying what like a grand for a new console now? We're not going to agree and that's clear so I don't see a reason we should keep going in circles if you're in support of being bled out like this.

Exhuminator - That's what I've gone towards and I can't wait for it to arrive in the mail as I custom built a stellar gaming laptop with easy upgrade possibilities. You're right about the mobile games, some(few in the huge picture) are amazingly excellent and they're in some cases free and in others quite cheap. They too may have those added transactions but they definitely aren't required for enjoyment but for the impatient or those who want more they can opt into the fluff. As long as a game doesn't nickel and dime everything that's fine on there. When it comes to console games though I'll just either not buy the game at all, wait for a game of the year version, big steam sales, and if things turn bad enough there are other ways too.

There was a good debate online in a media piece I read in the last month touching on what you asked there about sustainability and it appears it is. The uptick in sales during steam/gog type sales events cause so many more copies of a game to sell including games that normally never would in a package deal they end up making more on the back end over time just at a slower pace. The current console model of hit high and hard to start because 80% of it is done in the first few weeks isn't necessary as sites like steam and the others have shown. If you can make a million up front then the game fades out and goes away that's ok, but the steam approach is you could make a couple million over a year instead of a few weeks due to sales events and bundles along with reduced starting prices due to the lack of physical media.

[dsheinem]

Bioware was great with it on the Mass Effect series, especially #3 with their crap ending, then 'buy this' to get the revised better ending garbage

It was free, you know nothing.

I really tire of people using the 'in todays money' argument for everything. It's a bullshit cop out to justify the arguing in favor of things.

I don't even know where to begin. If you want to talk about market trends and pricing over decades, you can't ignore inflation and have an adult conversation.

I guess given what the NES went for in 1985 we should be paying what like a grand for a new console now?

No, it would be about $650 for the Deluxe set in today's $$ or, you know, only about $20 more than an Xbox One + two games would have cost at launch last year.

Your opinion on game pricing is just totally baseless horseshit. You have no concept of sales models used historically, no sense of the ones used today, etc. You just see "OMG they want $20 for more stuff?!?!? Companies never did that back in the day!! RAAAAPE!" which is just a kind of willfully ignorant stance.