Oblivion had a LOT of post release paid content, most of which was decent value per $ spent, including a full on expansion. So while horse armour was a warning sign for things to come, Oblivion ALSO showcased the good side of paid post release content
It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?
I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.
This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.
Eh… It’s more than just paying, but that a lot of the stuff which is now a standard microtransaction used to be integrated into the total experience, so you’d unlock outfits and such for finding secrets or completing challenges. That sort of content was integral to the over all experience, not just an extra to tack on as an afterthought.
I assess the contents of the game as-is with its current price, determine if I want it, and pull the trigger or don’t. What it could have or might have or might have separated is immaterial to me to be frank. If you gut a bunch of stuff and make it DLC to the point where the game is no longer worth the price, I’m probably passing on your game. Ultimately I just don’t want to participate in FOMO or guessing nonsense and companies that do it don’t get my money.
If you’re a good company and your mtx or DLC make sense then I’m all in. Suzerain is a great recent example.
That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.
Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion. The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
Microtransactions is a system designed to prey on completionist whales. Barely anyone only buys a couple of things and doesn’t end up spending more than $30 over time as the content is drip fed and the new hotness comes along to replace the old hotness. Those that don’t spend anything, or just buy one thing before catching on, weren’t going to spend the $30 anyway.
It is false choice that negatively impacts the game experience.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion
So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.
The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.
…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….
Unless the entire game is developed by an independent studio and is entirely funded on microtransactions, buying micro transactions is just there for more company profit on top of the regular game sales by stripping content out of a full release. It isn’t supporting the development.
just like the market wants nothing but superhero movies? This doesn’t work anything like a free market. people would buy full games if they where available, devs just figured out they could drip feed the content and make significantly more money at the expense of a good product so you don’t get to choose the good product because it doesn’t exist. That’s not the market choosing crap it’s the market makers only providing crap.
They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.
So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.
I can’t possibly roll my eyes any harder at this statement, with gaming companies practically competing to go under as fast as possible over the past decade.
What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.
People did have issues paying for it all together, back when they were called “expansion packs.”
I don’t mind paying for more of the game. I do mind paying for fixes to a broken game. I don’t mind optional cosmetic upgrades, but I don’t like pay-to-win, even in single player (looking at you, Nintendo amiibos).
But regardless, people are going to complain, and many of their complaints will be valid.
People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.
Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.
You know, the way you phrase it I’d be fine. Only in your example, instead of 60 for it all, it is now 60 for 80% of the story, another 2x15 for the remainder, and 10 per Outfit.
I think some people like to know when it ends. Microtransactions can make it seem endless. Once you’ve done that a few times it makes you want to know about as much as you can upfront.
The time has come for macrotransactions instead
I’m all in for the return of actual game expansions.
Nah, only the transactions will be bigger. Amount of content won’t.
Just like bags of chips.
Soon to be bag of chip. Now in random shapes.
loot bag with 50% chance of chip
loot case with 10% chance of loot bag with 50% chance of chip
Mystery container with possibility of contents containing loot crates that may contain loot box that may contain chip for a weekly subscription
Paradox, then.
StarCraft Brood Wars Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction
People shit on Bethesda but they’ve consistently released banger expansions. Far Harbor was incredible.
Even the publicly acknowledged start of Micro Transactions “Horse Armour” was couched in decent medium sized DLC and The Shivering Isles
What do you mean by couched in this context?
I don’t think the horse armor was part of a bigger dlc.
Oblivion had a LOT of post release paid content, most of which was decent value per $ spent, including a full on expansion. So while horse armour was a warning sign for things to come, Oblivion ALSO showcased the good side of paid post release content
That makes sense, thank you for explaining.
Now they just re-release the game over and over again and we buy that!
It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?
I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.
This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.
Eh… It’s more than just paying, but that a lot of the stuff which is now a standard microtransaction used to be integrated into the total experience, so you’d unlock outfits and such for finding secrets or completing challenges. That sort of content was integral to the over all experience, not just an extra to tack on as an afterthought.
I assess the contents of the game as-is with its current price, determine if I want it, and pull the trigger or don’t. What it could have or might have or might have separated is immaterial to me to be frank. If you gut a bunch of stuff and make it DLC to the point where the game is no longer worth the price, I’m probably passing on your game. Ultimately I just don’t want to participate in FOMO or guessing nonsense and companies that do it don’t get my money.
If you’re a good company and your mtx or DLC make sense then I’m all in. Suzerain is a great recent example.
That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.
Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion. The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
Microtransactions is a system designed to prey on completionist whales. Barely anyone only buys a couple of things and doesn’t end up spending more than $30 over time as the content is drip fed and the new hotness comes along to replace the old hotness. Those that don’t spend anything, or just buy one thing before catching on, weren’t going to spend the $30 anyway.
It is false choice that negatively impacts the game experience.
So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.
So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.
…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….
Unless the entire game is developed by an independent studio and is entirely funded on microtransactions, buying micro transactions is just there for more company profit on top of the regular game sales by stripping content out of a full release. It isn’t supporting the development.
The market didn’t want it.
just like the market wants nothing but superhero movies? This doesn’t work anything like a free market. people would buy full games if they where available, devs just figured out they could drip feed the content and make significantly more money at the expense of a good product so you don’t get to choose the good product because it doesn’t exist. That’s not the market choosing crap it’s the market makers only providing crap.
They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.
So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.
I can’t possibly roll my eyes any harder at this statement, with gaming companies practically competing to go under as fast as possible over the past decade.
What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.
People did have issues paying for it all together, back when they were called “expansion packs.”
I don’t mind paying for more of the game. I do mind paying for fixes to a broken game. I don’t mind optional cosmetic upgrades, but I don’t like pay-to-win, even in single player (looking at you, Nintendo amiibos).
But regardless, people are going to complain, and many of their complaints will be valid.
People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.
Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.
You know, the way you phrase it I’d be fine. Only in your example, instead of 60 for it all, it is now 60 for 80% of the story, another 2x15 for the remainder, and 10 per Outfit.
You used to be able to unlock cosmetic content by playing instead of paying. They’re taking advantage.
I think some people like to know when it ends. Microtransactions can make it seem endless. Once you’ve done that a few times it makes you want to know about as much as you can upfront.
The thing is, you actually get 30$ story and 5$ per outfit instead of a 30$ Expansion.
And cosmetics do add to the game for a big part of the market.
I believe that was called phantom liberty.
Or if we’re talking Witcher 3, Hearts of Stone or Blood and Wine. Both of those had an amazing amount of content, well worth it.
Yeah that’s what remaster are for
Ill be getting the Elden ring dlc at 40 dollars day one. Yeah im expecting the game to almost double in size.