i don't really care about DLC, and usually get it when I get the game cheaper down the line (Like with DAO) or not bother it at all, like with Skyrim. I think you're right though, a game has almost become a service, which kind of sucks. Increased value is good, but I don't think that's what we're getting. It's better to buy the game of the year version later. I will buy Arkham Knight when it's new though because I love those games. i don't give a crap about the DLC though.
Buying AAA Games Feels Like Buying New Consoles Now
|
 On 05/31/2014 at 01:21 PM by gigantor21 See More From This User » |
Up until the PS2 days, buying games at retail was a pretty straightforward process. Most games were "what you see is what you get" affairs, where the game you picked up in the store that day was a locked-in, static product for the entire time you spent with it. Now? Not so much.
Publishers have fallen in love with the "games-as-a-service" model. It's not enough to sell millions of copies, or even be a multimillion selling series, even on a yearly basis. No, that $60 disc must be a stage for multiple rounds of DLC, as well as the more controversial use of microtransactions. Take Two recently reported the latter made them $200 million dollars last year, largely from the paid credit system in GTAV.
That extra content is also used by retailers to drive business towards their stores/websites. The infamous chart of Watch Dogs Collector's Editions is just the most egregious example of a long standing trend. Not ONE version of the game offers the full slate of DLC and extra content even if you buy the Season Pass on top of it. The reason? Retailer, platform and region specific content.
When people bring up their concerns about such practices, game companies are quick to assure us they're cognizant of the potential pitfalls. That they're only trying to provide extra value to consumers. That the base game has more than enough meat on it's bones to justify building so much extra stuff around it.
I, for one, have never bought those reassurances.
As it stands, buying a AAA game at $60 feels like buying a console at day one. You're buying the game and whatever extra content you might want at the highest possible price, just like a console and it's launch titles are at their most expensive. In both cases, you don't get a full sense of what either has to offer until well after launch. The specter of network issues and key features being broken or missing looms over both. More and more, lining up to buy a big new release at launch feels like a sucker's deal, whether it's hardware OR software.
I'm in a "Steam Sale Holding Pattern" on Watch_Dogs for the same reason I don't want either next-gen console until Christmas at the earliest. In both cases, I know I can just wait it out, and get more content with better performance at a later price. A big reasons the "games-as-a-service" model exists is to incentivise more pre-orders and early sales--to the point that they'll promote DLC before we even see proper gameplay, like Arkham Knight, Far Cry 4 and Evolve did recently.
But for me it's having the opposite effect. Often games will have so much more to offer at a lower price down the line that there's no reason to even consider a full-price purchase if I'm not 100% sure. Meanwhile, I'll gladly double dip at full price on something like Dynasty Warriors 8 XL without even thinking about it--let alone looking at what DLC offerings it has to make up my mind.
So how about you? Does the raft of content that devs and publishers push make you more gunshy about early purchases? Let me know in the comments.
EDIT: And then the minute after I post this, Gamestop puts up a listing for a $30 Season Pass for Far Cry 4. Would it kill them to wait until we see the damn gameplay? Or actually tell us what's IN the Season Pass before selling it. For fuck's sake...
Comments