@
Chiroz
If you're willing to pay extra for things that should have been part of the main game, you're part of the problem. You're saying that it's okay to gyp you, and in fact they'll make more money from doing so.
Releasing Sm4sh close to December can't make a major impact on sales. It's one of those games that are going to be sold new throughout the system's life span, because people keep buying it. I can go down to Wal-Mart and find new copies of Brawl. They don't have them because they didn't sell, they have them because they kept reordering it throughout the Wii's life cycle.
I had always heard that a game went from concept to release in about 4 years. Can you cite your source that few games are made in longer than 3 years?
Good. There's too much potential for abuse and a metric ****ton of actual abuse of the system. By rejecting DLC, we might finally go back to a gaming world where you bought a game and got a satisfying experience in and of itself. Remember when there was actual effort put into the game? Companies tried to convince consumers to buy their games over their competitors' by trying to make the best possible game they could. These days, who cares? Just shove some crap down their throats, then when they complain about lack of challenge mode/bonus missions/sidequests/other vidya stuff, throw some DLC at them. Bonus points if it was something that was going to be in the game originally, but got cut to avoid delays. Did you know that every game made today can have its sales predicted rather accurately? Companies like Ubisoft are good at this, because they want a certain number to show up for a certain quarter, either to satisfy the stockholders or for tax reasons. Let me repeat that, the quality of the games you buy have been reduced, had features cut, rushed to market, whatever you want to call it, because some CEO wants to impress some stockholders or some jackoff in accounting thinks they can save a couple extra bucks on their taxes. What happens to the stuff that got removed or not finished? It gets sold back to you, for extra money, as DLC.
"A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever" - Shigeru Miyamoto
Once again you show how little you understand of how actual business work. Even if total sales were to remain the same which they FOR SURE don't. Since you know, thousands of companies don't just guess this kind of stuff there is people who'se sole job is researching this kind of stuff. Are you saying that advertising for a known product is completely useless? Because the whole point of advertising is to create momentary hype for a product, but you're saying that doesn't affect the sales if the product is big enough. So why then do every single company in every single media do it? Care to explain?
Not only that but there are things called records which affect how a game is viewed later on. If a game you do not know about has the greatest first week sales of all time, you will probably do a little research about why it's so popular. There are MANY things companies take into account when releasing a game. Releasing it so that it doesn't overlap with another major title, releasing it at a prime time for the console (or delaying it until such a time or next console). Releasing it during a high sales time. All of this is vital.
You seem to still not understand the fact that games have to have a schedule to be made. They are not just worked on forever. A scope is made in the beginning about how long the game will last, features are designed and a scope is made. Sometimes the scope is not met and thus the game is delayed. DLC is supposed to be things that go BEYOND that first scope. Meaning that if DLC wasn't there it wouldn't be done.
The problem here is you're just a kid, or a very immature person. It is very common of young people to just follow other points of view blindly or as it's commonly referred to "sheep" behind arguments without having any kind of knowledge or actual valid base or opinion on the manner. Basically you have made an opinion based on other people who have told you specific things without you knowing **** about the actual thing you're discussing. Not only that but you have 0 idea about any of the logistics behind you. The biggest problem is normally people who do not like to research and are too close minded to understand other points of view.
DLC can be used to scam you, sure, there's no doubt about that. But no one can make a game for 6 years and expect any type of benefits from it, as such a timeline is made, if the timeline isn't met, depending on the situation the game can be delayed or it can be stripped of features.
Sure, I get your point, sometimes those stripped features are resold as DLC when in fact they should have been included with the game. I am sure that happens plenty and you can be as mad as you want about that, but also you need to be smart. You need to understand that not every single DLC is like that (in fact most ARE NOT like that). Sometimes an schedule is met, the game is released. All the economic projections for the game were fulfilled, making more content would mean that the company is losing in it's investment.
You might think, they aren't losing, they are still earning money! Well, no. Economics and investments aren't viewed in brute (raw) earnings. They are normally viewed as possible earnings, as in what could have been achieved otherwise (otherwise known as opportunity costs).
Game cycles are normally 2-3 years for triple A games. Any game with less quality is normally less than that. My source is the fact that I studied 6 years of computer science with a specialization in game development.
Also you can look at most games. How often do you see CODs get released? What about Uncharted? How about Marios? Zeldas? Mortal Kombat? You also have to remember that these games don't instantly start development as soon as a previous game finishes, so there is time in between sequels where the game isn't being made (Blizzard didn't really spend 10 years making SC2 or D3).
Just so you can understand how stupid your logic is, if we follow it to the extreme that you yourself are taking it then none of the Uncharteds should exist except for the first, since all of the content should have been in the first game. So they should be releasing the first Uncharted in a year with everything on it. None of the Mass Effects either, or the Bioshocks. None of the games that have sequels that do not change the gameplay should exist at all. They should have all been in the first game, no?
For you what constitutes the end of the game cycle? When should a game end being produced? Should it go on forever, never release ever? Then no one plays it at all?
The production should end at some point so that users can actually play the game, no? I think you can agree on that, so then what if the players want something extra on the game? What if everyone unanimously agrees that they would like a sequel because the game was so good, or just an added feature to give it more replay ability? The developers are willing to give the fans exactly what they want, but they just have one problem, who'se going to pay for the costs? Is the developer supposed to just develop it for free and use their own money to give you something extra you are asking for? What happens when the developer is not Nintendo (or Sony/Microsoft/EA, etc) and just CANNOT pay to continue developing content, they just don't have the money?
Why is kickstarter so popular? Why pay for something that hasn't been made? The developer should just make it and sell it for free, no? I mean everyone is obligated to pay from their own pockets to make stuff so that you can enjoy it for free, that's how it works, no?
I am done with this thread. I honestly get frustrated when people just follow trends (like DLC hating) without having any kind of concept or idea about what they are discussing about. It's what makes the human race so bigoted in every sense of the world. People who have not one care to actually research or analyze concepts before infecting others minds with their own bigoted beliefs.
This discussion didn't start because of DLC either. It started because you said "downloading software is not stealing because no one loses money". I tried to show you that someone does in fact lose money, and also there are many people who might lose jobs or future salaries depending on what kind of software it is and how their job description is linked to their previous product successes (A game developer is normally hired and paid depending on the previous games they've worked on).
I told you, I don't care if you do it, most of us (including myself) have done it at some point. But I understand how and why my actions have repercussions and I don't act like it's the right thing and that I am inflicting justice upon the evil doers of the world.
MrGame&Rock
