{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/11/2014 12:59:15 AM
2
I preferred the older style. When companies and consumers weren't expecting day one, or even year one dlc. This new style of game development seems to have only changed things for the worse.
Now you have consumers who aren't content with a game that comes out the first day. They are already looking for and hyping expansions/dlc. And it seems game companies use dlc as an out for their failings.
Make me a game first. Let it hit the shelves and see how it does. Then work on expansions later. Many companies are big enough to shuffle engineers to other projects in the meantime.
I see "dlc" as an overall bad thing. The internet connectivity as a whole could be argued as a negative for gaming. It seems to have led to more rushed products. Game companies can get away with less QA because they can more easily patch later. And they can pad out a short game and draw gamers back plus new gamers with dlc early in a games life. I MUCH prefer the full expansion releases more common to pc games. Generally speaking, those are much more worthy of spending. You end up with new features (classes, game modes, mechanics) instead of just cosmetic stuff like maps, gear, and reskins.
Just my mostly uneducated opinion though. An old man shaking his fist longing for the "good old day", and little else. :p
English
-
The point I was making was regardless of whether or not there was DLC roughly the same amount of time is put into the main game. At some point the engineers are either let go or they went to work on other projects. With DLC they spend that time working on something to go along with the game instead of the alternatives. This doesn't change how much work is put into the base game though for the $60 value. I do agree with you on the QA part of the issue, they probably rush some bugs through. In comparison though the amount of content they put into a modern game for $60 far exceeds the amount of content they would put into a Nintendo game. Those games were $49.99 in 1986 which after inflation is way more expensive than what we are paying today for games with content and quality that far surpasses these games. Consumers have a set expectation of what they want to see in the game but they are unwilling to pay more to get it. I see that as a problem as well for the industry.
-
I have to believe the price point problem you mentioned is the fault of the developer, not the consumer. The developers are the ones pushing the budgets higher and higher each year. Especially when they start folding in more and more marketing. They are the ones competing with each other. If one thing has been proven to me in regards to games over the last handful of years it is that there is a huge market for games outside of the flashy graphics world of the triple a titles. The growth of the indie market is a big tip off. Pixel art is a big hit these days. As are sprite based throw backs. Gamers can enjoy a game that didn't have millions poured into it. And don't get me started on marketing. I think that is a huge waste of money in the gaming world still. Gamers know what is coming out. And when. And WAY ahead of time. Gamers don't need a game to have commercials or billboards or Doritos tie-ins or Taco Bell cups. If your game is good, we are going to track it down on our own. Many keep their finger right on the pulse of the gaming world. Minecraft wasn't advertised. And while that may be the biggest success it isn't the only one.
