[ArchieGriffs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle

Never said anything about buying at launch.

I was simply saying the opposite of what you said to prove a point, it doesn't have anything to do with how you approach buying a game unless the way I quoted it is the way you decide to purchase a game.

 

[i7Stealth1366]

Ubitrash

 

[PMan007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitemarks and bloodstains

I've said it before season passes and DLC are a necessary evil.
Game costs have remained the same since the early 90s while everything else including dev budgets have increased.

I could buy a PS1 game for £40 back in 96 PS2 and PS3 games were the same price.

Expecting the price to stay the same without something else happening is just silly.

If you don't like DLC then petition the publishers to release the while game at an increased price (£80\$120)as that is the only other solution.

If you don't want either solution then don't buy the game or the DLC.

This.

Especially since cost of development of AAA games is probably not the same as the amount Nintendo spent to develop Super Mario Bros back in the days.
So 60$ a game + 20-30$ of optional DLC. I'm OK with that.

Especially since I'm generally waiting a sale to buy DLC's

 

[andrews2547]

I guess "Far Cry 4 Season Pass offers missions that were taken out of the game so Ubisoft could get more money from people as well as PvP multiplayer mode" was too long of a title.

A lot of the time these day 1 DLCs are on the disc and in the installation files but you have to pay real money to unlock them. Obviously I don't know if this is what Ubisoft is doing, but there is a chance it's exactly what they are doing. This type of business practice ruins consumer trust and should be illegal. Especially if the content is on the disc (which you paid for) and they are locking parts of the game out until you pay them even more money.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMan007

This.

Especially since cost of development of AAA games is probably not the same as the amount Nintendo spent to develop Super Mario Bros back in the days.
So 60$ a game + 20-30$ of optional DLC. I'm OK with that.

Especially since I'm generally waiting a sale to buy DLC's

As I said before, sales numbers have increased to compensate. They don't need the extra money to break even. They make a ton of profit even without DLC.

 

[deafboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

As I said before, sales numbers have increased to compensate. They don't need the extra money to break even. They make a ton of profit even without DLC.

Good for them then?

Who creates a game to break even? It's a business.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafboy

Good for them then?

Who creates a game to break even? It's a business.

You missed my point. Pman implied they need the extra money due to increased development costs. They don't. They're not doing it because they're hurting for money. They're making huge profits despite the increased costs.

 

[deafboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

You missed my point. Pman implied they need the extra money due to increased development costs. They don't. They're not doing it because they're hurting for money. They're making huge profits despite the increased costs.

In 2012 they were definitely hurting for money... sales numbers I suppose depends on what you're comparing them to exactly, FC3 certainly didn't sell very well.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafboy

In 2012 they were definitely hurting for money... sales numbers I suppose depends on what you're comparing them to exactly, FC3 certainly didn't sell very well.

http://www.screwattack.com/news/ubisofts-2012-fiscal-report-revealed-some-interesting-details-besides-net-profit
http://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-and-far-cry-lift-ubisoft-to-83-3-million-in-profits-last-year/

"In addition, the success of Far Cry 3 confirmed our strong comeback in the major segment of shooter games."

$83 million in profit and 6 million copies of FC3 sold. I'd call that selling well.

 

[deafboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

http://www.screwattack.com/news/ubisofts-2012-fiscal-report-revealed-some-interesting-details-besides-net-profit
http://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-and-far-cry-lift-ubisoft-to-83-3-million-in-profits-last-year/

"In addition, the success of Far Cry 3 confirmed our strong comeback in the major segment of shooter games."

$83 million in profit and 6 million copies of FC3 sold. I'd call that selling well.

Like I said, it depends what you compare it to. $83 million is certainly a nice chunk of change, but that's for 2 games. The same year COD:BO2 sold over 25 million copies for that game alone And halo 4 at over 4 million and just on the xbox.

Of those 6 million of FC3, a large portion of the revenue came from consoles. Most PC users got it from the Never Settle Bundle or on heavy discount during a steam sale.

Not saying they aren't doing better, but they're certainly not doing great.

 

[PMan007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

As I said before, sales numbers have increased to compensate. They don't need the extra money to break even. They make a ton of profit even without DLC.

As other people said, they are a business. They exist to make money.

Also, the price of games at 60$ today and at 50-60$ 25 years ago are not the same. You had to work a lot more to get that 50-60$ to be able to buy that game you wanted. Knowing that, I don't think todays game are really expensive or abusive with their DLCs.

That being said, I don't want to sound like I'm super rich. I'm not!!! (unfortunately

) I always prefer to get the lowest price for a specific item, and I often wait for Steam sales. Like a lot of people, I work hard for my mone. But I still think it is not over expensive.

My opinion.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMan007

As other people said, they are a business. They exist to make money.

Did I argue against that? No. The general theme and implication of those I've been replying to is "they'd be out of business if they didn't put out DLC", "dev cost is crippling them", etc., which is clearly not the case.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PMan007

Also, the price of games at 60$ today and at 50-60$ 25 years ago are not the same. You had to work a lot more to get that 50-60$ to be able to buy that game you wanted.

Inflation in relation to game prices is a moot point. As I said before, game sales in general have increased vastly since then. How many people would buy a AAA game 20-25 years ago? How many buy a AAA game now?

 

[deafboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

How many people would buy a AAA game 20-25 years ago? How many buy a AAA game now?

Millions for both...

There just happens to be more AAA games these days.

 

[b.walker36]

DLC for me is not a bad thing unless you get a game that is not complete.

Tomb Raider could have had day 1 DLC and could have cared less becuase it was a complete game. Games are normally (not always) longer today than they were in the past. Day one dlc like a multiplayer mode is stupid. That should be part of the game.

But I think people assume that just because its DLC they could have built it anyway. They may not have or we would be waiting until they built enough extra content to release a full xpac.

There are definitely plus sides to DLC when used properly.

 

[theturbofd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.walker36

DLC for me is not a bad thing unless you get a game that is not complete.

Tomb Raider could have had day 1 DLC and could have cared less becuase it was a complete game. Games are normally (not always) longer today than they were in the past. Day one dlc like a multiplayer mode is stupid. That should be part of the game.

But I think people assume that just because its DLC they could have built it anyway. They may not have or we would be waiting until they built enough extra content to release a full xpac.

There are definitely plus sides to DLC when used properly.

Like undead nightmare, Ballad of gay tony, Lost and Damned are perfect examples of good DLC. So is Blood Dragon, and that Bioshock infinite DLC.

 

[ArchieGriffs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.walker36

DLC for me is not a bad thing unless you get a game that is not complete.

Tomb Raider could have had day 1 DLC and could have cared less becuase it was a complete game. Games are normally (not always) longer today than they were in the past. Day one dlc like a multiplayer mode is stupid. That should be part of the game.

But I think people assume that just because its DLC they could have built it anyway. They may not have or we would be waiting until they built enough extra content to release a full xpac.

There are definitely plus sides to DLC when used properly.

I'd agree with you that this is the case for this game, but with them already saying PvP is in the season pass and not the actual game, I feel it's the opposite. As small of a thing PvP is in FC games, it'd make more sense to offer something like PvP with the main portion of the game.

Quests/missions I can understand being packed into DLC, which we'll be able to find out whether or not it should have been included in the main game, but something like PvP seems to be stretching it.

 

[Faded]

Showed the girlfriend the trailer for this game, with the bad guy meeting the main character and she was totally into it... she doesn't play, but she said she would definitely watch me give it a play through.

 

[_Nikhil]

Far Cry 4 looks interesting, I would like to see prone position & the ability to holster weapon though. A clean HUD without enemy positions would be nice too.

 

[keikei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Nikhil

Far Cry 4 looks interesting, I would like to see prone position & the ability to holster weapon though. A clean HUD without enemy positions would be nice too.

Hopefuly Ubi learned from FC3. There is a master mode where those doritos dont exist. I agree. The player isnt superman, he shouldn't have xray vision.

 

[Cybertox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keikei

Hopefuly Ubi learned from FC3. There is a master mode where those doritos dont exist. I agree. The player isnt superman, he shouldn't have xray vision.

If you want something realistic then go play Arma III.