Lonesome Road coming September 20th + weapon pack DLCs

[Walpknut]

That "if I purchase 12 of those" just seems a pretty dumb argument, as you are just going to extremes.

Really, why? That's how this works. They give you small purchases so you don't notice quite how much you're spending and how little you're getting in return.

Because you are making a huge leap on the numbers, why are you even complaining about paying for 12 packs when there are only 5 possible DLCs, one of them a gun pack, if you are saying that the existence of more of this packs inmediatelly makes this one worse because in the hypotetical scenario of buying 12 of them you already spent the price of a full game, that's just a very dumb argument, you just don't buy 12 packs, this is only one, we are discussing this one, if you buy 100 games you wont have enough to buy a new console or a new PC, then every game is terrible. If this game eats up 5 gb of disc space if I install 200 then I won't have space for more games. You are just bringing that weak argument out of nowhere, and it has nothing to do with the dlc, this DLC doesn't have a 12 previous DLC requirement or anything.
Now, I am not saying "OH THIS PACK IS AWESOME!" I am just saying that 1) it has a lot of content for the low price, (recipes might include homemade weapons, alternative ways to produce the 27 weapons, the mods, etc, something that could change the overall experience when making a new build, the weapons are not given to you in a case, they are added to the Vendor's list, and I am guessing they might put them in special locations, there are weapons for every combat category. It also has some mii sidequests in the form of callenges that SEEM to be like the Stealth suit tests from OWB, and 2) We haven't seen almost anything from the DLC, just four screenshots, we can make our own assumptions from the beginning but until a full list of content is out and is tested we can not be certain this is either good or bad.

 

[ReedTFM]

[Barter 1/100] FAILED. Well, here's $94 for New Vegas, 4 DLCs, and some gunz.

Not to blindly defend Obsidian, but you really give them too much credit when it comes to the pricing here. Their control over the dlc seems to be limited to 1) Make DLC or 2)Make Nothing. Otherwise, what they produce is under Beth's sound financial oversight in terms of price and when to release.

Unfortunate as it may be, but I'll always pay for canon stories (something the Nexus cannot offer). The guns are harder to rationalize, especially after having played around in the GECK. I hope the weapons are at least somewhat appropriate & fallout-y.

 

[valcik]

.. but I'll always pay for canon stories

Hm, on the FoNV screenshots, I saw some realistic looking models of M4 carbine and such. I do not consider this to be Fallout canonical.

 

[Hassknecht]

.. but I'll always pay for canon stories

Hm, on the FoNV screenshots, I saw some realistic looking models of M4 carbine and such. I do not consider this to be Fallout canonical.

It's official Fallout-canon, though, as stupid as all those real world weapons are.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That "if I purchase 12 of those" just seems a pretty dumb argument, as you are just going to extremes.

Really, why? That's how this works. They give you small purchases so you don't notice quite how much you're spending and how little you're getting in return.

Because you are making a huge leap on the numbers, why are you even complaining about paying for 12 packs when there are only 5 possible DLCs, one of them a gun pack, if you are saying that the existence of more of this packs inmediatelly makes this one worse because in the hypotetical scenario of buying 12 of them you already spent the price of a full game, that's just a very dumb argument, you just don't buy 12 packs, this is only one, we are discussing this one, if you buy 100 games you wont have enough to buy a new console or a new PC, then every game is terrible. If this game eats up 5 gb of disc space if I install 200 then I won't have space for more games. You are just bringing that weak argument out of nowhere, and it has nothing to do with the dlc, this DLC doesn't have a 12 previous DLC requirement or anything.
Now, I am not saying "OH THIS PACK IS AWESOME!" I am just saying that 1) it has a lot of content for the low price, (recipes might include homemade weapons, alternative ways to produce the 27 weapons, the mods, etc, something that could change the overall experience when making a new build, the weapons are not given to you in a case, they are added to the Vendor's list, and I am guessing they might put them in special locations, there are weapons for every combat category. It also has some mii sidequests in the form of callenges that SEEM to be like the Stealth suit tests from OWB, and 2) We haven't seen almost anything from the DLC, just four screenshots, we can make our own assumptions from the beginning but until a full list of content is out and is tested we can not be certain this is either good or bad.

Your missing the point. And of course it can and SHOULD be compared directly.

Both are content for games regardless if we are talking about a map pack for CoD or weapon addons for Fallout Vegas.

As said people can do with their money what ever they want but are they really so ignorant that they don't realize the difference between a full price game for 45$ and 20 weapons (or so) for 4$ ?

We haven't seen almost anything from the DLC, just four screenshots, we can make our own assumptions from the beginning but until a full list of content is out and is tested we can not be certain this is either good or bad.

We know its just content with weapons. So nothing that will really change the gameplay very much. But again its not important if I see those weapons as "fun". It still does not change the fact that it is overpriced. You can get the full game now for what ? 20$ ? Really even if you buy those packs you should be at least able to understand where the criticism is coming from.

 

[Tagaziel]

So you're saying that the Gun Runners pack is 40% of the investment that the DLCs are? That's rediculous. We all know that making new weapons, weapon mods, and ammo types is a fraction of the work of making a full DLC. $1 would be reasonable with $2 being the max acceptable amount. That's being generous too since I'm sure that it wasn't 10% of the investment of a standard DLC for Obsidian.

I'm not going to discuss with you if you keep on dramatizing and putting words in my mouth. You're part of the "NMA is whiny" problem.

Comparing it to Horse Armor is hyperbole. Pointing out $4 is too much for a pack that better publishers are giving away for free is fair.

Yes, it is a fair point. Pointing out that it is a pack that contains far more content than packs worse publishers sell for a similiar price is also fair.

So? That impacts the skewed price point how? This isn't like comparing the amount of hours I get from a book to a film, of course the pricing is going to be different there. But when we're actually talking games, I can compare pricing directly. If I buy 12 $4 dollar weapon packs, from Obsidian and others, do you think I'll get the same amount of new experience out of it as I would a single game? Hell, and on their side of it, they're just adding a bunch of new models and reskins. New bullets doesn't cost anything, new mods are minor. It's not a lot of work they're putting in it to ask 10% of what I usually pay for new games, or 40% of their large DLC price point.

Except there aren't 12 weapon packs available, just one. You're deliberately fabricating circumstances to support your argument. You'd have a valid point if we were discussing, say, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 or Black Ops, whose DLC and their pricing are a joke, or Dawn of War II and its Wargear DLCs. But we're not.

I hope I don't have to point out why looking at how many weapons the other DLC have is asinine. The new weapons are only one of many features you get in said DLC.

Yes, but loot and perks are the only persistent effect these DLCs have on the vanilla game. The events and consequences of the player's choices in New Vegas DLCs don't factor into the Mojave at all, with the sole exception being Veronica's pre-planned Elijah upgrade. Thus the comparison.

Your fairness argument works only in as far as people are willing to pay this. And it's true, that's how economics work. But guess what, people can also be unwilling to pay it, because the pricing makes no sense to them. The secondary problem is when people think "it's only 4 bucks, for fuck's sake" and don't consider that ignoring a few of such purchases means a brand new game. In fact, that's exactly what you said.

Yes. An integral part of my argument (though not explicitly stated, which may be my fault) is that it's a single visit to the ice cream story with my wife I'm skipping. If Obsidian was offering 12 such packs (as you imagined for the purpose of your argument), I'd be up in arms. But since they offer a single such pack, I have no problem about that.

So, the first point is, it's your money, and you can decide for yourself whether the pricepoint is fair or not. The second point is that this model is structurally flawed, as you yourself pointed out, and Obsidian should be above becoming a part of the problem.

Where did I point that out?

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

I'm really split about this, but I think it's worth thinking about the ratio of staff time + expenses: cost of the content.

If this gun pack is $4USD and the main DLCs are $10 I wonder if it really took 40% of the cost and time to make an entire DLC package.

That being said, and I'm sure the pros here can elaborate if they wish, I wonder i this helps keep people at Obsidian employed and the revenue flowing, if so I have to support simple ways to generate revenue to keep a company I support afloat.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Except there aren't 12 weapon packs available, just one.

He said "if I buy 12 $4 dollar weapon packs, from Obsidian and others". He was including all the others meaningless small priced DLCs that are released nowadays.

 

[Courier]

I would pay $1-$1.50 for something like this and that's pretty much my limit. For four dollars I can see a two hour long movie, buy lunch at a fast food restaurant, buy an entirely new game on Steam, and countless other things.

For comparison, I got Bioshock on sale from Steam for $5. Are you people honestly telling me that a couple new weapon models and textures are worth the same as a game like Bioshock? Or a two hour long movie?

Edit: At my local movie theater I can see a movie for $3. You're telling me a couple new virtual items are worth more than hours of entertainment from a movie?

 

[Wastewander]

I'm not sure it's correct to compare a 4-year old game, which is bound to have it's price lowered, to DLC which even after years will remain at the same price. And with the mainstream audience enjoying to blow shit up, it would not surprise if someone would spend over 2 hours using the GRA weapons going around killing people and creatures for the fun of it.

 

[Courier]

I'm not sure it's correct to compare a 4-year old game, which is bound to have it's price lowered, to DLC which even after years will remain at the same price. And with the mainstream audience enjoying to blow shit up, it would not surprise if someone would spend over 2 hours using the GRA weapons going around killing people and creatures for the fun of it.

Yeah but, why would I buy this when I can get an entirely new game I've never played before that will give me hours of enjoyment for the same price?

Edit: According to Steam I've played Bioshock for over 20 hours. For only $1 more than the price they're charging here for a couple weapon re-textures. I honestly don't see how you people can think this is a fair price.

Edit: If this included new quests or locations then yeah, it'd be worth my $4 and I'd probably buy it. But a couple new weapon re-textures and models that took maybe 30 minutes to make and almost no effort? They should be giving this shit away for free, especially since I've put up with all their bugs and crashes since release.

 

[Wastewander]

No one is saying to buy the GRA DLC over a "new" game that will provide equal or greater amount of hours of enjoyment. The point I was making was that you can't directly compare a full fledged game with DLC because the economics models of both are different.

 

[OakTable]

Steam usually has a sale for Fallout DLC every now and then, so I could see some of you naysayers getting it then.

Also, you need to update the news post again. They've added some new info on the stuff in the GRA mod, and J.E. Sawyer talked about it on his Formspring. Apparently, some of the new weapons are unique versions of previous weapons, like the Bozar being a unique LMG or the Nuka Break being a unique Rebar Club. Others are all new or unused legacy content from 3. Some of the old weapons get new mods with a GRA title at the end to show they were added by the mod. New ammo types include 25mm and 40mm plasma grenades, 12 gauge Dragon's Breath shells, and Hive Missiles. All of the new weapons can only be purchased, not found.

 

[DemonNick]

I'm not sure it's correct to compare a 4-year old game, which is bound to have it's price lowered, to DLC which even after years will remain at the same price. And with the mainstream audience enjoying to blow shit up, it would not surprise if someone would spend over 2 hours using the GRA weapons going around killing people and creatures for the fun of it.

Yeah but, why would I buy this when I can get an entirely new game I've never played before that will give me hours of enjoyment for the same price?

Edit: According to Steam I've played Bioshock for over 20 hours. For only $1 more than the price they're charging here for a couple weapon re-textures. I honestly don't see how you people can think this is a fair price.

Edit: If this included new quests or locations then yeah, it'd be worth my $4 and I'd probably buy it. But a couple new weapon re-textures and models that took maybe 30 minutes to make and almost no effort? They should be giving this shit away for free, especially since I've put up with all their bugs and crashes since release.

You can't compare something that's gone into the bargain bin and put on sale (Bioshock costs $20 on steam normally) with the standard price of something new. Also if it's just a couple weapon retextures and shit, then why are you even whining? Surely you'll be able to just, y'know, do without?

Also: They don't owe you anything for buying their game. There is no reason for them to reward you with a pat on the head for paying money for a product. Are you seriously that infantile that you want a pat on the head just for putting up with a few crashes?

 

[GreyViper]

GRA DLC is mostly meant for console players who dont have access to weapon mods unlike PC users. To be honest Fallout Classic Weapons Mod does the same thing as GRA DLC minus the challenge and silly melee weapons. When i heard about the GRA DLC I was hoping they would expand GR a bit in NV and add bunch of quests for them about their dealings with Van Grafs and Crimson Caravans, lots of intrigue there. Right now it looks like Fallout version of Pinnacle Station for Mass Effect.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

To be fair to Obsidian, Classic Fallout Weapons kinda.. sucks.

 

[GreyViper]

To be fair to Obsidian, Classic Fallout Weapons kinda.. sucks.

Ehh how so, Im using Project Nevada integrated one and the weapon models look ok and have weapon mod support. Or do you mean classic fallout weapons sucked? Kind of hard to understand from your comment.

 

[Tommomo]

It seems pointless to be overly critical or supporting of the GRA until the pack has actually come out and its impact on the game becomes apparent. We simply dont know how/if this pack has an impact on how people can play the game and its dlc's.

Just a couple things;
1. I dont think Obsidian have any kind of control over the pricing of products that get released, that would be entirely in Beth's court.
2. I dont see why they should be releasing anything for free as some people are saying. Im not saying $4 is a fair price but the dev's dont owe the players shit for buying their product as far as im concerned. Fact is its extra content that they spent time and money on (and which cost them money to release on Steam etc).
3. I've gotten several hundred hours of enjoyment from NV and if this pack adds some more, maybe even convinve me to do a different character build and do it all again then i will pay it gladly (Im on a console so i dont get mods).

 

[Crni Vuk]

No one is saying to buy the GRA DLC over a "new" game that will provide equal or greater amount of hours of enjoyment. The point I was making was that you can't directly compare a full fledged game with DLC because the economics models of both are different.

How so ? You get full price games as download today just as you get DLCs.

That is the point of the whole discussion. That it can be directly compared. Strange enough why do people try to "explain" this rotten DLC business like it would be something "special" or some "exception" ? Just because you don't get it in a package and there is not always some publisher behind it ?

You get content for a price. It is the same with games. Just that you get here just a very small fraction for huge price (in relation) compared to some full game which offers much more then that.

*Edit
Also it seems quite a few here are missing the point entirely. This is not a debate about if you buy it or not but how "bad" this system is actually for the consumer. It always surprises me how "forgiving" the gaming business is in such matters and how easily gamers allow publishers and developers to sell them either overpriced stuff or low quality games (well not always but see Oblivion, Fallout 3 etc.). There are many other markets which are far less forgiving. Not to mention gamers have the very very strange habit of even "defending" it in the end ... like the idea of some publishers to kill the second-hand market and many gamers feel completely fine with that evolution ... sometimes I am asking my self if I woke up in some kind of twilight zone.

 

[Brother None]

Pointing out that it is a pack that contains far more content than packs worse publishers sell for a similiar price is also fair.

It's worth noting, but it doesn't actually change anything, except to make Obsidian look slightly less bad by comparison.

Except there aren't 12 weapon packs available, just one. You're deliberately fabricating circumstances to support your argument. You'd have a valid point if we were discussing, say, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 or Black Ops, whose DLC and their pricing are a joke, or Dawn of War II and its Wargear DLCs. But we're not.

Man this point just wooshed past all of you huh? It doesn't matter that NV doesn't have 12 weapon packs, as I'm discussing the model as a whole and how it impact game budgeting. The skewed price point remains equally true whether there are 12 such packs, or only one, or a hundred.

Yes, but loot and perks are the only persistent effect these DLCs have on the vanilla game.

I know plenty of people are still playing New Vegas, but the core value of these DLC comes from the amount of gameplay hours they add to the game, not the impact they have on the vanilla game. So basically, you're agreeing with me, it's an invalid comparison.

An integral part of my argument (though not explicitly stated, which may be my fault) is that it's a single visit to the ice cream story with my wife I'm skipping.

You do realize this statement only proves my point about being nickel and dimed, right?

Where did I point that out?

By mocking all the other publishers but somehow exempting Obsidian. Bias much?

Steam usually has a sale for Fallout DLC every now and then, so I could see some of you naysayers getting it then.

Sure. I got the Fallout 3 DLC for $8 bucks, all of em. Just because I object to a price point doesn't mean I won't buy something when the price is right. Though I doubt I'll get GRA, it's just not my kind of content.