Why are people upset about the 4-6 hours? Fallout 3 DLCs have been much shorter.
Major Nelson Podcast interviews Jason Bergman
- Thread starter OakTable
- Start date
Lexx said:
Well, people were upset about Fallout 3 DLC's too.
Exactly. DLCs are not actual expanſion packs, I think people tend to forget that.
/edit:
Anyway, Beartrap Fiſt ſounds ſo ridiculous over the top that it might kuſt be totally aweſome.
/edit:
Anyway, Beartrap Fiſt ſounds ſo ridiculous over the top that it might kuſt be totally aweſome.
That beeing said, I wish we would still get real addons for games and not this smallshit.
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
Remember the days of actual expansion packs?Lexx said:
Faceless_Stranger said:Remember the days of actual expansion packs?Lexx said:
Remember the days where games stood on their own merit and didn't need expansion packs?
Dillrod
First time out of the vault
An expansion pack doesn't insinuate a lack of merit to the original game.
I was just kidding. I'm a big fan of DLC, provided it's not crappy stuff like Horse Armor.
Brother None said:
I think it's perfectly natural. Most people exchange hours of their lives for money, so it seems natural to weigh hours of enjoyment the same way.
From an economics standpoint, this question is not relevant. It has been proven that people are willing to pay this amount. $10 has become the standard exchange for this type of 'add-on'. Speaking strictly about the market, this price is not out of line.
As a business model: Consider it the popcorn with your movie, the polish with your carwash or the 'lifetime' warranty on a new piece of jewelry. These are sales that come after the main purchase with low/no cost expense to the retailer. The biggest difference here is that the 'purchase decision' is so distant from the main sale compared to other industries. Puts a heavy onus on the game designers to make a product that is worthwhile playing in the first place before gamers will even consider purchasing a DLC. Certainly not guaranteed money.
I've seen posts from yourself explaining that this industry does not generate profits very easily. If these companies have discovered a method to maximize profits on an after-sale product that requires little additional investment, it's hard to fault them for doing it.
Little Robot said:
Agree again, Little Robot. If a person is having a difficult time justifying the one-time price of 10 dollars on a non-essential item, they probably shouldn't consider purchasing DLC in the first place. Reminds me of friends who complain about their lack of money while they are sipping from their daily $4.00 latte.
OakTable said:
I don't know. The point is whatever people are willing to pay is fair price but there's a lack of awareness in the role of DLC et al. Until consumers in general figure out they're getting ripped off left and right, it's not likely to change. Which at the same time is good because it compensates for some pretty bloated game development budgets.
Anarchosyn
Still Mildly Glowing
Brother None said:
First off, going to the cinema isn't inherently a social experience. Even when done in a group, it's a fairly anti-social activity.
Secondly, why is it nonsense to translate different experiences? Saying it doesn't make it so, can you give a reason? This is done in social science all the time.
You can't say it's 1/10th the length so it should cost 1/10th the price, things don't operate that way. If that were the case then New Vegas should be 4-8x the cost of the average FPS (which I'm estimating to average about 10 hours).
The relevant question is: #1) how many man hours did it take to develop this? #2) what were their total costs? #3) how much of a cut does Microsoft demand? *AND* #4) what is the anticipated adoption rate (i.e. what percentage of Fallout New Vegas players will purchase this too)? #4 has got to be less then the total volume sold on the platform, probably by a considerable percentage (I'd estimate 30-40% adoption rate, at least initially.. maybe less with bad reviews).
(yes, #3 would be factored into #2, as would #1.. I'm ineloquent when sleepy
).
Anarchosyn said:
Social science?
You're misquoting me anyway. I didn't say it's nonsense to translate different experiences, I said it is nonsense "to translate different experiences for prices especially when measured in hours". I don't believe there's any validity to directly compare different media experiences in pricing.
The why is almost too self-evident to state. These experiences always have different durations and pricing and their pricing logic from an economic standpoint is internally self-consistent but never holds up to external scrutinity. I can pay more to go to a concert than to buy a CD but does that mean the concert is a lower value experience? If I want to determine whether or not the pricing of concerts is fair, I compare it to other concerts, I don't compare it to the price of CDs.
By the same logic, the primary thing I have to compare DLCs to is other DLCs and videogames. Same experience, same pricing concepts. So why do I need to compare it to theater in the first place when I already have a valid point of comparison?
Anarchosyn said:
That's why I added the note on manhours. Also your statement is ridiculous. I'm comparing DLCs to their source game, not to a completely unrelated game of a different genre.
If you're just going to ignore half of what I'm saying then, uh, well that's annoying.
Diospyros said:
It's not that clever. Honestly, I think that it sounds stupid; maybe they will pull it off nicely but it seems a little uninspired.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
It's now dissociative identity disorder and it's debatable whether or not it really exists.OakTable said:
That would be pretty reasonable as it would equated to a 40-60 hour game at $50 and it's still undoubtably making more money on investment than a 40-60 hour game at $50.OakTable said:
Anarchosyn
Still Mildly Glowing
Faceless_Stranger said:Remember the days of actual expansion packs?Lexx said:
Yeah, like Shivering Isles for Oblivion or Awakenings for Dragons Age... the good old days.
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
Like Tribunal and Bloodmoon, Tiberian Sun: Firestorm, Yuri's Revenge, Broodwar, etc.
Anarchosyn
Still Mildly Glowing
Faceless_Stranger said:Like Tribunal and Bloodmoon, Tiberian Sun: Firestorm, Yuri's Revenge, Broodwar, etc.
Um, for your "eye rolley" to make any sense you'd have to refute the fact we don't get expansions still. We do. I listed two notable ones that have come out in the last few years. Others exist, especially in other genres (but I digress with that). Hell, Broken Steel and/or Point Lookout (or whatever the hell those FO3 expansions were called) could probably fit the bill as well.
Now, I'll happily concede the point that we probably get less (and, more importantly, will continue to receive less) due to this new marketing scheme but, at the same time, we probably will get a steadier trickle of materials in which to enliven the play experience.
Anyhow, you can certainly continue naming off expansion packs from the past but I fail to see how they're structurally different from Awakenings, Broken Steel, Point Lookout, those GTA/Red Dead expansions (etc). The thing is, they aren't going to announce that kind of DLC/boxed addition so close to the original launch/major patch. Just be patient.
I think the complaint about dlc vs true expansions is that while you pay almost the full price of the original game, you usually get enough content that your almost doubling your game size.
As for comparing movie tickets to video games, if your looking at the opportunity cost it is a valid comparison IF its the best alternative to buying the dlc. If you have $10 to spend and your going to get the the most entertainment out of this particular dlc or going to see a particular movie, then it is a valid comparison. However you also have to take into account that you can go back and replay the dlc; you cant go back and see the movie unless you pay the $10 again.
So looking at it that way, the dlc is almost always a better buy.
But to compare price to price the best comparison is something in the same media. In that comparison dlc is a little overpriced from the consumer standpoint, but, and this is a guess since i don't have the actual numbers, i would say that from the producer standpoint its a fair price. Making a small dlc is still going to take alot of work from alot of people and you can guarantee less sales of that than the original. So if they price too low they risk not making a profit. Which is another reason why i think dlcs are more common than true expansions now, less time and money put into it means less possible loss, also less profit, but when it comes to big corporations like that they don't like to take risks usually
As for comparing movie tickets to video games, if your looking at the opportunity cost it is a valid comparison IF its the best alternative to buying the dlc. If you have $10 to spend and your going to get the the most entertainment out of this particular dlc or going to see a particular movie, then it is a valid comparison. However you also have to take into account that you can go back and replay the dlc; you cant go back and see the movie unless you pay the $10 again.
So looking at it that way, the dlc is almost always a better buy.
But to compare price to price the best comparison is something in the same media. In that comparison dlc is a little overpriced from the consumer standpoint, but, and this is a guess since i don't have the actual numbers, i would say that from the producer standpoint its a fair price. Making a small dlc is still going to take alot of work from alot of people and you can guarantee less sales of that than the original. So if they price too low they risk not making a profit. Which is another reason why i think dlcs are more common than true expansions now, less time and money put into it means less possible loss, also less profit, but when it comes to big corporations like that they don't like to take risks usually
