The game industry - anti-consumer bull - ranting thread

[StrickenBiged]

Ok, so this may be a bit of a rant thread, but I thought it might be fun to let off some steam and have a good moan about some of the latest practices that you've seen in the games industry, and how you think they are demonstrative of the industry that you love working against you. 

 

For myself, it may come across that I am pining for a simpler, bygone time, when you bought a game and would expect it to be playable without day one patches and other BS. But certain practices in the last 5 years or so, especially since a large number of consoles got connected to the internet, seem to have worked against the consumer in practice, despite the innovation being a great idea in theory.

 

I'll get us started:

 

Season Passes - Don't get me wrong; I think DLC is great. I like being able to re-visit games that I've enjoyed and have an excuse to re-visit those worlds for some extended story or whatnot. But what I object to here is the selling of that DLC in advance. 

 

If I go to a store and buy a boxed game, I know what I'm getting. But when I buy DLC, there seem to be no guarantees. What if a game is a commercial flop and the company goes pop? Who will make the DLC I have already paid for then? What if the DLC is crap and I decide I don't want it.

 

Also, it reeks of "milking the cash-cow" when DLC has already been planned in advance. Why wasn't this content planned for the original game then? Was it deliberately sectioned off by the publisher or dev company so that they could extract more money from us later? At what stage of development did someone say "I've got a great idea for how this story could be expanded on" and someone reply "that's a great idea - let's save it for the DLC"? 

 

Do I even need to mention those "DLC" items which are already installed on the disk but have to be "unlocked" by purchasing a couple of lines of code from the respective digital stores? Grrrr.

 

Needless to say, I have stopped buying season passes for these reasons.

 

Possible solution: 

 

Do something akin to Kickstarter, with fans able to choose whether they would like DLC, which then goes into production if enough interest is expressed in the DLC. Dev's could even pitch their ideas for DLC and see which ones gain traction. Would you like a new character class? How about new maps? People could put their pledge on the pieces of DLC they want, and if they reach their funding targets, then the developer goes on and makes the DLC. 

 

________

 

So, your turn. What modern practices or innovations in the industry lately do you feel work against your interests as a consumer?

[Parker]

It is completely unrealistic to expect all DLC to be included in the original game. I have no problem with developers planning DLC before the game releases because it shows they plan on supporting the game afterwards, and I highly doubt there are companies that withhold content (significant content at least, something like a skin pack I can see) to release it as DLC later. We're in agreement with the on disc DLC though. Personally, I think that because gaming has become much more popular and we can see behind the scenes much more than we could before, I believe that is part of the problem. I'm sure developers in the '90's that released expansion packs for games had them planned before the base game released and I don't really see DLC as being much different than that. 

 

The modern practice I despise the most is requiring a single player game to be "always on." There is no reason I shouldn't be able to enjoy a single player game if I don't have an internet connection, it makes no sense. 

 

 

Parker

[BeautifulTorment]

I don't dislike day 1 patches to be honest. There is a decent chunk of time between the time the game is submitted to be printed on discs, and the time that the consumer will be popping the disc into his or her console. In that time, it seems reasonable that they would continue efforts to make the game better, sometimes resulting in a day one patch. Now, the thing that I can't stand that is relatively similar is day 1 DLC. That just takes advantage of the consumer and is essentially making you pay extra for content that should have been included on the disc in the first place.

 

 

I actually like this thread. I guess because its cynical. Let's see where it goes

Edited May 27, 2014 by BeautifulTorment

[Gravesound]

Season Passes are actually pretty nice in my opinion. If you like a game, and you know you'd like to play more of it, then a season pass is a great option. Most of them have a pretty great deal with them as well, such as the season pass for Black Ops 2 (the only season pass I've bought), where the price of the season pass was worth three out of the four map packs they were going to release, so you essentially got one free map pack. As for your concerns about "What if the company goes under before I receive my promised content?", I wouldn't worry about this at all. I'm sure if something like that did happen (which I can practically guarantee it never will) you'd get your money back, or repaid in other items such as memberships, games, etc. 

 

On-disc DLC? Yeah, no defense for it. Ridiculous to even think about it.

 

Planned DLC? Not bad at all. What DLC is, is essentially an optional expansion. You can't promise to have massive amounts of content on your game when there's a deadline ahead. Plan out the priorities, and then when you've finished, work on optional content, then if there's a little more time left, add a small bit. When someone is designing a game, they'll definitely be like "Oh, I should have added this! Guys, DLC expansion leggo!" and that's what a lot of designers have happen. Of course, at the same time, planning out DLC strictly for money is definitely cash grabbing. 

 

But let's not get too twisted here, videogame publishers/designers are making video games for a reason. That reason is to make money. If DLC works, and it gives people happiness? Go for it.

 

EDIT: I forgot to say the main reason why I feel like season passes are great, and that's because you're both funding the DLC teams, as well as paying for all the DLC upfront (of course with some kind of discount) so you don't need to go and budget your bank account for the next couple months while DLC is coming out.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Gravesound

[StrickenBiged]

 

The modern practice I despise the most is requiring a single player game to be "always on." There is no reason I shouldn't be able to enjoy a single player game if I don't have an internet connection, it makes no sense. 

 

 

Wow, yeah, that's a doozy. Like look at the problems Sim City had with trying to patch around that "always on" requirement, and the backlash against that. Especially considering they hadn't set up adequate servers to cope with demand.

 

Not to mention the backlash against XBone's policy on that same issue. Don't these people realise that a not-insignificant proportion of their userbase may not have a reliable internet connection, if at all? I read somewhere that some estimates put the number of 360 owners who hadn't connected it to the internet at something like a third of all 360s sold. 

 

And on a related note, what will happen if the anti-net-neutrality stuff gets approved in the USA? How will a smaller developer be able to pay for sufficient bandwidth to allow its players a reliable connection to its servers? 

[Gravesound]

And on a related note, what will happen if the anti-net-neutrality stuff gets approved in the USA? How will a smaller developer be able to pay for sufficient bandwidth to allow its players a reliable connection to its servers? 

 

That's something where I'd say if it hasn't happened yet, don't worry about it too much. Although anti net-neutrality is a serious possibility, I wouldn't worry about the videogame-side of server bandwidth until something like that did happen. (In which case, I'd rightfully lose my mind)

Edited May 27, 2014 by Gravesound

[Captain_Cutscene]

DLC which is already present on a game disc but requires cash to unlock is pretty bad.

 

But DLC which is developed after the game is released is completely acceptable. It is also optional, you don't have to buy it - free will and all that.

 

Significant DLC that is produced after the core game is released - will often demand a separate load of cash to fund and more often than not an entirely new group of developers - all of which need to get paid, require resources etc.

 

Alot of companies will have grand designs for developing post-release content - but they traditionally need to see how much money the core game makes before investing in further DLC.

 

The thing I dislike the most is the whole concept of 'pay to win' - it completely distorts the point of gaming in my opinion. I'm seeing this creep in a little with games now. Assassin's Creed 4 and Dead Space 3 spring to mind.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Captain_Cutscene

[Xxleonardo97xX]

-Online Pass: why can't I play a game online if I bought it second-hand!? EA has stopped doing this with their games because their customers were just mad. But there are still online passes on SONY exlcusive games (TLOU, GoW A, U3) and Ubisoft (AC 4, AC 3, ..)

[dontwaketheKIDS]

I think digital distribution channels are generally overpriced - specifically games available on both disc and offered digitally. A $60 retail box and a $60 digital download are not of equal value.

[Parker]

-Online Pass: why can't I play a game online if I bought it second-hand!? EA has stopped doing this with their games because their customers were just mad. But there are still online passes on SONY exlcusive games (TLOU, GoW A, U3) and Ubisoft (AC 4, AC 3, ..)

 

Didn't Sony say that with the PlayStation 4 there would be no more Sony games that require an online pass? I don't think those will be a problem anymore, thankfully. 

 

 

Parker

[StrickenBiged]

I think digital distribution channels are generally overpriced - specifically games available on both disc and offered digitally. A $60 retail box and a $60 digital download are not of equal value.

 

I totally agree, and it boggles my mind that they keep the digital prices high for months after retail copies have been slashed by physical or online stores. I wonder if anyone buys them at that point?

-Online Pass: why can't I play a game online if I bought it second-hand!? EA has stopped doing this with their games because their customers were just mad. But there are still online passes on SONY exlcusive games (TLOU, GoW A, U3) and Ubisoft (AC 4, AC 3, ..)

 

I can understand their argument for charging for the online pass if they are running the game through their servers as those cost money to maintain. Why should the developer or publisher allow a player onto their servers who hasn't paid them a dime?

 

But if the game is one where they don't run a server and matches are connected to a "host" console, then that's a different issue. Unless I don't understand how it works and they still have to have a server for some reason or another.

[Goekie]

-Online Pass: why can't I play a game online if I bought it second-hand!? EA has stopped doing this with their games because their customers were just mad. But there are still online passes on SONY exlcusive games (TLOU, GoW A, U3) and Ubisoft (AC 4, AC 3, ..)

 

All Online passes today are free of charge

 

The initial idea of DLC was great, giving gamers extra content after they've finished the main game while still hungry for more. GTA 4's Episodes of Liberty City is a good example of this.

 

Of course we all know that money makes the world go round so it was only a matter of time before DLC would become a marketing strategy, we see absurd prices for so called micro transactions like $80 shark cards and what bothers me even more is day 1 DLC.

Paying 20 quid for a 6 kb file to unlock content that's already on your disc feels like being ripped off big time.

 

That and DLC of old games like Fallout 3 which you can pick up basically anywhere for $3 still costs a bloody fortune when you go to the PSN store.

 

One more thing, what is up with Borderlands 2 Season pass? Isn't the whole point of buying a Season pass to give you ALL the available content at once? No, they decide to introduce a second!! season pass. Gaaahhhhh

[StrickenBiged]

DLC which is already present on a game disc but requires cash to unlock is pretty bad.

 

But DLC which is developed after the game is released is completely acceptable. It is also optional, you don't have to buy it - free will and all that.

 

Significant DLC that is produced after the core game is released - will often demand a separate load of cash to fund and more often than not an entirely new group of developers - all of which need to get paid, require resources etc.

 

Alot of companies will have grand designs for developing post-release content - but they traditionally need to see how much money the core game makes before investing in further DLC.

 

 

I agree it's acceptable when the DLC is developed post release, but with a Season Pass bought in advance, you're paying for something unseen and they are asking you to stump up the cash to fund that development without any guarantee that the company will sell enough Season Passes to make it worth their while. What happens if they don't sell enough season passes to fund the development of the DLC? Presumably the scope or quality of the DLC is reduced accordingly and we get skin-packs and the like. 

Or maybe this happens? 

 

One more thing, what is up with Borderlands 2 Season pass? Isn't the whole point of buying a Season pass to give you ALL the available content at once? No, they decide to introduce a second!! season pass. Gaaahhhhh

[DEMON]

Didn't Sony say that with the PlayStation 4 there would be no more Sony games that require an online pass? I don't think those will be a problem anymore, thankfully. 

 

 

Parker

 

Yea, but I think that just meant Sony won't do that anymore.  EA etc can still do it if they want.

 

As for Season Passes, always wait.. a year later they are normally half price.

 

Also, alternate colors and costumes in fighters.. that stuff should be free or unlock-able someway in-game.  I don't mind paying for extra characters, but when there's DLC for extra colors (and the colors may be ones I want), that's just overdoing it.

[Parker]

Yea, but I think that just meant Sony won't do that anymore.  EA etc can still do it if they want.

 

As for Season Passes, always wait.. a year later they are normally half price.

 

Also, alternate colors and costumes in fighters.. that stuff should be free or unlock-able someway in-game.  I don't mind paying for extra characters, but when there's DLC for extra colors (and the colors may be ones I want), that's just overdoing it.

 

EA has discontinued online passes as well.

 

http://help.ea.com/en/article/online-pass-has-been-discontinued/

 

While I suppose other companies could still implement online passes, I really don't think they will after all the backlash. 

 

 

Parker