this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
12 points (92.9% liked)

Memes

44226 readers
1448 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scubbo@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, and I'm tired of pretending that there is. If you think the base game is over-priced, then by all means complain about that - but if both the base game and the DLC are worth the price they're asking for it, then there is no harm done (and some advantage) in having modular buying options.

[–] escapesamsara@discuss.online 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Sure, if the DLC isn't cut content from the game. That's the problem. If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game. DLC, should it be developed at all, should be an expansion beyond the original scope of development funded by the excess profit from the game.

[–] scubbo@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.

Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?

If the point you're actually trying to make is "if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it", then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn't justify the price of a full game. That's my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn't have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.

[–] TawnyFroggy@hexbear.net 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Day 1 DLC, no matter how optional it might be in practicality, is 100% a tactic to make people feel like they need to pay more to get the "complete" version of the game.

[–] scubbo@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _" does not imply "_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _". That's a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.

EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is "we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn't work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we'd kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)