Are payed Dlc's are out of control?
Agree. I hate the way the gaming industry is going these days. Season pass, micro-transactions, exclusives, preorder bonus etc, All bs.
Bring back cartridge games, the shit needs to be complete and working or you will lose a lot of dough.
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted publisher greed is out of control, but for a lot more reasons than just the one you gave. -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it's really stupid to think that they should pay for updates after the release, even though there's no real income source.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was thinking the same thing, but at the same time, they could've stopped updating the game literally after it came out. The DLC has lead to free heists, mechanics, weapons, masks, the perk system, the infamy system and so on.
The DLCs themselves can be acquired pretty cheaply too. 0,79€ for 6 heists, a bunch of weapons and masks is quite good (I know Armored Transport is one of a kind, but still). They're not even splitting the community with the DLCs, since only the host needs to own it.
In the end, you either have the DLCs, or you have the Vanilla experience. It's really childish to expect extra content after release, since that's not how a for-profit company works.
The microtransactions though.... that's a different deal. (But since we're talking of DLC.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's the ridiculousness of the idea. As you said, they lied about having microtransactions. Now they have the case system, but the skins look bad and for some reason yellow dots on a sniper rifle make it stronger.
It's the logic of having flames on your car makes it faster.
It's a small boost, but in the end it's still a boost for the player that has money to spend on their shiny new toys. They went a step down compared to games like CS:GO.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, a P90 (Don't know the name they chose in the game) skin allowed me to all normals in one hit, instead of 2, on Very Hard. That's a weapon that could get you through a heist with an almost 50% increase in efficiency. I know it can be a small number, but if that means you cross over a threshold, then it's a giant margin.
In most cases that will most likely not happen, but it can and it WILL still happen. It's not a 180 to 182 increase, it's more of a 180 to 190-195 increase for skins that aren't the cheapest ones, but the below average ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it did bump the weapon up 1-2 ranks. The skins do the same with guns like the Deagle, which get a stability boost that allows you to spam so much more easily. A Deagle thanks to that can kill a cloaker in at least 1-2 seconds quicker from a far away. It's still massive boosts, that can not just help your game, but literally carry you through it.
The Deagle can now just single handedly destroy literally every enemy in the game with that skin. Also, Very Hard is not much harder than OVK. DW is the only real difficulty that has a read difference, like the DW cops. Also, the boost isn't as strong as the skins. At least for the Deagle.
The P90 can now effectively carry you through OVK, it's now as difficult with the gun as it was on VH. That, in my opinion, is a problem. If a gun gets improved by a color, then there's something extremely wrong with the system. If Thana can suddenly have 10% more ammo, because of a color difference, then it's bad. Also, remember that the drop rates for boosts are really small.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't trust a company to make something not very grindy if there's money to be earned. I know that it's anecdotal, but I'm fairly sure, since it is Overkill after all, that they would make sure that you'd pay. If you want the boost, then you cannot rely on the drop rates, since you can get a single boost after approx. 15 hours. Take for example.. sigh the drills. I don't know a single person to get a drill, and neither do the Steam Forums, it seems.
Also, it was a fun discussion, I like people, who are willing to discuss in a civil manner. Welcome to my whitelist! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree or not with the current model, the problem is mostly solved by having some self control to wait a year when all the prices start to really drop. There are very few games that I've ever been even interested in having day one. They are just as good in a year, when the bugs are patched and the price drops.
Comment has been collapsed.
pretty much sums up how i have been buying them, a good 90% of games i want these days i wait for a game of the year ed and wait til its $20-30
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in no rush, I have a backlog a mile long. There are very few games I'm interested in getting day one, and the rare time they are, chances are I preordered cause I know they aren't gonna screw me. (Homeworld Remastered was the last one I think.. REALLY want the new Homeworld, but that price.. nope. NOPE!)..
Beyond that a year, two, doesn't bother me. Helps that I'm not big on multiplayer though ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly.
Bioware developers explained how EA cut story critical parts out of ME3 that were already finished and made them DLC. They even delayed the release to do it! Then they tried to sell multiplayer maps separately which split the playerbase and killed participation as people quit in disgust. Sales of their microtransactions dropped to nothing and EA walked away not even fixing trivial bugs.
Now we've got Fallout holding out on DLC. Well, I'm holding out on paying and I've been playing the series since Wasteland on the C64.
One of my friends paid $90 for the full pre-order version of Star Wars Battlefront only to find out EA held out DLC again and the actual full version costs $120. His conclusion is that he's never paying for an EA game again. I see EA doing a Zynga/Harrah's and burning out their customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea Ea just plain sucks all around i blame them for most of the gaming industry bad practices all this crap started with them buying up all the smaller talented gaming studios and closing them or running them into the ground to buy up Ip's and delete competition,now there is nothing creative coming out of there studios they are all just rehashes of previous games,i wish everyone would stop buying there products for a full year and put them out of business.
I also bought battlefront for ps4 and i should have cancelled my pre-order when i heard they cut the single player game mode,while the game looked good its severely short unless you dont mind grinding levels all the time as thats all there is to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Speedruns of classic games often revolve around using game-breaking glitches to cut out 9/10's of a run.
Cartridge releases unable to be patched are not the nostalgic trip you remember.
Now, literally cutting content from the finished BASE product and selling it separate as DLC is wrong on all accounts and I hope companies who practice this tactic end up in the ninth pit of hell where they belong.
But, continued support of a game after a release along with paid DLC that have been developed AFTER base release I'm all for.
I have hope yet too, Witcher 3 and Fallout 4's ambitions gave it to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny enough, quite a few cartridge-based games actually had patches as they made new prints. Same as how the arcade board ROMs were updated when they produced new units. It was rare, but not unheard of.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is some DLC that are worth the money, but for every DLC that's "worth it" there are a dozen that are just tripe milking people for money for stuff that either should have been in the base game or should have been free.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh i agree fully the old expansions were well worth the money like the ones for morrowind,i have no problem paying for an actual expansion that adds a good amount of content for an already full game release.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not mind the fact that DLCs are not free, at all. If the DLC is good, I'm very happy to pay (reasonable amount) for a game that I enjoy playing. If it's not good, then it's a simple matter of not buying. Simply voting with your wallet should make them understand what kind of DLC will sell.
If you feel like the main game has suffered because of DLC, then I'd suggest being cautious with that publisher when considering buying their future games. Again showing with your wallet that it's not good business practice.
Comment has been collapsed.
i have no problem with paying for a dlc if the content is worth it, i just dont think most of the publishers are responsible enough to draw a line in the sand and say we cant cross that line, Dlc's were done right for a very short amount of time because corporate greed kicked in and all the shady practices surfaced.
Comment has been collapsed.
Horse Armor for Oblivion was released ten years ago. Just because crap DLCs are released, it won't exclude the good ones. Just like games themselves. If it's greed that drives them, then the bad publicity and lower sales will eventually steer them towards the right direction.
Comment has been collapsed.
I kind of hate when they say "buy the season pass with a discount" before the base game is even out...
I tend to wait and buy the goty editions a year or two later for one tenth of the initial price. Doing so, you don't need to have a very updated (and very expensive) pc, so it's a sort of double saving :P
Comment has been collapsed.
oh i agree and was about to say something about the hole season pass thing in my post but i didnt want my rant to turn into a total wall of text lol
but i agree its another crappy practice,pay us for something we haven't made yet and it wont be as good as we say it will be and we will likely release it long after your done playing the game.
i rarely buy season passes anymore unless i know its a must have for me and i kinda trust the publisher.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know, the best part of all this is me remembering the last DLC I got, it was for Shadowrun Hong Kong, and it was FREE. Added a whole new campaign. The one before that was for Tomb Raider and added a shirt or something lol (though it was cheap so no complaints..) I can't imagine paying big prices for chunks of the game.. I mean if it was massive maybe, but so many DLC's are just a few levels for half the price of the original game.. screw that.
Comment has been collapsed.
If i pay for a game and it feels like worth the full price and additional DLC feel like they add something more to that game, i'm not against paying for that. But if i need to pay the full price for a game and it feels like an incomplete hull without the DLC, then i feel like they do it just to fulfill their greed and i most likely won't buy anything more from that company.
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad you finally realized one of the many faults of this tarnished industry ^w^ *cough* not Nintendo >_> *cough*
Comment has been collapsed.
If the dlc is legit extra content made after the release then it's fine but if it's already in-game just locked behind a pay-wall then that's just scummy Arf.!.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just vote with your wallet.
Don't buy at all or later when there is a GotY Edition or they're practically being given away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Activision in a nutshell. Along with microtransactions now. So now you have to buy unfinished main games, season passes with the rest of the experience and now the microtransactions thing added on top of all that. Makes me wonder what kind of addition they will add next. The worst thing of it all is people actually still supporting stuff like this "shut up and take my money!" they said... More like "we are your slaves for life".
There are dlcs/season passes worth buying, but most of the time its a rip off. Call of Duty is probably the best example for this, along with Destiny Year 1. Both are under Activisions control.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh hell yea destiny i got day one,game felt short with barely anything to do after the first few days considering it was supposed to be an rpg, then we found spots we could glitch into the map and get into area's of the game they had cut to sell to us as Dlc's that really rubbed me wrong every dlc they came out with i had already explored so they have all been there since day one. add on top of that them charging $80 for the three Dlc's and now added micro transactions, and worst part about it is all the dlc's were forced on us if we wanted to keep playing the base game or dlc's that we did already have otherwise everything you owned turned to junk and many of the things you could do were taken away and replaces with the new content.
Comment has been collapsed.
You also forgot that parts of the game at release were hidden behind a paywall: no monthly subscription to the premium console online service, no access to the map you already paid for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't forget that all the content we are getting year 2 was already planned for Destiny Year 1 aswell, even the content for the taken king got messed with. Some guy confirmed that Europa, one of the moons from Jupiter was meant to be included in the taken king and got scrapped out for future dlc.
It seems like they got a bad habit of cutting game content away to use later. The taken king was cut out from the original game, Europa was cut out from the taken king expansion, next expansion will most likely have cut content used for another future dlc. I just wished they focused on not being so greedy/dumb and put some focus into fixing the game while giving decent support to the game. The game has alot of potential, which is sad really. Seeing a game with lots of potential get ruined over greed. Guess Activision is mostly to blame, i bet the microtransactions were something they forced upon the game too to avoid having too much "paid dlc" on destiny year 2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Im old enough to remember buying games and all the Dlc's were free
That's not quite right, back then you would buy expansions. DLC is just another term for expansion, but with the modern distribution methods, it's viable to release mini expansions (and not charge a lot for something that only made minor changes to the game.
There are of course cases where DLC is being abused (launch day DLC that have large story chunks). But more often than not this is not the case, as the content produced post launch is something that would not have been in the main game anyway. Payday 2 might have a massive amount of DLC, but it's not cut content, it's just small chunks of content sold post launch (and Payday 2 also have had free content upgrades). Had Payday 2 DLCs been handled like in the "old days" you would have bought a map pack combining 4-5 of those DLCs with it being sold at a price point similar to 4-5 of those DLCs combined.
Comment has been collapsed.
no actually prior to that the early console games (think original xbox,dreamcast) every dlc was free at least for any game i owned heck ghost recon had some major dlc's that were huge like 6 new maps and new characters you could use several times and always free, the first console dlc i ever had to pay for was on xbox 360 and ps3 prior to that the only dlc i had payed for was on Pc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Payday 2 so far has released 14 free heists (includes 1-3 maps if you are unfamiliar with the game) and other free stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, content updates like what you describe still exist, you're just confusing free content update with expansions. And free content updates were not particularly common back in the days either. Actually, they've got noticeably more common now that we have the infrastructure for easily distributing content updates.
Two prime examples of games that are often accused of going overboard with DLC, Payday 2 & Europa Universalis 4, have had far far more free content updates than the games you mentioned. Payday 2 have had something like 12 free maps.
Selling small chunks of content has been a mainstay on PC since the early 90's though, so saying "These days" is a bit misleading, as it implies that this is a new thing. DLCs did not exist on older consoles because even those with an internal memory large enough to accommodate it lacked the infrastructure behind the scenes for distributing these kinds of things.
Also, take a look at the links I posted. Those things would cost between $15-$30 each. With prices like these, the DLC of today seems almost generous.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Selling small chunks of content has been a mainstay on PC since the early 90's though" Any proof on that? [found your links now!!] If not i disagree here. That was possible since digital payments at first and took off as subcriber services (steam, xbox live, psn etc) directly have "1-click" payments options to make impulse buying pretty common. ...
The examples you give are mostly speech paks... with the advent of the CDROM and content created for targetting PCs with those equipped (games shipped on cds instead of disks) it seems that there was a rehashing going on to upgrade the disk versions to "Talkies" too, as probably demanded by gamers. This is content which wasn't specifically created to be sold individually but as it was available through the production itselves just couldn't be easily shipped because of space limitations so your argumentation is a bit bland.
There were "mission disks" at that time which did contain less content but were priced cheaper but i still count them as a (albeit smaller) expansion as they usually contained a group of new content like the Battle Isle Mission Disk series (which i never owned so i can't speak for its content actually) instead of a single new level or new unit skin or whatsoever todays are being sold as dlc...
In the timeframe you give the most common thing was to prepare and bundle expansions to games which was sold like the original game: as a boxed copy. It usually did cost like 50% of the basegame (that be like 20-30€) but usually enhanced gameplay by several means: be it a new campaign or 2, new units or whatsoever generally content which would consist of dlc bundles today.
The basic question here pricing to value levels. Lets take Payday2 for instance: the base price is 19,99€ for the game. The sum of all offered DLCs is 131,70€. Thats inflates the game price by 758% if you want to have a "complete" game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends. Map packs, new skins, sometimes new game modes were always parts of simple patches. Expansions were usually new SP campaigns or really large game mode add-ons like with Quake 3.
Of course there was always the other end, like the original Doom 1 mod/map packs, which were normally free, but since almost nobody had internet, the original publisher sold them for a hefty amount.
Comment has been collapsed.
They were not just part of patches, there were in fact entire "expansions" that were nothing but a bunch of new multiplayer maps, or some new skins, or a few new playable characters for multiplayer. Most games did not receive any real content updates with their patches, they just fixed a few things, so it was hardly the norm that you would get a lot of new content for your games. And then we had the "speech packs", something that I guess if they were released today would be something that people would blame DLC for. Speech packs were quite simply "expansions" that only added voiced dialogue to the games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those mini-packs were relatively rare and I don't even recall one before 2003. Even huge additions like when they made an entire multiplayer mode to the otherwise 100% SP Deus Ex 1 was released in a large patch, then later included in the GOTY re-release. (Like how UT'99 slapped on a large community-created mega-mod on its own GOTY edition as free bonus content.)
Comment has been collapsed.
They had a slump in the late 90's but were common in the early 90's. And yeah, the games that did really well, like Deus Ex, Half-Life and so on tended to get some post-release content updates. But most games did not. Looking up at my game shelf and using that as a sample base (i do have quite a few older games) not many of these did get any form of free content.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, I hate microtransactions more. Like, I understand why they're in Tf2, because it's free to play, but the whole thing with them in CS:GO and Payday 2 and whatnot is bullshit. Some DLC are actually really worth the money, like Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare DLC. That was basically a whole new game. DLC like 'skin packs' and whatever are out of hand, though. Much like cases and keys in games you have to buy. Like if I bought the game, I want to be able to have access to the features, even if it's just skins. We should be able to open cases or unlock DLC content with in-game money or something. Even if earning it is slow, it'd be better than charging ludicrous amounts of money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even big add-ons often seem a bit of a rip-off, but when companies release little DLC after DLC I just want to steal all their shit as a big fuck you.
Comment has been collapsed.
We got us a winner here:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/203770/
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha you think this is the winner? Check this out:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/314160
and this
http://store.steampowered.com/app/24010/
The worst thing is most of the DLC's are not DLC but simple payware mods. And there's plenty of payware mods outside of steam which cost insane amount of money.
Comment has been collapsed.
The justification I've heard of the Train Sim DLC is that it's like a virtual model train set. And if you were making model trains, you'd have to go to the hobby store and buy all of the pieces you're adding to your layout if you weren't happy with what was included in the basic starter kit. Nobody is expected to buy all of it unless they have severe mental health issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
DLC stands for "Downloable Content", so yes they are all DLC.
It's common for simulation game to have paid models you can add to the game and it's been that way as far as I can remember. It cost time and money to build all these sets and no one in their right mind would buy them all anyway. Like a model kit, you're only paying for what you want to own.
Before FSX was on Steam, there were already numerous sites selling plane models you could fly in-game. I have friends who are flight sims fan and would gladly pay to add the planes they wanted to their sim.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't it hypocritical? When bethesda tried to make people pay for mods the reactions was...well...bethesda changed their minds. But when some other game do the same it's ok?
I understand it takes effort and time to make those models and i'm even ok if they're payware mods, but not 20-30€ for one damn model. Cities skylines and some other good, complex games cost less. The price should be much lower, like 1-5€ for 1 model. And how about a 100€ for a better looking clouds? It's ok too right? I don't think so, it's ridiculous. Look at assetto corsa. 15€ for laser scanned nordshleife and some cars. It's a fair price. You know how much those modders would have asked? No less than 100-200€.
Another example - euro truck simulator 2. The trucks are free, developers even gave us a huge graphic overhaul for free.
No offense, i'm not angry with you or something :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The issue with paid mods is how botched it was done, and on an already established community to boot. Long-standing free mods that depended on other suddenly-paid mods, people taking other people's work and posting it as paid content, and other niceties like that. If they had enabled paid mods on a new game that didn't already have a large established community it would have been easier to fine-tune things without all the drama.
The problem with simulators is the limited user base. Planes or trains/stations models aren't just graphical but functional reproduction of their original real-life counterpart. This is actually quite complex to build and will unfortunately not sell that many copies due to the smaller number of end-users, hence the higher price to offset the development costs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't call simulator genre as niche. They have sold more than 500k, train simulator almost a million. Some popular AAA games do not sell such amount of copies. Assetto corsa for example sold much less and DLC are much MUCH cheaper but more people buy the DLC because they can afford it. I don't think those simulator modders are putting more effort than other modders/developers.
Of course there will be a very small percentage of game owners buying those mods, because they're insanely expensive. We're not talking about 20 or 50€, it's 500, 1000 or even more €.
Comment has been collapsed.
and this too http://store.steampowered.com/app/47890/
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not really new and not exactly the DLC this thread speaks of. The Sims always had insane amount of expansions, but they always added a ton of new content, not even counting the mini-expansions.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes it is really relevant to the topic...it doesnt matter wether they always update new contents or not...which this EA bussiness model has been used by Overkill...
Comment has been collapsed.
Some DLC's are worth it, witcher 3 for example. I don't buy ubisoft games if they're less than 66-75% off, so i don't feel like i'm overpaying. And even if i buy such game i ignore the DLC. So just stop buying? They keep doing this because people are buying it, they don't care that someone complains, or writes a negative review, because they have bought the game.
DLC's aren't the worst. Paid mods are the worst.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh yea the whole payed mods thing that happened and will likely happen again really pissed me off,it would have been semi tolerable had the people who actually created the content could set the price and have the option for "free" and if they charged they receive 100% of the money from it.but yea i have no problem with DLC that are worth it,actual content added to an already finished game for a fair price would be perfect its just very rare these days.
Comment has been collapsed.
Paid mods are the worst.
Just wait and see, when Bethesda actually implements it on Fallout 4, everyone will hail it as the next best thing in video games. But only because they will be doing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda fans D:
In one forum I write on there are 3 bethesda fans who would do anythig to convince people that Fallout 4 is the best game ever, poor optimalisation, bugs, stupid AI, overdated graphic is nothing. They even put info "Fallout 4 is GOTY by DICE!! Lolz. look at this witcher 3 fans, who's better?" but thankfully noone cares about that thread anymore. So they weren't able to start some shitstorm bc of that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect that Bethesda would suffer worse than most other companies. People are still telling jokes about "Horse armour".
Comment has been collapsed.
They would not. The Skyrim fiasco had almost as many avid defenders as people outraged by it. And even then, people were not upset because of the concept of paid mods, they were upset because Valve took too much cut. (Bethesda took more, but that was almost never brought up.)
Bethesda isn't much worse as a publisher than UbiSoft or Activision, but they are like the Apple of video game publishers: have the same quality of products (or sometimes maybe a little worse here and there), doing the same shit as everyone else on the market, sometimes not even hiding when they purposefully fuck their customers in the ass, but they have a religious following that loves everything they do and asks for more of it. There are fans for the other publishers, believe it or not, but whereas you can argue with an EA fan or a Ubi fan, you can never argue with a Bethesda fan because it'll always, always end up in a flamewar. Zero exceptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
And even then, people were not upset because of the concept of paid mods, they were upset because Valve took too much cut
This seem to be a bit of an after construct. People were upset about payed mods before the revenue split was known. The discussion shifted when information about the revenue split became common knowledge, but it was not where the outcry started. And even when the revenue split was getting more attention, people kept being upset about payed mods.
you can never argue with a Bethesda fan because it'll always, always end up in a flamewar.
This has not been my experience. While there are indeed rabid fans of Bethesda games out there, even the most diehard fans that I've encountered have been willing to criticize Bethesda for their sloppy buggtesting and their horse armour.
Comment has been collapsed.
The tame ones are mostly the old fans, the TESIII crowd. When Bethesda started to go totally mainstream both in developed and published games, the fanbase was radically "CoD-ified". Strangely enough, even though the Fallout 4 forums were probably the most toxic place on Steam around the game's release, it is also the first game made by them (which, considering they made 5 in the past decade, isn't saying too much) that slowly started to push the fanbase to the other direction: now sane, critical voices can be heard among the former worshippers.
Comment has been collapsed.
One thing I find really stupid is the whole bunch of free DLC for Witcher 3. I mean, sure, they're free... but what's the point? Why not put the content IN the game instead of having people add a bunch of DLC to get the full experience? Unless there's a good reason for someone to not want those in their game.
When I see people praising the developer for this, I just cringe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly my thoughts. They could've included all the DLC in the game from day one. But they wanted some attention, show to the world how generous they are and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always wait for the Complete Pack for some game, I don't like missing out on content :p
Comment has been collapsed.
when games are nerfed, or chunks purposely left out, I feel robbed. Or if the DLC is needed for balancing reasons (civilization), yeah, it should be free. This is especially the case with launch-day DLC
When you're talking extra maps, challenges, or levels, that aren't needed, yeah, go ahead and charge for that (these used to be sold as expansion packs). X-Com Enemy Without is a great example, as are the headhunter episodes in borderlands.
I think it's idiotic to pay for cosmetic changes, but, there's a market for it, and it's fairly innocuous. It's unfortunate to not just have it as an Easter egg or something, but no big deal.
There are situations where it gets trickier, but you could just wait for the GOTY
Comment has been collapsed.
DLC (and other staff) = Cancer ....i miss old times with expansion packs or standalone games with plenty of content :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Im personally sick of paying full price for games and them feeling like half a game, then they try to milk us for another $80 in dlc for it to feel like a full game.
Im old enough to remember buying games and all the Dlc's were free and i know people say they deserve to be payed for there work and they did,most the companys who released dlc for these games did it so people would want to keep there games and would not trade them in hoping there would be more dlc's that would spark the games back to life for them so people would have to pay full price to buy a copy of the game because hardly anyone would trade the game in.it also had the added benefit that it would draw new interest in there game and people would go buy a copy if they hadn't already, it was a pretty good model for everyone involved.
These days some companys cut content from there games to sell to you day one or down the road, or sell you a half finished game and try to sell you the rest later after they finish it, then they get upset that people trade there games in because it cuts into there new copy sales and they try to find ways to stop it (think the $10 passes sold for online game play on a used game that luckily failed a year or so ago,or Microsofts original plan to make xbones games linked to the console so no one could trade the game in)
I feel this current model causes a lot of friction between game company's and consumers and is already ruining the gaming industry from shady practices some of these company's are using to try to milk a few extra bucks from people, while the older model of free dlc's were just as profitable and made better relationships between publishers and consumers, mind you with this older model there were often not as many Dlc's but surly there could be some middle ground?
I realize the game trade issues are only console related and this is a Pc forum but you can still post an opinion:)
Obligatory Ga Level 3+
Comment has been collapsed.