May DLC Discussion Thread

[Terronium-12]

Not if you only use 1. Is it so hard to understand that alot of people only like the DTM car in this pack and have ZERO interest in the other cars? Do you really drive every single car in all games? You drove over a 1000 in GT6?

Why is it the new Aston costs £2.39 or the Dart £2.39 but the car most people want costs £8? That's a 6th of what the FULL GAME costs lol...insane.

It does not cost $9.99 by itself. You can't even purchase the car by itself. What interest I have in the rest of the cars, or the number of cars I've driven in another game having toss-all to do with this one doesn't change the fact that you're paying $9.99 for 10 cars. Not 1. Not 2. 10.

TEN.

 

[dice1998]

Not eleven?

 

[UkHardcore23]

You can't even purchase the car by itself.

****ing hell. No ****. We are FORCED TO BUY A FULL PACK FOR £8 if we only want to use a SINGLE car named the M3 Racing.....if we transfer that into your money which is $13.50 are you really happy at paying that? Of course T10 give you guys it cheaper at $10 but still why should someone that only wants the Aston pay £2.39 yet someone that wants to use the M3 Racing be forced to pay £8?

I honestly dont know any other dev that puts out so much DLC for so much money. Clearly you guys are happy to throw any amounts of money at Forza...I just hope it does not come back to bite you guys on the ass in 3 or 4 years time.

 

[McLaren]

LOL, I can't believe such basic economics continues to escape you. It's cheaper to buy as a bundle & the M3 is the incentive to do so because it is obviously the most desirable car. Would it be nice to buy every car individually, yeah, but from a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to set it up this way.

Regardless if you want to use a single car or not, it only costs $1, cheaper than you can buy any of the other cars individually because you get 9 other cars with it. If you don't want to use those other cars, then you have to decide if you want to buy the pack or not, but if you can find at least 2 other cars out of the 9 that you will use, it makes sense to buy the pack. Most people will do just that. I'm not one because I only like the Aston besides the M3, but I still understand the thinking behind it.

 

[UkHardcore23]

LOL, I can't believe such basic economics continues to escape you. It's cheaper to buy as a bundle & the M3 is the incentive to do so because it is obviously the most desirable car. Would it be nice to buy every car individually, yeah, but from a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to set it up this way.

Regardless if you want to use a single car or not, it only costs $1, cheaper than you can buy any of the other cars individually because you get 9 other cars with it. If you don't want to use those other cars, then you have to decide if you want to buy the pack or not, but if you can find at least 2 other cars out of the 9 that you will use, it makes sense to buy the pack. Most people will do just that. I'm not one because I only like the Aston besides the M3, but I still understand the thinking behind it.

You say i cannot understand basic economics yet you say it only costs $1 **** me I cannot even buy a single car for $1 nevermind the M3. To buy the M3 it costs £8 no matter how much you try and dress it up.

but if you can find at least 2 other cars out of the 9 that you will use, it makes sense to buy the pack. Most people will do just that. I'm not one because I only like the Aston besides the M3, but I still understand the thinking behind it.

So after all that you say your not buying the pack because you dont think it's not worth it due to only liking 2 cars.........Jesus christ No point in saying you understand why they done it like that...I know and you know why they done it and it's purely to try and fleece as much money as possible from loyal fans.

 

[McLaren]

You say i cannot understand basic economics yet you say it only costs $1 **** me I cannot even buy a single car for $1 nevermind the M3. To buy the M3 it costs £8 no matter how much you try and dress it up.

To buy the the M3, you have to buy the pack. The pack consists of 10 cars & costs $10. Thus, if by some chance you can put 2 & 2 together, that means each car costs $1 in the pack. That means the M3 costs $1 when you buy the pack because you get each car at a $1 a piece.

How do you not understand something so simple.

So after all that you say your not buying the pack because you dont think it's not worth it due to only liking 2 cars.........Jesus christ No point in saying you understand why they done it like that...I know and you know why they done it and it's purely to try and fleece as much money as possible from loyal fans.

Of course you don't understand why they did it because you can't even grasp the simple math of it. (Or the double negative you conjured up that actually goes against your point. Jesus christ indeed) The M3 costs you less when you buy the pack, as you are required to in order to buy it, than if you could buy it alone.

10 cars make 1 pack.
1 pack equals $10.
1 car costs $1 when you buy the pack.
You have to buy the pack to get the M3.

What is the cost of the M3? They write Little Johnny problems harder than this to get.

 

[Akira AC]

Is a basic economics technicality.

If T10 were to design a model in which they sold a car individually (which I think would be something like 1.3 USD as the packs have one free car, I think for FM games though I'm not sure for FM5) it would be less profitable because if they were to sell them individually they wouldn't get the same revenue as they would either invest far more in licensing cars that people would buy, or loose more for not selling cars within the the car batches they dispatch.

To circumvent such an issue they set up a model in which they release a number of cars to cover different demographics (i.e. a classic car for enthusiast, a sports variant for people who single mindedly like one car/brand, etc...), which at the end of the day works better for T10 as they get a better revenue for the sold packs and the incentives they put on them.

I did ponder the issue because my main gripe with DLC models is that they shouldn't have a minimal cap of over 5 USD (this of course is subjected to the type of game is design for), I'm not sure about racing games but the problem for them is getting the licenses in the first place. In FM4 it made more sense because the car variety was wider and they had to acquire more licences, therefore it was an additional investment aside the budget assigned to produce the model.

IMO it depends more on the car pack, as each car has a "technical" value (production value vs licensing value) which means that they are not under a baseline of 1 USD, some of them would technically turn a profit when being priced at 0.80 USD while others would turn a profit for 1.30 USD (this taking into account that licensing something like a Mazda doesn't cost the same as licensing a Ferrari).

I think is fair as it is, but the problem would be that most of those cars are from older games, and therefore they potentially still holds the rights and licenses from previous instalments (as the Reventon for example), making a car "technically" valued at 1.30 become an asset valued at 0.80, making an hypothetical +0.4 gain from what it would be a more expensive car to produce.


IMO is a rip-off, but not in the sense of giving a single iconic car per pack to make people buy the whole pack, but by using an existing car in the franchise as an included asset in the pack (yes, FM games had great car listing but stuff like the Lambo Veneno, or a few other than in older instalments would have been produced are not produced to gain that 0.40 USD from the refurbishment of that specific asset).


Not supporting UkHardcore23's view of the current DLC model, but how it seems to be degrading in order to turn more profit by making minor tweaks in the existing model.

 

[McLaren]

Is a basic economics technicality.

If T10 were to design a model in which they sold a car individually (which I think would be something like 1.3 USD as the packs have one free car, I think for FM games though I'm not sure for FM5) it would be less profitable because if they were to sell them individually they wouldn't get the same revenue as they would either invest far more in licensing cars that people would buy, or loose more for not selling cars within the the car batches they dispatch.

To circumvent such an issue they set up a model in which they release a number of cars to cover different demographics (i.e. a classic car for enthusiast, a sports variant for people who single mindedly like one car/brand, etc...), which at the end of the day works better for T10 as they get a better revenue for the sold packs and the incentives they put on them.

I did ponder the issue because my main gripe with DLC models is that they shouldn't have a minimal cap of over 5 USD (this of course is subjected to the type of game is design for), I'm not sure about racing games but the problem for them is getting the licenses in the first place. In FM4 it made more sense because the car variety was wider and they had to acquire more licences, therefore it was an additional investment aside the budget assigned to produce the model.

IMO it depends more on the car pack, as each car has a "technical" value (production value vs licensing value) which means that they are not under a baseline of 1 USD, some of them would technically turn a profit when being priced at 0.80 USD while others would turn a profit for 1.30 USD (this taking into account that licensing something like a Mazda doesn't cost the same as licensing a Ferrari).

I think is fair as it is, but the problem would be that most of those cars are from older games, and therefore they potentially still holds the rights and licenses from previous instalments (as the Reventon for example), making a car "technically" valued at 1.30 become an asset valued at 0.80, making an hypothetical +0.4 gain from what it would be a more expensive car to produce.


IMO is a rip-off, but not in the sense of giving a single iconic car per pack to make people buy the whole pack, but by using an existing car in the franchise as an included asset in the pack (yes, FM games had great car listing but stuff like the Lambo Veneno, or a few other than in older instalments would have been produced are not produced to gain that 0.40 USD from the refurbishment of that specific asset).


Not supporting UkHardcore23's view of the current DLC model, but how it seems to be degrading in order to turn more profit by making minor tweaks in the existing model.

While it is interesting thought, the problem still remains is this. Even if a Ferrari does cost more to license than a Mazda, how does T10 make up for selling the car on the marketplace when it's Microsoft who determines that cars all be priced equally regardless of make? It's a cost T10 has to factor in during development of the game & hope their sales cover.

The other can of worms is determining your "technical value" that brings in a profit per car whilst still being fair. You can't tell me over the course of 120 cars to be released post-release of the initial game, that there won't be a ton of holes in pricing & questioning as to, "Why does this 1 car cost 'x' amount more than this"? The range you gave leaves almost no room for so many cars to be priced logically. What Ferrari do you propose would be fair at $1.30? LaFerrari or a FF? If it's the former, what dictates the technical value of the FF since it's undeniably easier to license & model? If you price it at a $1.10 people will not question why it's .20 cents cheaper, but why a FF costs you the same amount as a more common sports car (with the Mazda around .80 cents, the average sports car is going to, within' reasonable thought, be worth more to license & produce). If you price it at $1.20-25, people will wonder why it's that less under LaFerrari instead of why the much cheaper, common sports cars are priced similarity.

There's just way too many cars to try pricing them that way, even in a .50-$2.00 range that would produce a profit for each car and be fair to the consumer, without people still wondering why a Ferrari costs the same as a BMW (since the pricing is based on production vs licensing values). You would be taking a very real world approach that would be near identical to how the cars are priced MSRP ($75,000 BMW vs $200,000 Ferrari).

More so, how does this seem better than just making every car $1 in a pack? If a certain car turns a profit at .80 cents theoretically & another turns a profit at $1.30, would not pricing the cars all at $1 as they currently are even out? 1 car gains .20 cents more over profit, but 1 car loses .30 cents.

Again, an interesting thought & approach, but I can't see it making much sense with so many cars & people wondering how T10/MS came to the conclusion that certain brands/models are worth the same as another if the pricing is based on your 2 values and within' a .80-$1.30 -/+ range.

 

[Imari]

I know and you know why they done it and it's purely to try and fleece as much money as possible from loyal fans.

I think you are under some miscomprehension as to how business works. Did you think that they were in it to distribute warm fuzzies or something?

Stripped of your emotional language, yes, they did it to make as much money as possible. That is the point of business. If you object to this, you're going to have a lot of problems operating in what is fundamentally a capitalist society.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

Satellite TV service: I want the Velocity Network but Dish Network forces me to purchase the next level programming plan even though its the ONLY channel I want from the next programming level.

New car dealer: I want the GPS option but Acura forces me to purchase the technology package to get this option which includes other options I'm not interested in, other options that inflate the purchase price.

Video game publisher: I only want one particular car in the latest DLC but I must purchase the whole pack to get the only car I am interested in.

What's with these companies, it's as though they are in business to make money and using underhanded marketing methods to squeeze the consumer. I know they are making tons of money, more money than they have the right to make - I know this! It's like they have a gun to my head forcing me to spend my money.



Couldn't resist... my world view is much bigger than the consumer gaming area. I also want my investments (the other side of the equation) to make me money, investments in companies like consumer services, auto industry, and technology sector companies. I hope these companies can make a profit, if you follow my drift!

 

[HAL20XX]

I've compiled a list of businesses below that aim to give away their best products for free and charge a premium for the less desirable ones.


.


I hope you've found this informative.

 

[UkHardcore23]

I've compiled a list of businesses below that aim to give away their best products for free and charge a premium for the less desirable ones.


.


I hope you've found this informative.

What you guys clearly forget is if customers dont feel like they get value for money from any business they go elsewhere. T10 have clearly angered the fanbase with 5 with their very poor decisions and with games like PCars, Assesto Corsa, Grid Autosport & Driveclub coming out and GT7 most likely on the way people will vote with their wallets and will walk away. Obviously you get the brand loyalty zombies (Apple and Beats fans im looking at you) that will stay no matter even though better products with much better value for money are on the market.

 

[VXR]

If we're enjoying a product, regardless of cost, it is value for money. Just like the Apple stuff I've bought in the last decade. It costs more but it works out at good value for me, based on my wants and needs.

 

[McLaren]

That's about as funny as cancer.

What you guys clearly forget is if customers dont feel like they get value for money from any business they go elsewhere. T10 have clearly angered the fanbase with 5 with their very poor decisions* and with games like PCars, Assesto Corsa, Grid Autosport & Driveclub coming out and GT7 most likely on the way people will vote with their wallets and will walk away. Obviously you get the brand loyalty zombies (Apple and Beats fans im looking at you) that will stay no matter even though better products with much better value for money are on the market.

As Famine likes to put it.

Citation needed.

 

[UkHardcore23]

Oh you guys...Not so sorry for not towing the partyline of "Forza is perfect"

 

[Akira AC]

Oh you guys...Not so sorry for not towing the partyline of "Forza is perfect"

No one is saying that.

And even if I hate DLC in games, I can't say is a complete assault on the consumer since some DLC packages are somewhat well balanced.


Try something like BF4, that game was technically broken at release date yet they dare offering 4 DLC packs and a premium subscription without fixing the game in the first place.

 

[Zer0]

As Famine likes to put it.

Citation needed.

 

[McLaren]

1: The majority of complaints have & always will be the lack of content. T10 was screwed either way, as evident by PD if they had taken their approach. How many of these reviews have been written after T10 tried to make it up by making DLC cars free in-game, free DLC tracks, or cutting the in-game economy by half?
2: I did not realize the fan base consisted of 91 people. Your reasoning is even worse than his for thinking the official forum=general opinion.

You'll need to conjure up another made-up interview to bring more evidence to the table than this.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

Oh you guys...Not so sorry for not towing the partyline of "Forza is perfect"

No one is saying FM5 is perfect, but I would rather enjoy what I do like and not dwell on what could be better. It is clear that you have an agenda/chip on your shoulder, I don't know why you bother. You don't see many of us in the GT forums pointing out it's faults, I myself have better things to do.

 

[HAL20XX]

If Zero is here, then you just KNOW we're having a negative conversation about Forza!

Congrats UK, you've joined an elite group that is unable to have a debate and instead assumes everyone is a blind loyalist.

 

[FosterG]

It is going to be very interesting to see this "new wave" of games (Assetto, Driveclub, Project Cars etc.) and how they are viewed by US. One is rumored to have 50 tracks and 50 cars. The track part sounds sensational, the cars ... not so much.

 

[Imari]

T10 have clearly angered the fanbase with 5 with their very poor decisions...

I'll bite. What decisions would you have changed to make Forza 5 a better game?

Note that you have to be at least moderately sensible from a business perspective, you can't just give it away for free, or hire a thousand extra modellers to make cars. They have their budget and they have their resources, and they need to make a certain amount of money. How do you improve the game given the constraints that T10 were likely given?

Obviously, there's things that could have been changed at release because they were changed *very* quickly thereafter. It's by no means a perfect game. There's probably more things that could be done, and it'd be interesting to hear what yours are because you're certainly very vocal about the game being poorly designed.

 

[UkHardcore23]

No one is saying FM5 is perfect, but I would rather enjoy what I do like and not dwell on what could be better. It is clear that you have an agenda/chip on your shoulder, I don't know why you bother. You don't see many of us in the GT forums pointing out it's faults, I myself have better things to do.

I'd be amazed if no one points out GT5 & 6's faults on here as that game suffers far worse than Forza 5. Im really glad i dropped it after the abysmal 5.

 

[Tornado]

You don't see many of us in the GT forums pointing out it's faults

Maybe he doesn't see that, but I certainly do. There are members who go over there for no other reason than to troll; and if you looked really closely at their posts in this subforum you could probably even guess who.

 

[UkHardcore23]

I'll bite. What decisions would you have changed to make Forza 5 a better game?

Note that you have to be at least moderately sensible from a business perspective, you can't just give it away for free, or hire a thousand extra modellers to make cars. They have their budget and they have their resources, and they need to make a certain amount of money. How do you improve the game given the constraints that T10 were likely given?

Obviously, there's things that could have been changed at release because they were changed *very* quickly thereafter. It's by no means a perfect game. There's probably more things that could be done, and it'd be interesting to hear what yours are because you're certainly very vocal about the game being poorly designed.

Ok poor choices...

Online is very poorly designed
No public lobbies
No hoppers with damage
No regional azure servers
F1 lobby set up for 30 mins rather than laps
Poor choices for DLC Cars
Expensive DLC
LOD models are to jarring when racing
Again no night racing
Lack of race cars

Plenty more but i know that lot will have you's scrambling to T10's defence and how wrong my choices are.

 

[UKMikey]

You don't see many of us in the GT forums pointing out it's faults

Maybe he doesn't see that, but I certainly do. There are members who go over there for no other reason than to troll; and if you looked really closely at their posts in this subforum you could probably even guess who.

So not many, like he says then? I haven't been over in a while but would be surprised if there were more than two or three at the most who regularly post on this subforum.

Plenty more but i know that lot will have you's scrambling to T10's defence and how wrong my choices are.

I just wonder how many of them could have been fixed for launch. "Night racing" seems a little open ended for example. And is anyone else taken out of the game by the changes in LOD?

I can understand people who thought T10 should've sat on the game until it was perfect. I'm just not one of them.

 

[UkHardcore23]

I can understand people who thought T10 should've sat on the game until it was perfect. I'm just not one of them.

No i defo dont think they should of, For me gameplay wise it's the best sim weve ever had on consoles but still no excuses for online being so bad.

 

[Tornado]

So not many, like he says then? I haven't been over in a while but would be surprised if there were more than two or three at the most who regularly post on this subforum.

Even ignoring Zer0 and his always-loveliness, there's more than three members who posted on this page of this thread who also regularly post in the GT forums. It's nowhere near as insular as it was when FP was a separate website; for better and for worse.

 

[Imari]

Ok poor choices...

Online is very poorly designed
No public lobbies
No hoppers with damage
No regional azure servers

Don't get me started on regional servers. I live in Australia.

Poor online design seems to be a fad these days. iRacing still blows everyone else away, and I remain stumped as to why other games haven't copied at least some aspects of the online design. Certainly, licenses and safety rating isn't for everyone, but the open series/public lobby/private lobby/league setup is so far ahead of anything else I can think of, that even without licenses and safety rating it would still probably be the most sorted online experience available.

F1 lobby set up for 30 mins rather than laps

Why is X number of laps preferable to X number of minutes?

Poor choices for DLC Cars

Opinion, but sure. I'm sure there would always be a way to optimise. Do you have examples of cars that you think would have sold better? The point is to make money, after all.

Expensive DLC

And how do you propose to make up for the loss of money caused by reducing the price of the DLC? We're working on the assumption that they've set that price because that's the amount of money Microsoft told them they needed to make. Whether it's because Microsoft are greedy bastards or otherwise isn't really relevant, it's a constraint of the game design.

So if you want cheaper DLC, how do you make sure that you make at least the same amount of profit or more (given that MS/T10 have likely already done the optimisations for price vs. number purchased)?

LOD models are to jarring

No contest. How do you fix it? Reduce quality across the board?

Again no night racing

Again, with the resource considerations. No doubt they could do it if they wanted, night racing has been in racing games for at least a decade now, probably more.

What do you cut so that the programming team has enough time to work on it, or where do you get the money to hire extra programmers from?

Lack of race cars

I count 18 out of ~250 cars. Not heaps, admittedly. What's the right proportion of race cars to have (given that you can essentially race mod most cars), and which cars do you cut to make room for them?

Plenty more but i know that lot will have you's scrambling to T10's defence.

Not really. You raise some valid points, I just don't think you've thought through why those things are the way they are. Time and money are not infinite. Not that Turn 10 have done a perfect job, but I think the game is pretty decent given the constraints that they have been given and have given themselves.[/quote]

 

[UKMikey]

Even ignoring Zer0 and his always-loveliness, there's more than three members who posted on this page of this thread who also regularly post in the GT forums. It's nowhere near as insular as it was when FP was a separate website; for better and for worse.

I'm sure we have folks who post in both forums but I didn't think they were all go over for no other reason than to troll GT. Seems like strange behaviour.