Post-Release Support for Racing Games: A Blessing or Hindrance?

[Northstar]

I don't really have a problem with DLC as I don't play many games to begin with. Plus with games like Forza I know that the DLC will be on sale for rather cheap once the next version is close to release. For instance I picked up both the Storm Island and Porsche expansions for Horizon 2 for a whole $7.50 combined!

Horizon 3 is the first Forza since FM4 that I've had at launch so I will have to decide what I want to do once the Season Pass expires. Currently I'm planning on holding off on the non-included packs until they are on sale, but if there is a car that seems interesting I may spring for the pack early.

 

[HuskyGT]

I don't mind anymore. It's something we've all been forced to live with these days. It still bothers me that nothing can stop companies from abusing this system. I don't mind when it's obviously something new, but when it's reused assets, or day-1 DLC it is a bit offensive.

I'm not defending Forza since I know this game is guilty of this, but when you're a car enthusiast, having as much content as possible is the only way to go. If the game is worth it, then it's easier to justify a $100 purchase price.

So far, Forza Horizon has proven to have quality, but I feel it's still not worth all the money I've put it so far. $100 for the Ultimate Edition was a bit too much considering I am close to completing the last championship and there is not much more to do.

 

[JC_Dude]

I'm fine with DLC to a certain extent. I've not had experience with every single of games mantioned in the arcticle, so I'll only speak about a few.

Forza:

As a FM6 and FH3 Ultimate owner, I feel disguted by how T10/PG handles DLC these days. In Forza 6 the car packs were nice in terms of what cars they included, but they added no new career events. I don't know about you, but the most fun I have in racing games is in offline campaign modes, so for the most part I'd get the DLC and drive every car a couple of times, because I'm not really that into Rivals mode. I got the Porsche Expansion, because I'm a massive fan of those cars and I think I got my money's worth, but to be honest if I'd purchased any of the previous Porsche Packs in FM4 or FH2, I'd be pissed. They added only 3 or 4 new to franchise cars. For me they were all new, but that's just so lazy. The career mode and showcase events were nice, though. Overall I think it should've cost $15. I didn't buy the NASCAR Expansion, because I didn't want to pay $20 for 3 cars in a bunch of different paint schemes.

In FH3 they went full Activision. Let's do the calculations:

-base game $60
-VIP $20
-car pass $30
-All Stars $10
-Expansion Pass $35

That comes to a total of $155. For one game. Granted, you could get the Ultimate Edition + Expansion pass, but that's still $135. THE DLC IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN THE GAME ITSELF. And that's before we get to the car packs, which will get released after the car pass runs out, which will probably be another $20-30. Oh, and don't get me started on the Treasure Map and Horn Booster bull****. And what did the car packs include so far? Another Viper, another M4, another S14, another Huayra. I mean, that's thekind of stuff you should get in Forzathons, or as free bonus cars. The VIP pack is probably the biggest scam in gaming. 5 cars for $20. 5 CARS FOR $20. And what cars? Another F12, another Aventador, I mean what the hell? I know the VIP pack includes a credits booster ahnd x2 wheelspins, but that's still a massive ripoff. I fully expect the Expansions to be good, the first one looks awesome so far.

Conclusion: if you want Forza, buy the base game and the Expansions.

DriveClub:

I bought the game at launch for the discounted price for PS+ subs. I was initially disappointed by the state of servers, but they fixed them fairly quickly. I enjoyed the game itself a lot and when Evo game away the first 2 tour packs as compensation, I decided to buy the Season Pass in hopes of getting more of that type of content. I was not disappoints. DriveClub + Season Pass must be the best $65 or whatever that I've spent as a gamer. So much regular content for a reasonable price. And they did it right, highlighting the new cars and features in new career events. The car selection was great too, the DLC made DC's car list much more diverse and interesting. It's a huge shame that the game had such a troubled launch, because after all the patches and add-ons, it gets damn near to a masterpiece.

Gran Turismo:

GT5 was a flawed game, I think we all know this. This fact, however, did not prevent me from having an amazing time with it. I spent probably close to 750 hours on that game, which happens very rarely. So when the DLC dropped, I decided to support PD and buy it. I think overall the DLC was good. The first pack was a bit weird, because the cars were mostly just race mods of existing models, but at least the pack was fairly cheap. The only problem I had with that DLC were the paints, which were one-use for some reason and if you wanted one twice, you had to buy them all again. The next packs introduced actual new cars to the game, which was great. The price went up to $1/car, though, but I still bought them. Then there was that weird thing where they started including premium versions of existing Standard Cars in the Car Packs, which was a bit odd. Also, some DLC started including slightly tweaked repeats of cars in the game, like the BRZ/FRS/GT86. The Toyota and Scion were free, but the Subaru was $1, the racing GT-R, which was just a new version of the one that was given for free.

The new tracks were great. Spa was much requested, the go-kart track was fun and SSRX added a new testing mode and was quite cool for testing cars.

Overall, I'd say the GT5 DLC was good. It was PD's first time doing that, so it's understandable that they made some mistakes.

GT6 was all free DLC. I wish they actually sticked to the promise of wrapping up the VGT programme within a year of the game's launch, but I guess it's not entirely their fault. The DLC for GT6 appeared quite irregularly, but it was all free, so you can't really argue with that.

For GT Sport, they've already announced that there will be a substantial amount of post-release support. Hopefully they don't go the Forza way.

Sorry for the long rambling, I hope this stuff is readable

 

[Outspacer]

You're comparing apples to oranges though. The average going rate for cars as DLC is about $1 each. Yeah, the per-car-cost of the base game is substantially lower, but you're paying for the early access to these new models. It's optional, too: you can wait until the next game to drive them, but for those that don't want to, they're available for a small price in the current title.

Well sure, I realize it's basically just early access - in a way that's even more reason to say it's too expensive (and hence yes I am saying that the 'going rate' is too expensive). I'm not saying DLC should be 15p per car, but $1 is too much. Clearly Forza's DLC is very profitable in it's own right, well over covering the cost of the asset, yet it's an asset that will still be a selling point of the next games as well. Good for them if they can get away with it!

Pushing total DLC cost above that of the game (when new) is... 'hang on a minute!' time. And possibly where publishers should worry about being able to sustain the income model.

Nothing you've said directly challenges my disagreement with "core value is definitely there". How can we judge that? Is a DLC car really worth 7x to 10x a base game car? Of course I could choose not to buy, but that's not the point - whether I buy it or not, am I happy with the price? I want good developers to be profitable, and still be around to make their next game, but at the same time not take the mickey.

 

[TheAdmiester]

I feel like the article doesn't give Horizon enough credit for its physics. It's basically running the full simulation engine of Forza Motorsport but simply has the grip turned up to 11. If you view the telemetry you'll see what I mean, and because of this real nuance/detail the M4GTS does indeed feel drastically different to the M4.

Other than that, I think post-release DLC is a good thing. Forza and Driveclub are the prime examples of it done right. There's no vital part or feature missing, it's simply more cars and more tracks if you want them, but you aren't missing out if you don't. It might be expensive, yes, but the game is a commitment for 2 years at the minimum (ie. Driveclub likely not having a sequel, Forza having a 2 year dev cycle for each series), so £110 in the context of "this will last me two years" really isn't that bad.

I equate value for a game to a cinema ticket. Where I live, to see a film costs about £8 without any snacks, and you get roughly 1.5 hours of entertainment out of it. If a game is £80, 10x the ticket, I "only" need 15 hours out of it to feel satisfied solely in terms of pricing. If Forza ends up costing me £110 in the long run, who cares? Because I already have 9+ FULL days of play time and counting, I have my money's worth for it.


TL;DR: DLC that doesn't feel like it was cut = good, pricing = fine in context

 

[prousonhairy]

I like the DLC post support on games. When it comes to Forza, I enjoy the DLC much, much more in the Motorsport games then the Horizon games(I'm talking about car packs, not expansions). To me it's a lot more fun seeing how the new cars you get handle, and what times you can get on certain tracks in the Motorsport series, I just don't get that excited about them in Horizon.

It's an event in itself, everyone who has the car pass starts gettting excited. Then when they release the car clues on Friday, it's a lot of fun seeing people's guesses, and guessing yourself. That part's almost as fun as when you first get to try the new cars out.

I would like to see more DLC, mainly tracks. I would spend $20 on 2-3 good tracks if they released something like that. I'd get way more hours out of new tracks, then 7 Cars. I still want the car packs too though. I know that's asking a lot , it's a ton more work and resources making tracks, than 7 cars.

I think DLC is a good thing when it's done right, it keeps me playing the game way longer then I would if there wasn't any, plus it's always cool getting new cars. At one dollar per car (in Forza), it's well worth it to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The whole DLC issue is pretty simple for me. If I like it and I'm still enjoying the game, I buy it. If not on either count, I don't. Pretty simple. If I don't buy it I'll likely see it in the next version of the game but maybe not, that's the chance you take. The cost is negligible so that doesn't even come into play. The value you get per dollar spent is astronomical, especially if it's within a game engine you know and trust. Not a snowball's chance in hell I'd like the clock turned back to the point where games were released full and complete with no DLC available at all during the lifespan of the game. That day is long gone and there's no turning back the clock.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It'd be like going to a restaurant and buying a soda for $2.00, then because you want the cup to be full, $0.50. Ice, $0.50. A lid and a straw, $1.00.

That's not the most accurate analogy though, since it implies FH3 is incomplete. It's more like buying the soda for $2.00... and then having to buy the burger for whatever amount extra. Maybe you'd like a shot of bourbon in your coke — that'll cost you too.

Well sure, I realize it's basically just early access - in a way that's even more reason to say it's too expensive (and hence yes I am saying that the 'going rate' is too expensive).

Why, though? (Genuinely curious.)

Pushing total DLC cost above that of the game (when new) is... 'hang on a minute!' time. And possibly where publishers should worry about being able to sustain the income model.

In a way, I agree. It's a bit like a burger shop where the extras can total more than the cost of the actual burger...

Which does happen out there. I'm guessing here, but I doubt the publishers would be going down this route if they haven't already determined it's a financially sound one.

I think what makes this all the more curious, at least in terms of Forza, is how their approach has changed (seemingly) based on consumer feedback: FM5 got the "booster packs" with tracks added for everybody and an extension on the Season Pass (much like Driveclub). FM6? Nope, no quarter was given. No free car packs — not even a mini-pack, like the Honda one in FM5 or the Mazda in FH2 — and all tracks added into the game came bundled with the expansions.

Nothing you've said directly challenges my disagreement with "core value is definitely there".

I think you're hung up on that statement. All @Brend meant with that is, in terms of the genre, $1 per car or thereabouts is perfectly average.

How can we judge that? Is a DLC car really worth 7x to 10x a base game car?

Well no. That's the whole apples versus orange thing again.

From a reductionist viewpoint, all DLC is poor value unless it's free. DLC cars in racing games will always be more than what you paid for the whole pack of cars in the vanilla game, in much the same way extra fighters cost more in fighting games, or levels cost more in shooter/adventure games.

Of course I could choose not to buy, but that's not the point - whether I buy it or not, am I happy with the price? I want good developers to be profitable, and still be around to make their next game, but at the same time not take the mickey.

Fair enough. It's a bit of a balancing act, absolutely. Though I'd argue that if you're not happy with the price, don't buy it.

Other than that, I think post-release DLC is a good thing. Forza and Driveclub are the prime examples of it done right. There's no vital part or feature missing, it's simply more cars and more tracks if you want them, but you aren't missing out if you don't. It might be expensive, yes, but the game is a commitment for 2 years at the minimum (ie. Driveclub likely not having a sequel, Forza having a 2 year dev cycle for each series), so £110 in the context of "this will last me two years" really isn't that bad.

Well that's a whole thing too, isn't it? If I'm putting about twice the amount into a single game, but I'm probably going to play it at least as much as if I bought it and another game alongside... is that bad? Maybe.

I've sunk far more time into FM6 than any other game I've owned this generation. So even if it cost me... more than any other game this generation, I'd say that's balanced out. Or, as you put it:

I equate value for a game to a cinema ticket. Where I live, to see a film costs about £8 without any snacks, and you get roughly 1.5 hours of entertainment out of it. If a game is £80, 10x the ticket, I "only" need 15 hours out of it to feel satisfied solely in terms of pricing. If Forza ends up costing me £110 in the long run, who cares? Because I already have 9+ FULL days of play time and counting, I have my money's worth for it.

👍

We're all having this discussion about DLC and its value, but it's still worth mentioning that sim racing is still one of the cheaper hobbies out there.

 

[Jawehawk]

Driveclub set a near perfect example of how to do DLC. Forza and Project Cars represent the opposite by utterly screwing over their playerbase by cutting out content before release.

 

[BKGlover]

As someone with satellite internet, DLC (and more importantly for new games, patches) are not really something I have to deal with regularly, but when I do lug the PS3 to the parents house to mooch real internet for a day+ I usually get saddled with a depressing aspect of it aside from DLC trophies shattering the illusion of accomplishment.

The first game I can think of owning that required DLC for certain online races is GRID 2, a game that perplexes me because I hate the single player but finding a good multiplayer room is massive fun, however I seem to recall that unless you had certain DLC packs, you were barred from entering rooms using it and kicked from rooms switching to it. I don't recall if GT5 did this, but I've been told by FPS guys that it happens a lot to them.

Also, there's another Codemaster's "Brown Star Moment" with DiRT 3. Don't get me wrong, DiRT 3 is a great game even if I feel it isn't as inviting as DiRT 2, it's technically a better game in the measurables to my eye. That said when the game released there was a sliiiiight problem for PS3 players. I got my copy either day-of or day-after, but this was when PSN was dead. "No big deal" I thought, and played the single player without issue for hours. I got tired, and started snooping around the garage. Now, I knew going in that the season pass included in the new copies gave five cars, what I thought was that they were a 'Season Pass DLC Pack' and that I'd have to wait until the service returned to get them. I'd have been fine with that. What pissed me off so badly I considered boycotting Codemasters (Like the idiot I am) was that wasn't the case, those five cars were staring at me, giving me the finger behind a DLC wall that could not be opened. They put them in the game, then shut them off before shipping. This practice is all manners of scumbag BS, and pretty much ruined me. I cannot bring myself to the conclusion of "DLC isn't bad" staring from this, going to WWE games, and then browsing the weak packs every other game I own boasts. I can't think of one piece of DLC I've bought I'd consider worth purchase...nope, none. Not even Bathust and the Firebird in GRID.

My biggest complaint isn't even all that. It's a primary reason why I haven't bought a PS4 or X1, I can't trust the gaming industry to make a complete game out of the box. I'd like to play Forza 5, 6, the actual Horizon 2, and Horizon 3. I wouldn't mind trying Assassin's Creed Syndicate out, Or Driveclub, etc. But I know that everything now gets patches, and I can't download patches at home, so why burn money on a paperweight that might be worth it, but only if I move?

Yes, I'm whining. I'm also shutting up now.

 

[Brend]

I feel like the article doesn't give Horizon enough credit for its physics. It's basically running the full simulation engine of Forza Motorsport but simply has the grip turned up to 11. If you view the telemetry you'll see what I mean, and because of this real nuance/detail the M4GTS does indeed feel drastically different to the M4.

Other than that, I think post-release DLC is a good thing. Forza and Driveclub are the prime examples of it done right. There's no vital part or feature missing, it's simply more cars and more tracks if you want them, but you aren't missing out if you don't. It might be expensive, yes, but the game is a commitment for 2 years at the minimum (ie. Driveclub likely not having a sequel, Forza having a 2 year dev cycle for each series), so £110 in the context of "this will last me two years" really isn't that bad.

I equate value for a game to a cinema ticket. Where I live, to see a film costs about £8 without any snacks, and you get roughly 1.5 hours of entertainment out of it. If a game is £80, 10x the ticket, I "only" need 15 hours out of it to feel satisfied solely in terms of pricing. If Forza ends up costing me £110 in the long run, who cares? Because I already have 9+ FULL days of play time and counting, I have my money's worth for it.


TL;DR: DLC that doesn't feel like it was cut = good, pricing = fine in context

I wasn't trying to completely decry the physics I was just using it as a basis for 'are small variants priced as full cars necessary' type angle.

I love Horizon 3, it's one of my favourite racers this gen so I have no ill feeling toward it. That being said, I don't think it's type of game that benefits from having very similar models taking up individual slots on the car roster.

@SlipZtrEm had an idea that I quite liked, rather than focusing on individual car count, games include the model and all its variants under one guise where you choose what version of the model you would like. I think this would be a suitable middle ground.

 

[doblocruiser]

I am not a fan of DLC and I rarely buy it. Driveclub and Rocksmith are currently the 2 exceptions. Most games sell with all DLC included a year after release so I prefer simply to wait for that if I am interested.

You are not forced to buy DLC Same with pre-order stuff, it is all marketing techniques and trying to convince the customers they are missing out if "they don't pre-order", if "they don't extend their game with dlc". A thing for which the industry needs to find a better balance is between payed and free DLC. Also DLC should never be used to complete a single player experience or that it is forces you to buy it before you can continue the game.

Longtime gamers can put up a lot more resistance while the young generation simply doesn't now better than that DLC is part of gaming.


What I think of the future:
Games, if they turn into a service could see a more modular structure in which each player can customize his/her gaming experience with DLC. Cheap base price added with a pricing model for the modules you are interested in.

 

[VBR]

In times past, some devs really weren't able to get some content done in time, so adding it at a later date free or paid was in fans best interests. I think the problem nowadays is that devs have cottoned on that paid DLC is a great way of making more money.

I feel that modern day paid for DLC is just a way for devs to rape our wallets again & again. The DLC is so expensive in relation to the game itself. If these microtransactions were actually micro in amount, say £0.99 for 10 cars, then more people would buy them. But the high prices they charge is disgusting imho.

 

[Outspacer]

Why, though? (Genuinely curious.)

Well, one bit of my thinking, particularly with the Forzas, is that the wait for the next version of the game isn't all that long. With GT, early access might be a bit more 'valuable'!

In a way, I agree. It's a bit like a burger shop where the extras can total more than the cost of the actual burger...

Which does happen out there. I'm guessing here, but I doubt the publishers would be going down this route if they haven't already determined it's a financially sound one.

I think what makes this all the more curious, at least in terms of Forza, is how their approach has changed (seemingly) based on consumer feedback: FM5 got the "booster packs" with tracks added for everybody and an extension on the Season Pass (much like Driveclub). FM6? Nope, no quarter was given. No free car packs — not even a mini-pack, like the Honda one in FM5 or the Mazda in FH2 — and all tracks added into the game came bundled with the expansions.

Consumer feedback? Or just trying different models out? It seems like they haven't worked out what's the best route yet. This route works up to a certain point (and then only if it's honest - anything like holding back cars to then charge DLC price for is an insult to the consumer) - but just because people bought, say, 25 cars for $25 for a game doesn't mean they'll pop $50 for 50 for the sequel.

I think you're hung up on that statement. All @Brend meant with that is, in terms of the genre, $1 per car or thereabouts is perfectly average.

I'm not hung up on it, it just happened to be what I felt like responding to and discussing

Well no. That's the whole apples versus orange thing again.

From a reductionist viewpoint, all DLC is poor value unless it's free. DLC cars in racing games will always be more than what you paid for the whole pack of cars in the vanilla game, in much the same way extra fighters cost more in fighting games, or levels cost more in shooter/adventure games.

Apples and oranges argument only goes so far. Basically a car will take about the same amount of work to model. With DLC, you'd hope that it's using all the latest top-flight techniques etc, so say that's worth a bit extra. Getting the thing 'now' is worth something. Making the pack and handling a SKU has a cost as well. But what I'm musing on is how much more - particularly from the POV of Season Pass price. £1-ish for a single car might be OK, but then a pack should be a discount to that, and a season pass a pretty good discount on buying all the packs. For AC PS4, it looks like the pass offers very little discount over the packs, so little incentive to buy it.

So not free, but somewhere between seeing it as cheap enough not to think deeply before buying, say 20c per car, and the current norm of $1. The counter to 'free' would be 0 cost, 0 cars in the base game and everything as DLC - would you pay $350 for FH3? No. So as the number of DLC cars goes up, the price should come down.

Fair enough. It's a bit of a balancing act, absolutely. Though I'd argue that if you're not happy with the price, don't buy it.

It would be interesting to know sales figures for DLC for a variety of games, then we could see what correlation there is between price and take-up. I suspect we'll inevitably see more and more content come as DLC, just because the price can be more controlled. But in that model, $1 per car would certainly be too much. People would become choosier about what to buy, or choose not to buy the game at all.

If it's a bell curve of price per car vs total income, there's a sweet spot they'll never exactly hit. So for a given total income there's two price points, but one results in greater customer satisfaction.

 

[SimTourist]

I don't get the whining about dlc in games, its always optional content, especially in a racing game there's more cars and tracks for revs to add, they never stop making new models, but what do you want them to do? Give it away for free? Why exactly? Large teams of people need to get paid to make these things. With each car taking 6 months to produce and tracks taking up to a year that's a lot of manhours, not even taking licensing costs into account. People demand more content but refuse to understand the realities of running a business.

 

[TheAdmiester]

`

I wasn't trying to completely decry the physics I was just using it as a basis for 'are small variants priced as full cars necessary' type angle.

I love Horizon 3, it's one of my favourite racers this gen so I have no ill feeling toward it. That being said, I don't think it's type of game that benefits from having very similar models taking up individual slots on the car roster.

@SlipZtrEm had an idea that I quite liked, rather than focusing on individual car count, games include the model and all its variants under one guise where you choose what version of the model you would like. I think this would be a suitable middle ground.

I get you, I know that including variants can seem a bit silly (the actual dumb part is when the lower end one is removed in the next game) but I just wanted to make sure you knew they're truly different.

As for the part you mentioned about buying a base model and upgrading it, that's what I'm hoping they're doing. See, the optimist in me thinks that with the new Upgrade Presets thing in Horizon 3, maybe they're building a foundation for the future games where you can do exactly what you said. Imagine if in Forza 7 we could simply buy an Audi A4, then we could convert it into the S4 with its aggressive stance, better engine, or even the A4 DTM?

I'm sure it's wishful thinking but it's perfectly possible now that we have the presets setting and we know that track width can be modified.

 

[Brend]

I don't get the whining about dlc in games, its always optional content, especially in a racing game there's more cars and tracks for revs to add, they never stop making new models, but what do you want them to do? Give it away for free? Why exactly? Large teams of people need to get paid to make these things. With each car taking 6 months to produce and tracks taking up to a year that's a lot of manhours, not even taking licensing costs into account. People demand more content but refuse to understand the realities of running a business.

The core of my DLC discussion is in worthwhile content and not just bringing it out for the sake of it.

Rather than just looking at cars, let's look at the VIP pass in Forza. You have a nice collection of cars in there...reasonably fair enough but also some really questionable perks. The majority of these sound like in-game unlockables rather than premium content. Especially when you consider Horizon 3 has a blueprint feature which literally allows players to make their own events.

Looking at the contents of the pack, there's no way it justifies £15 especially when the exciting Blizzard pack will probably only be slightly more expensive for a ton of content.

 

[Outspacer]

I don't get the whining about dlc in games, its always optional content, especially in a racing game there's more cars and tracks for revs to add, they never stop making new models, but what do you want them to do? Give it away for free? Why exactly? Large teams of people need to get paid to make these things. With each car taking 6 months to produce and tracks taking up to a year that's a lot of manhours, not even taking licensing costs into account. People demand more content but refuse to understand the realities of running a business.

No. That doesn't invalidate 'whining' about quantity and cost of DLC. Decent profits in software businesses depend mostly on high sales counts, not on high prices.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No. That doesn't invalidate 'whining' about quantity and cost of DLC. Decent profits in software businesses depend mostly on high sales counts, not on high prices.

Nothing invalidates whining on the internetz. Unless everything is free and perfect, it's accompanied by whining. DLC pricing in gaming, especially the sim racing genre, is well established and I'm sure those involved are smart enough to figure out the price points that maximize returns. Outside of R3E and iRacing, most games sell content within the same price range. And people do still have to get paid and developers need to keep the doors open to continue to support the game and produce more and more content for current and future versions of the game. Whining about paying for someone else's work, when you aren't forced to buy it to begin with, is pretty fruitless.

 

[Outspacer]

Whining about paying for someone else's work, when you aren't forced to buy it to begin with, is pretty fruitless.

Throughout my posts, I've noted the need for devs to get paid. If we don't buy, they don't profit.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

That sounds like a much worse way of going about things than even the worst DLC options lol. I'm not much for paid subscriptions like that.

Me neither. A paid monthly subscription would not work for me because there are months I don't even touch the game. For example, my sons and I went about 9 months in-between playing Destiny and when the new DLC came out, we all jumped back in.

In my eyes, Destiny does things perfect with their free updates and DLC packages.

 

[JakeMR2]

I'm not fond how DLC works nowadays, because of the sheer amount of DLC cars that are on Day One to charge extra money for (Looking at you TDU2, Forza, and other games). It just feels wrong buying it that way, the content is there, but a stubborn paywall is not going to solve anything for me to buy it. Not worth the cash and what not, The Crew if I remember right had some cars as paid DLC at one point with this scheme.

From 2006, I thought DLC would extend game life, and breathes in more decades of enjoyment, much similar to modding a PC game, but you buy it instead. This was once a excellent concept to begin since developers can thoroughly put more content in a game. No need for Season Passes or any micro transactions, which is a whole other issue in today's gaming industry. In the sixth generation of consoles some devs had to produce a whole disc again for reprinting process to fix bugs or add content, Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition REMIX is a good example of this. It was pretty expensive at that time, but at least I supported the company who did develop the game again for extra DLC.

Now today, Season Passes are just too common for me to see. That means that they could be here to stay unless "we" change it that way. From a profit standpoint I agree, but the consumer will always get screwed over and pay for an extra $30 just to use online on a certain game. I just wish developers would make "true" expansions, like they used too. MC:LA is one great example, which added around 11 cars with extra miles of Los Angeles. Not to mention the police DLC was a great extra.

Those are my two cents on the subject matter, though I am a anti-Season Pass supporter.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not fond how DLC works nowadays, because of the sheer amount of DLC cars that are on Day One to charge extra money for (Looking at you TDU2, Forza, and other games). It just feels wrong buying it that way, the content is there, but a stubborn paywall is not going to solve anything for me to buy it. Not worth the cash and what not, The Crew if I remember right had some cars as paid DLC at one point with this scheme.

From 2006, I thought DLC would extend game life, and breathes in more decades of enjoyment, much similar to modding a PC game, but you buy it instead. This was once a excellent concept to begin since developers can thoroughly put more content in a game. No need for Season Passes or any micro transactions, which is a whole other issue in today's gaming industry. In the sixth generation of consoles some devs had to produce a whole disc again for reprinting process to fix bugs or add content, Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition REMIX is a good example of this. It was pretty expensive at that time, but at least I supported the company who did develop the game again for extra DLC.

Now today, Season Passes are just too common for me to see. That means that they could be here to stay unless "we" change it that way. From a profit standpoint I agree, but the consumer will always get screwed over and pay for an extra $30 just to use online on a certain game. I just wish developers would make "true" expansions, like they used too. MC:LA is one great example, which added around 11 cars with extra miles of Los Angeles. Not to mention the police DLC was a great extra.

Those are my two cents on the subject matter, though I am a anti-Season Pass supporter.

How does one get "screwed over" by paying for something they want, voluntarily?

 

[JakeMR2]

How does one get "screwed over" by paying for something they want, voluntarily?

I do read all the Season Passes that I get for the game, or are seperate.

The online is what concerns me, UPlay from Ubisoft is exactly like paying for online usage. I don't understand the concept of that, even if the publisher has a lot of money to sacrifice.

 

[Robin Pirard]

I don't mind dlc, but now we get a half finished game and pay more with each new console that came out. so to my opinion we get less for more money. Now we get psvr.. again more accessory. If this continues then i quit gaming and try to enjoy only the real things in life.

 

[ImaRobot]

I just wish developers would make "true" expansions, like they used too. MC:LA is one great example, which added around 11 cars with extra miles of Los Angeles. Not to mention the police DLC was a great extra.

What wouldn't be a "true" expansion? Most games I've seen that add this all work in a very similar manner, even games outside the racing genre.

The online is what concerns me, UPlay from Ubisoft is exactly like paying for online usage. I don't understand the concept of that, even if the publisher has a lot of money to sacrifice.

Isn't uPlay free to use? Or is it different on console?

 

[JakeMR2]

What wouldn't be a "true" expansion? Most games I've seen that add this all work in a very similar manner, even games outside the racing genre.


Isn't uPlay free to use? Or is it different on console?

On consoles it sometimes comes with a pass, but sometimes if you get a game used you have to pay for it. I had a similar occurrence of that when buying games used. That's why "online only" does not work sometimes.

 

[ImaRobot]

On consoles it sometimes comes with a pass, but sometimes if you get a game used you have to pay for it. I had a similar occurrence of that when buying games used. That's why "online only" does not work sometimes.

I never realized that. I suppose the only good thing about that is the code you get for free with a new game spans across all games that use the software. That is certainly cheap, though.

 

[Siren]

How does one get "screwed over" by paying for something they want, voluntarily?

You get screwed over during this age of DLC because Dev/publishers are essentially cutting the base game in half and selling it at full price then nudging you to buy the rest of the games content for almost the same price as the base game.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You get screwed over during this age of DLC because Dev/publishers are essentially cutting the base game in half and selling it at full price then nudging you to buy the rest of the games content for almost the same price as the base game.

Purchasing is voluntary. You can't get screwed if you wait for the game to release and read the reviews and forums. Caveat emptor ..works like a charm.