Cliffy B is right: don't like it? Don't buy it.

For those who haven't read Cliffy B's firestarter of a blog post, you can find it here: http://dudehugespeaks.tumbl...

To sum, Cliffy B defends micro-transactions, he defends DLC, and he says that if you aren't interested in extra content, then you should simply not buy it and then shut up.

And gamers everywhere are pissed.

There are a few things he says that I truly disagree with. Chiefly, I don't agree with his assessment that game companies NEED to charge more because the cost of living in large cities is more. They don't HAVE to live in those cities. Games can be (and have often been) developed in a garage or a basement. You don't need to work in a San Fran high-rise for your game to turn out well.

However, I think we're all over-reacting just a little bit, and we're all being just a wee bit bratty.

To start off, he is correct when he says that videogames (and even videogame consoles, to a degree) are cheaper now than they've ever been. I remember paying $60 for Phantasy Star III on my Genesis...and that was 20 years ago. I couldn't afford Street Fighter II when it came out. My next-door neighbor got it for his birthday. It was a $75 cartridge.

There are problems with the industry, no doubt. It DOES feel cheap when you buy a brand-new game and the instant you pop it in, something is prompting you to spend $15 more on some extra maps or some extra weapons. That irks me, too. Personally, I'm a big fan of fighting games, and the modern fighting genre (Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, BlazBlue, etc) is by far one of the WORST when it comes to DLC and "Super" editions. It definitely ticks me off when I buy a new fighting game and three of the fighters are locked away behind a $3.99-each price tag.

But you know what? I wasn't lied to. It typically says on the back of the case how many fighters there are. If I really wanted to know, I could have looked it up online. Companies have always been faithful to let gamers know before launch if such-and-such character is going to be DLC. Sure, I do feel a bit taken advantage of, but whose fault is that?

It's mine.

Why is it my fault?

I'll tell you why, but you might hate the answer. It's my fault because I didn't have self control. Let's not be silly: videogames are 100% toys. They aren't essential for life. You don't HAVE to buy a videogame, let alone all the DLC for it. It's not like the price of gasoline going up, or the price of fresh produce, or something like that. Videogames are toys. They're fun, but they're not essential for life. We don't HAVE to buy them. We CHOOSE to buy them. And if we CHOOSE to spend money on a videogame that doesn't meet our expectations, well, we goofed up, didn't we? If it pisses us off and we scream "I'll never buy a game from you guys again" and then we turn around and buy the next game, well, we're hypocrites and cry-babies, aren't we? I haven't bought a CAPCOM game since Ultimate MvC3. I have no sympathy for people who buy CAPCOM games and then turn around and complain about the DLC. Are you kidding me? Where have you been for the last 5-or-so years. CAPCOM has been doing this for a while. It's your own fault that you couldn't say "no" to the game if it really bothers you so much.

I'm a huge fan of the Disgaea series. I've played Disgaea 1, then 2 on PS2, then Disgaea 1 and 2 again on PSP, then Disgaea 3 on PS3, then Disgaea 4, and now I'm playing through Disgaea 3 on Vita. All I'm trying to emphasize is that I - obviously - am a fan of the series. However, Disgaea is HORRIBLE when it comes to DLC. In order to buy all of the extras in Disgaea 3 for PS3, I would have to pay $49.99 for the Complete DLC Pack. And that's actually CHEAPER than it used to be when each individual item was sold for a few bucks each. So, you know what I did? I rented Disgaea 3 on PS3 to see if I liked it, and then I waited. I waited for years until it came out on PS Vita. Why? Because it came with all the PS3 DLC and a few extras. I rented Disgaea 4 before starting D3:Vita, and while I do like D4, I'm a bit sore about the $100+ worth of DLC that wasn't included with the price of the game. But you know what? I'll just wait until the eventual remake. Problem solved by the virtue of self-control. I didn't write any angry letters to Nippon Ichi. I didn't throw away the game in disgust. I simply am going to wait until later.

And this is what Cliffy B's blog is about. We don't HAVE to own all the content. If we could simply say "no", or perhaps just "I'll go ahead and wait", the problem would be solved one way or another. DLC-whoring would likely diminish, and we wouldn't feel so angry about DLC, anyway. We only get angry because we have this sense of entitlement that every single scrap of code made for the game should be included with the base price. How about the alternative: no extra content and bare-bones games. Besides, DLC is nothing new at all. It's just a faster, more accessible version of expansion packs from back in the day, and instead of paying $40+ for an expansion pack like we had to do for games like Starcraft or Wing Commander, you pay $2.99 for that one EXACT item you want without being forced to pay for anything else.

And as Cliffy B said, if you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't want all the DLC characters for Marvel vs CAPCOM 3, well, don't buy them. It isn't as if CAPCOM promised you 40 characters in the base game but then only gave you 20, forcing you to pay for the rest. No! The extra characters are just that, extra. You're mad at CAPCOM for charging for...let's say...different "color packs" for your characters? Um, then don't buy it! How many colors does a fellow need, anyway? If it makes you angry that the content exists, well, then don't buy the game! Or, if you're clever, just have some self control and wait until CAPCOM (or whoever, depending on the game) releases an Ultimate Edition like they always do.

Cliffy B makes another very good point, a point that a lot of gamers are flaming him for. He says it's a double-standard that we should rag on EA but praise Valve. He's right. Valve is just as bad at DLC-whoring. Heck, one could argue that Valve is WORSE. They don't just DLC-whore. They mod-whore, by taking fan-made mods and turning them into full games, charging you for the "upgrade" in the process. Valve's library is full of such games.

I'm not advocating for a DLC-filled world. But there's another point he brings up that people forget: DLC keeps the game in a lot of people's library. It's true! Bethesda is incredibly good at this particular aspect of DLC. No way, José, are you going to trade in a Bethesda game when you know two, or three, or more 30-hour-sized DLC packs will be coming out within the next 18-24 months. No way are you going to trade in Halo, or Call of Duty, or Mass Effect when you know that new maps, new weapons, new character skins, and even new chapters are coming out in the near future. A DLC pack that I'm really excited about is the extra content for Dark Souls, Artorias of the Abyss. Granted, I haven't dropped the money yet to buy it, but I'm glad FROM Software took the time to expand a game that the fans obviously enjoy. And if the money from the DLC helps them make yet another Souls game? Heck yeah. If there's a market for DLC, why shouldn't companies make more content for the game?

Now, let me backpedal a little bit. It's easy to shout and complain when we're fans. That's because we're fans! We love videogames and we like it when we get to play really good ones. We don't like being tricked, and we don't like getting scammed. I'll admit that those feelings are going around, especially during this last console generation (The DLC Generation, it will one day be called). People don't like getting taken for a ride. However, we need to realize that if we showed a bit of self control, if we didn't insist on owning 100% of every scrap of content for a game, then perhaps we wouldn't get so upset when the DLC inevitably comes out. The videogame industry is an entertainment business. And DLC entertains a lot of people. If DLC was unprofitable, then companies wouldn't make it, so clearly it works. I would be happy if companies...hmmm, shall we say "adjusted" some of their practices with DLC (like, if you're going to obviously slice something out of a game, please at least TRY to trick us by releasing it in a few months instead of Day One), but as a whole, DLC is really nothing new, and we really shouldn't be so up-in-arms against it.

[Godmars290]

The issue is if such practices are allowed to become standard, more so than they currently are anyway, there will be no choice in the matter. You'll either have to pay full for half a game, or as someone who puts time into a title and earns skills be regularly be outclassed by someone else who only spent more on the same game.

This is exactly what's going on with P2P and MMOs, but EA is planning on doing this with EVERYTHING they make. Which will effect everything they make. End SP gaming with them for one thing.

[Captain Tuttle]

Then follow Cliff's advice and don't buy the stuff, any of it. If enough people think the same way companies will lose money and change their ways. If the most likely thing happens and you're in the tiny minority who actually backs up what they believe with their wallet and you don't buy these games or DLC then you're SOL unfortunately.
The marketplace has spoken.

[isa_scout]

I don't think DLC is the problem, I think it is when they remove parts of the game and sell it for 5 bucks and call it day one DLC. Skyrim for instance is the perfect example of a game doing DLC right. You can put well over 100 hours into Skyrim, and never even need the DLC. However, games like Assassins Creed 2 that held back sequence 11 and released it a week later calling it the missing link is just bullshit. It wasn't missing they pulled it from the game just to have us pay an extra $10.00 for something that clearly should have been in the full game.
I remember thinking when I was playing the game and it went from sequence 10 to sequence 12 I was like, "What the hell is going on?" I actually thought my game glitched or something. Horrid business practices like those is what I'm against, but if the game is good, doesn't feel rushed, and their just adding some extra incentive to bring me back in a couple of months I'm all for that.

[Godmars290]

But that logic fails because the people this is targeted towards aren't the ones complain about it. Casual gamers, people who don't have the time time to play and outright cheats with money see this as good thing.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

And that's always the go to answer. Don't like it don't buy it. Speak with your wallet. Blah blah. So basically I'm supposed to stand my ground and *wait* for everyone else to hopefully get on board, in order for change to come. I'm just supposed to deal with being nickel and dimed until everyone sees it for what it is. I have no problem with DLC. Its short changing the gamers and selling main components of the game later that concerns me. Its hard enough getting people on your team in a multiplayer match on the same page. Getting an entire market on the same page is not as simple as "Don't like it don't buy it," and this guy who has already made millions and left the industry, Couldn't be less relevant to my perspective.

[zerocrossing]

My problem with DLC and microinstructions is, If I don't feel like Im getting the full game even though Im paying the FULL retail price for it something is wrong.

We're buying a 75% finished game and they're often full of bugs, we put up with constant patches because the pubs push them out too early and then we pay with micro transactions to eventually get a finished product and yes Im saying it again we've already paid full retail price for it, but no, more often than not that was an unfinished product.

Constantly we're getting content held back and Im talking proper endings and portions of games here (not just extra weapons and new skins which I don't really have a problem with if their aren't balancing issues ) the point is if you buy a game you should feel content with it and not feel like you must buy purchase the DLC to be getting the full intended experience, which all to often is the case and that for the most part is why people are fed up with EA and their nickel & diming methods, it's one thing to give casual gamers a helping hand but not at the detriment of the core gamers who prefer to use skill instead of paying to win.

Cliffy B can go to hell for all I care, EA have been awful publishers for years now even disregarding their current pay to play and pay again approach, If he knows anything about the industry then he's damn well aware the last publishers he should defend are EA unless he's soon to be in their pocket.

[dedicatedtogamers]

The pendulum won't swing that far, because all it takes is one company to advertise their games as "all content included" and boom, market adjusts itself. I'll take optional DLC instead of mandatory $80 retail price for all games. Believe me, because gamers keep demanding more content and better graphics, DLC is the only thing keeping the retail cost of games down.

[SilentNegotiator]

Ideologies such as those of EA and Activision are spreading among the AAA titles. The main part of the VG audience will buy no matter what. We still want to play some of those big titles.

More has to be done than sitting back and letting the oppressive majority "vote" on games. Like real life, voters are misinformed, disinterested in specifics, etc. And furthermore, there is no weight to voting "no" if the masses still buy.

Look at all of good done by community action. EA has attempted to give more interesting weight to ME3's terrible ending, War Z was removed from Steam while they made adjustments and made a more truthful description, Hitman:A ADDED content to the final product because people felt there was a lack of context to that scene (To which they agreed needed more context http://www.joystiq.com/2012... ), etc.

Community "whining" matters. "Voting" (a terrible analogy, btw) does not due to the passive masses.

They can still sell millions and also make happy, long term hard/core fans.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

The Pendulum won't swing that far? Have you noticed the "COD-Effect" occurring in many first person shooters? Essentially, many FPS games are eerily similar to COD's annoyingly generic control type. Why? Because people buy it, thus the other developers think they can get people to buy their game too if they make it similar.

DLC, can be viewed in the same. Once it starts taking off, there's no stopping it. It will only get worse and worse. Developers will see that certain companies are getting away with nickel and diming their customers, and they'll follow. The only way to stop this is to stop it before it grows.

Did you not read EA's response to DLC? They think that their consumers enjoy microtransactions. You may think the pendulum won't swing that far, but the weight on the bottom is getting heavier and heavier.

Also, I see you used the word entitlement. Yes, we are entitled to a good game for the money we're paying. We're also entitled to not being screwed over by the people making our game or the people selling it to us.

[sjaakiejj]

"They think that their consumers enjoy microtransactions. "

That's a statement based on statistics generated by The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3, so whilst a vocal minority may hate microtransactions with all their heart, there are a lot of people out there buying new outfits for their Old Republic characters, and a lot of people buying item packs for Mass Effect 3, something they could've easily gotten by just playing the game.

The thing here is that Microtransactions generally appeal to people who have very little time on their hands. They don't mind paying a bit extra to get a bit more out of the little time they spend on the game.

[Ducky]

"Heck, one could argue that Valve is WORSE. They don't just DLC-whore. They mod-whore, by taking fan-made mods and turning them into full games, charging you for the "upgrade" in the process."

I don't see how anyone could argue that what Valve does is worse.
Most of Valve's multiplayer games might be from mods, but they've done a lot of development on those games. They have kept supporting their games through free updates years after their launch, while also letting the community make their own mods.

... that isn't in any way comparable to day-1 DLC, microtransactions in paid games, and DLC abusing (like Sims)

[porkChop]

"that isn't in any way comparable to day-1 DLC, microtransactions in paid games"

Valve has taken part in both of those. They completely ruined TF2 with their hats and all that crap. Then they put the same microtransactions in Portal 2. They're the company that charges $100 for hats because they say they're "researching and experimenting". Bullshit, they're not experimenting, they're knowingly ripping off customers with extremely overpriced digital items because Valve KNOW people will buy it. They've said themselves that the 2 most sold items every month are the cheapest hat in the store, and the most expensive hat in the store.

Just look at ANY interview with Gabe, or with other Valve employees. They're nearly ALL about how to make more money off of consumers, and about how to grow a successful business. About how "if you lower prices by 75%, profits increase by more than 5000%". You never see them talking about their design philosophies, or their ideas behind narrative and character development, none of that. It's always just money, money, money.

Everyone is so fucking blind these days. Valve is the WORST company for DLC. Then look at what they did with L4D 1&2. $60 games with hardly any content. Why? Because Valve expected the community to make it's own content and mods. Sorry, but if you expect me to make my own content to play then don't charge me 60 fucking dollars for such an empty game.

[Godmars290]

The difference between Valve and EA, DLC and L4D?

When Valuve promised additional DLC for L4D1 that DLC did not exist. That happened early in the era of DLC. It was still a dick move on their part to essentially take time and effort, if not actual levels, and make L4D2, but at least all of that was post production.

What's going on with DLC now, and its not only EA, is that its happening in tandem with the full making of the game. Either developers during the active process are choosing potential content, removing it from the full game's story to offer it later, or publishers are doing it, ordering devs to do it messing up the story in the process.

[Ducky]

"They completely ruined TF2 with their hats and all that crap. Then they put the same microtransactions in Portal 2."

TF2 is as popular as ever, both on its casual side, and on its competitive side. So I don't see how it got completely ruined.
It's also a FreeToPlay game, so microtransactions are par for the course, but normal players can be competitive without buying anything.

Portal2's microtransactions are just cosmetic, and don't impact my own experience whether I buy them or not. Whereas in a game like BF3, my experience is impacted because other players can use their bought weapons against me.

---
"You never see them talking about their design philosophies, or their ideas behind narrative and character development, none of that. It's always just money, money, money."

That is simply false.
When Valve is interviewed about their games, they talk about the development.
When Valve is interviewed about Steam, they talk about their business philosophy.

... but hey, since you are looking at their business philosophy, why not compare them against EA's?
They're the ones that thinks having sales is bad because it devalues their IP. Yet another reason why they're seen as the bad guys.

----
"Everyone is so fucking blind these days. Valve is the WORST company for DLC. "

Come on now, really? Worse than Capcom that re-releases StreetFighter4 three times? Worse than Ubisoft that removes sequences from AC2 then sells them as DLC?
There's so many examples of publishers abusing DLC, but you think Valve, the company that supports its games for years with free content support, is the worst?

I can agree that Valve aren't saints, but you need your eyes checked if you think they're the worst.

L4D1 had encounters that were dynamic, so you could replay the levels and get a different experience. Not to mention that being a co-op game added to the replay value. I got my $60 of enjoyment out of it by playing with friends and strangers, but that's just me.
L4D2 was a blunder on their part, but they recovered by adding a fair amount of content to it afterwards (for free too).

... and I think it's unfair to say that a company offering mod tools is bad thing by assuming that they're expecting you to make the content, when they're really just giving you the freedom.
If they wanted, they could've taken the mod tools away and then sold you DLC packs instead of making them free. You know which company does do that? Look at EA with Battlefield3.

[Nate-Dog]

Good blog, although there are a few things I'd disagree with you on. But before I mention those first I will say well done for pointing out the fact that gamers are in general bad consumers, and that as a group we bring what we have gotten on ourselves. If we didn't constantly ask for more of the same and weren't nostalgic all the time, we wouldn't keep getting rehashes or HD collections or DLC that doesn't add anything. Also as you say Cliffy B is also right in saying that people ought not to hate on EA so much all the while unendingly sucking up to Valve.

Onto the things I disagree with, first I think labelling games as "100% toys" isn't right. They're not a necessity, there's no doubt about that. But the way you talk about them in this light is as if to say that everything that isn't a necessity in life is a toy. Music and/or music instruments aren't toys. Movies aren't toys. Practising a certain sport isn't always just relaxing or just playing - exercise is beneficial to the body and mind, as is socialising with other people. Movies and games can transport us to other worlds and engage us with other people and stories. They can help put our minds at ease for a time where we can become very stressed. They can encourage our imagination and can encourage creativity. Music can do all of these things too. (I see your point about them not being necessary in order to live life day to day of course, just I think labelling them as merely toys is rash.)

"It isn't as if CAPCOM promised you 40 characters in the base game but then only gave you 20, forcing you to pay for the rest. No! The extra characters are just that, extra."

The thing with this is that it's often the case where these other 20 characters aren't "extra", they're taken from the game. They were developed and made for the game at the same time as the 20 that were included in the game were, but were taken out in order to make a profit. If this is the case then we're not getting extra, we're getting less. Again I see your point and you make a good one, that if a company tells you they're giving you 20 then you should either accept it and buy it or not accept it and not buy it, but I don't think it's wrong for people to be angry and have an issue with this practice.

"Bethesda is incredibly good at this particular aspect of DLC. No way, José, are you going to trade in a Bethesda game when you know two, or three, or more 30-hour-sized DLC packs will be coming out within the next 18-24 months."

I'm being nitpicky here but I don't recall Bethesda ever making a 30-hour DLC pack, certainly not two or three of them. I mean a 30-hour DLC pack is effectively enough for a full game isn't it?

But good blog nonetheless, you raise some good points about the DLC practice. I think in general people need to be more aware of what they're buying into, and they need to have more backbone and say "no, I don't like this so I won't buy your game or your DLC", but instead the majority of gamers just tend to end up getting both all the while still complaining. We certainly are hypocrites.

[isa_scout]

Skyrims DLC like Dragonborn you can put well into 30 or more hours if you so choose.Same with the DLC for Oblivion. I'm not saying all DLC needs to be this long, but it's never a bad thing. For instance think about the DLC for Infamous 2, Festival of Blood was only about 2-3 hours long but it was reasonabley priced at $10.00, and it gave you a cool little side story about vampires. It wasn't neccesary to the main story at all, and you could tell that it wasn't cut from the main campaign to sell later. I'm fine with DLC that's only 1-2-3 hours long. What I'm not fine with is when that DLC is the "true" ending or a missing chapter that they just pulled from the middle of the game. I don't know how I got 1 disagree at the top of the page, but feel free to respond and tell me why I'm wrong.

[wishingW3L]

I don't buy stuff that I don't like but giving my opinion is free. ;)

[DragonKnight]

*Video Games are cheaper*

See, that's actually completely irrelevant. Cartridges were always more expensive to make than CDs due to materials, and the fact that many cartridges had battery backup and hardware upgrades built into them. I watched a fascinating video that discussed the fact that games like Mike Tyson's Punch Out on the NES actually contained it's own RAM so as to boost the visuals and performance of the game past what the NES could output. These things made cartridges more expensive. Once gaming moved to CDs, those kinds of additions never happened or moved into the accessory realm so the charge that publishers place on games isn't a good argument FOR MTs.

*Companies letting gamers know what's in the game*

Ah, that's actually a half-truth. The companies normally don't divulge the specifics of DLC until AFTER release, and they NEVER tell you if the content is already on the disc. Meaning the content was finished and could have been placed in the game, but they decided to lock you out of utilizing 100% of the content on the disc you paid for in favour of fleecing you. If they were transparent about that, they'd lose A LOT of money.

*Don't have to buy games because they're toys.*

You literally don't HAVE to buy anything. You want food? You can hunt or gather. You want water? Go to a natural source. The point isn't that you HAVE to buy the games or not. It's about removing content, it's about the potential to give paying players an advantage over players playing the game properly. There is literally no way anyone can justify that as necessary and/or a positive. Afterall, you chose to support a developer who made a game you viewed as enjoyable, you didn't choose to have content locked out so they can play on your fandom to milk you out of money.

"We only get angry because we have this sense of entitlement that every single scrap of code made for the game should be included with the base price."

There's that buzzword again. Entitlement. Here are some facts. What is DLC today were unlockables in the Past. Content included in the game that you had access to after buying it. The idea of entitlement is supporting the idea that games aren't a product, but a service. You don't own games, you rent them. The disc is then a pointless husk. Owning the product you paid for at the listed price has been one of the cornerstones of consumerism for centuries, so it's not a sense of entitlement that you expect to have 100% access to something you paid full price for, it's tradition and history based on ancient rules that today are trying to be circumvented in favour of clear greed.

Since I'm running out of space I'll conclude with the following. The saying "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" applies, and it applies to inaction as well. Not buying the add-ons will only work if the majority does it, but that's not going to happen thanks to casual gamers. Thanks to casual gamers, publishers will push the limits of what they can lock out for resale as MTs or DLC, and THAT'S the biggest problem. It's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't buy it" but what if the day comes when that applies to an entire game? Or an entire game mode that was once a standard inclusion in the game? Developers are now separating the MP portions of their games as F2P games with MTs, what if the day comes where they SELL the MP portion and don't include it in the retail game because people chose not to voice their concern and didn't back it up with their money? Would anyone enjoy a world of games being sold in pieces? That already happens today with games that have episodic content DLC. The line must be drawn somewhere or gaming will be ruined for all of us.

[dedicatedtogamers]

Sure, cartridge games were more costly to make compared to pressing a CD or DVD. However, soundtracks were cheaper to make. Games had 30-man dev teams instead of 230-man dev teams. Games didnt pay hundreds of thousands just for Hollywood voice talent or movie-quality musical scores. Game retail prices today are cheap, even though dev costs have skyrocketed.

[AtomicGerbil]

Still doesn't mean it's right and I really do hope nobody does buy into it. The whole industry needs to know that despite EA declaring that gamers have embraced this business model, in truth the majority have not.

Instead of looking for new and devious ways to fleece their consumers, publishers should be striving to produce a desirable product or there needs to be a solution to eradicate the need for publishers entirely.

[Captain Tuttle]

Someone on GAF started a thread about an idea that publishers should put Achievements and Trophies behind paywalls. People who wanted them would have to pay for an unlock key.

I'm actually OK with this as I don't give a crap about trophies. Give developers an extra revenue stream.

[Megaton]

The "don't like it, don't buy it" line of thinking is so foolish. What you do has an impact on everyone else. If you keep rewarding these people with your money, they're gonna keep taking more and more away from the vanilla game to sell as "extra content", regardless of me or my friends abstaining. You don't live in a vacuum.

[e-p-ayeaH]

If next gen goes that route im going to pay way less attention with gaming and just stick with the classics.

[Tetsujin]

I miss the days of unlocking content by playing the game, and as you beat it (or find hidden parts) is when content was added - Tekken being a big example of this, especially in 3 with Dr Bosconovich, Gon, and Tiger Jackson. Given Namcos' current track record however they're free downloads; if it was Capcom with Street Fighter Alpha 3 the added characters would be $5 each and an unlock code.

[TooTall19]

DLC and micro-transactions are good. The only time I don't like it is when there's day 1 DLC, or even worse, locked content on the disk.

[Silly gameAr]

Well, I do have a lot of respect of Cliff, and might be one of the few on this site that can stomach him.

By the way. Does anyone else get an error when they submit blogs, or is it just me?

[jessupj]

As a few smart people in here have been saying, that's a very foolish way to think.

The uneducated casuals that don't care about gaming will keep enabling these publishers to sell DLC and micro transactions. Why should I care you ask?

I care because it affects me. Thanks to these practices I don't get a full game, or I'm at a disadvantage in multiplayer.

I have never bought them and I never will, but it still affects me greatly and it seems it will only get worse.

I can understand other gamers not getting this simple concept, but cliffy B? He's a developer. He's suppose to have a very good understanding of the gaming industry, the things that will move it forward and the things that will make it worse.

He's a developer, not a publisher. He's suppose to be one of the good guys.

I have no respect for him.

[EffectO]

Not sure why all the moaning,microtransactions have been with us for quite a time and they are here to stay.In fact MT might be the only hope to save something from this industry crash(yes,I believe industry has crashed already).Properly implemented MT,that is.

It won't happen overnight,there will be many many MT blunders but I hope one day some company implements them properly to both theirs and consumers satisfaction.If that happens others will copy if not...buy a smartphone

[DragonKnight]

You believe the market has crashed? Were you around for when it happened in the 80's? Totally not the same thing. And IF the market has crashed, it's precisely because of B.S. tactics like casualization and MTs that made it happen.

Smartphones are garbage, why would anyone buy that for gaming? Are you even a gamer?

[EffectO]

I was alive back then,yes.Crash reasons were different but in the end crash is crash.There is one very important difference though...we have internet now

Market has crashed because HD business model is fundamentally broken,budgets have gone up by order of a magnitude but audience didn't change much.Only the biggest games can survive in that kind of environment.
Expensive games,DLCs,MT are the consequence,not the cause--desperate attempt to lift the bottom line out of the red.

Barely anyone except Activision has made any money this gen.EA made more money in one year last gen than all big publishers combined this whole gen,Activision included.

Smartphones are not garbage,plenty of people play and buy smartphone games.And by people I mean people that play games on consoles and PCs too.

[DragonKnight]

"Market has crashed because HD business model is fundamentally broken,budgets have gone up by order of a magnitude but audience didn't change much."

I'm sorry but that's a misconception. If that were the truth, there'd be no PC devs at all. PC devs DEFINITELY don't make as much as console devs, and the graphics of those games are far higher than console games. Sure, it can be argued that the PC is devoid of many of the problems of the console scene, but it is a platform that has proven that the HD business model isn't broken. Budgets for gaming have gone up due to poor spending habits and outsourcing. Seriously, just look on kickstarter for Skullgirls and how much they are asking fans for so that they can add 1 character to the game. It can be applied to the bigger companies as well. As for the audience changing, that's also a misconception as the casual audience and the Wii has proven. If you're speaking of core gamers, they too have changed. They are constantly changing based on the actions of greedy publishers. I bet you can easily recall many instances of core gamers talking about how they wished gaming would return to its roots. But you buy what you're given unless you want to stop gaming altogether.

"Expensive games,DLCs,MT are the consequence,not the cause--desperate attempt to lift the bottom line out of the red."

Again, that's still a misconception. Game development has always been expensive, games have always been expensive.

"Barely anyone except Activision has made any money this gen.EA made more money in one year last gen than all big publishers combined this whole gen,Activision included."

Yeah, that's not true. That's definitely not true. If it were true you'd see a lot fewer games and a lot of closed studios, more than what we've seen.

"Smartphones are not garbage,plenty of people play and buy smartphone games.And by people I mean people that play games on consoles and PCs too."

Please. They're glorified facebook games with terrible controls. They are garbage. Just because you play a game on a smartphone and happen to play games on consoles and PCs doesn't mean smartphone games aren't terrible. Look at Square-Enix to see where those games are headed.

[X]

If the games market is going to crash, it will crash for the same reasons as it did in the 80s. A oversaturation of subpar products in the market that the core community will deem has little value in investing into.

Pacman and ET are great examples of what were expected to be commercial successes, yet left the consumers who bought the product dissatisfied with their purchases, leading to little confidence in purchasing future titles.

[MrBeatdown]

I've never understood the outrage. For me to get upset, I have to feel like I'm being cheated. I can't say I've ever felt that way about any game I've bought.

It amazes me that there is no standard for what's acceptable. It basically boils down to "I want everything and I want it right now for $60... but games are too expensive... I want it for $50 right now."

There's no regard for the actual amount of content in the initial purchase and there's no regard for development budget. There is rarely a considering for how much is enough. Nobody cares how big the game is or how much it cost to make. People look at it merely as if the existence of DLC means you're getting screwed.

If you think the DLC or microtransaction content belongs in the game for free, shouldn't you be complaining about the content in the initial game to begin with? Regardless of there being DLC or not, shouldn't the problem always be the lack of content in the main game? The complaint always seems to be about how people aren't getting 100% of the pie, rather than how big of a slice of pie they're getting.

It just amazes me that the issue is always about what we aren't getting, as opposed to what we are getting.

[DragonKnight]

"It amazes me that there is no standard for what's acceptable. It basically boils down to "I want everything and I want it right now for $60... but games are too expensive... I want it for $50 right now."

There is a standard. A game should be worth $60 and DLC should not be content cut from the game. If a game is short but feels incomplete, it is not worth $60. IF DLC is a story chapter cut from the game to be sold off later, the game is not worth $60. If the microtransactions allow a noob to gain the best weapons from the start of a multiplayer game, granting them unfair advantages simply because they are willing to pay, then that is a cheat against all gamers willing to play the game how it was intended to play it.

[MrBeatdown]

It's easy to say a game should be worth $60. That's not a standard. What qualifies as a game worth $60? How much content does it need to have? How many people have to work on it? How much does it have to cost to make? People take issue with a $60 game having DLC whether it's a six hour game or a sixty hour game. There is no standard.

At what point does it become acceptable to have DLC? I rarely see that line defined, because nobody wants to define it. Most critics seem content to just get outraged merely because DLC exists.

How do you know when something is cut just to be sold later? And why does that instantly make the base game not worth $60? That's exactly what I was pointing out... there's no standard of what is enough. You say a game is not worth $60 just because something was cut. If Rockstar cut a few vehicles from GTAV to include in DLC, is GTAV not worth $60? Nobody wants to draw that line, and even worse, the only reason anybody wants to is to complain about the games with DLC, not the ones without it, even if they only have as much to offer as the base games with DLC.

And if a noob gets the best weapons by buying them, why are you complaining about the DLC, and not the balance of the game? If I start out and get my ass handed to me by someone who unlocks something "the right way", how is that any better for me than getting my ass handed to me by a noob who just buys it? Why should it matter to me how someone acquired an advantage?

It doesn't make sense. You should be complaining about the unfair advantage period, not the fact that someone can pay for it.

That's the thing... it's never the underlying problems with the games themselves that people take issue with. It's the DLC. That tells me it's just people trying to justify their outrage over something they can't have, as opposed to people actually having an issue with the main game.

[DragonKnight]

-Difficult to explain but I'll try. We've all played games that were worth the price tag. It didn't matter that it was a short game, or if it had the best graphics. What constitutes a game worth the money is a game that IS complete, doesn't feel like there were disagreements in how it should be developed (Aliens: Colonial Marines), has replay value that doesn't require DLC to exist, and has a great foundation built on the basics of great games. Those being good story and good gameplay first, visuals last. Team size is irrelevant, cost is irrelevant.

-Yes because there hasn't been worthy DLC. When you have a game like Marvel vs Capcom 3 locking out characters to sell off later, or games that sell endings as DLC, what reason is there to support that? People complain about bad DLC.

-It's always acceptable to have DLC, always. So long as it isn't something that was purposely cut from the game (AC2 for example), or something that SHOULD be free being charged for (color palettes, really?), then it's always acceptable to have DLC. If you're going to make excuses during development about why your DLC is day one or on-disc though, expect to hear about how unhappy people are. You could have put that content on the disc, you chose not to because you want to milk fans.

-Do you want me to list the examples of devs that have done it? Many times it's easy to see that it was removed content to be sold later. Hell, FF13-2 is the biggest proof of that. Why does that make the base game not worth $60? Gee I don't know, maybe because the game was changed thanks to that cut content? In the case of FF13, enough was removed from that game to make another game. Planned that way since 2006. We got a terrible game in FF13 and a mediocre sequel in FF13-2 with an unnecessary third installment coming. None of that is good.

-Now you're just grasping. You have to judge the worth based on the kind of game. GTA isn't solely about the cars. But let's say that missions were cut, and good ones at that, can you say that that wouldn't piss you off enough to question what the game could have been like if it were complete?

-Maybe because the imbalance wouldn't exist without the DLC? Did you think about that?

-Because you were beaten by someone who actually worked to beat you, who used skill to do it. You know you can do the same thing if you want to put the work in. It's like in Dark Souls, do you think people enjoy or think highly of the hackers that give themselves infinite health and stamina? They don't win based on any merit, they just cheated the system. MTs are just another way to cheat, except you pay to do it.

"It doesn't make sense. You should be complaining about the unfair advantage period, not the fact that someone can pay for it."

-The two aren't mutually exclusive.

-The DLC is a symptom of the underlying problem. It's the most transparent issue. And people complain about the underlying problem all the time. Again, look at Aliens: Colonial Marines to see proof.

*People justifying outrage*

Implying that people who are complaining about DLC can't just fork over the money to get it. It's not about that at all. It's about what it represents. Their is no way to say that fleecing consumers, whether successful or not, is a good thing for the industry. It just isn't.

[MrBeatdown]

I don't know how you can say development costs and team size are irrelevant. What makes cost relevant for you, but not for them? If you can't take into consideration what a publisher has to put into a game to create it, you certainly aren't qualified to judge it.

AC2? I got my money's worth. If you didn't, the problem is not DLC. It's a problem with the content in the main game.

As for something like MvC3, what qualifies as enough characters? 10? 20? 30? Again, there is no standard. It's just "I want 100% of what your dev team creates" with absolutely no regard for the resources put into it. It seems like Capcom would have been better off just not bothering to even pay people to create DLC characters, and put their resources to work elsewhere, because nobody seems to complain about the lack of characters. It's just the fact that there are more they can't have that people have a problem with.

And FF... if that content was scrapped entirely, would that make a difference? You complain about FF13's cut content, but shouldn't the issue be that FF13 just didn't have enough content to begin with, regardless of DLC?

That's the thing... you don't hear complaints about the burger being too small. You only hear complaints when people realize they didn't get the fries with it. Publishers could give people the world, but people will still complain when they realize there's a moon. It's never what we have. People always want to judge based on what we don't have.

As for GTA, I don't care what gets cut, so long as what is included is worth my money and leaves me satisfied.

"-Maybe because the imbalance wouldn't exist without the DLC? Did you think about that?"

Like I said, shouldn't the issue be the balance, DLC or not? You think they should eliminate the DLC to balance it, instead of just, you know, balancing the DLC content with the rest of the game?

"-Because you were beaten by someone who actually worked to beat you, who used skill to do it."

If they used skill, there is no imbalance, and therefore no reason to complain. If I was beaten by someone who paid, or "earned" access to an unbalanced weapon that gave them an unfair advantage, I would have a problem with that, regardless of how the weapon was obtained. If I'm stuck with a potato gun and the other guy has a rocket launcher, I couldn't care less if he paid $1 to get it, or grinded levels for 50 hours. How it was obtained doesn't change my game experience. It makes no difference to me. If we are two players of equal skill, and I'm getting obliterated, that is a problem with balance, not microtransactions. Microtransactions are never the problem. It's their implementation. Yet it's the microtransactions themselves people complain about, regardless of whether or not they unbalance the game.

Like I've been saying all along, people want to make DLC out to be the problem when it's not. If you feel entitled to the DLC, there should be a lack of value in the main game to justify it.

If you had a problem with AC2, or MvC, or FF, where you think you deserve the DLC content, you should be taking issue with the core game lacking in content.

But if you are ignoring the true value of the game, and acting like the only possible way a game can be "complete" is with every last piece of content thought up by the devs, regardless of developments costs or resources required, there's no satisfying a customer like you, and developers would just be better off not bothering, so you don't get carried away with some drummed up idea of what the game was "supposed to be" and hold them to some arbitrary standard of completeness.

[sjaakiejj]

"They don't HAVE to live in those cities. Games can be (and have often been) developed in a garage or a basement. You don't need to work in a San Fran high-rise for your game to turn out well"

Actually, they do. For a company to get the talent they need, they need to be established in a place where a lot of that talent lives. You can't expect talented employees to move all over the country to be where your company is. You'll lose them to the competition if the commute to the competition is easier and much shorter.

[MacDonagh]

I'm glad that both you and DK have covered the topic in question. I'm finding that reading the blog posts on N4G are more interesting and well-written than most game sites.

On topic: entitlement is a bit of a strange thing. The Bayonetta 2 controversy for instance screamed "entitlement" due to the outrage from gamers against Nintendo and Platinum Games. On the subject of DLC however; I can understand why gamers would be perturbed by EA's plans. DLC is usually done in a pre-planned process and if characters/levels are getting cut out of the game; you're paying full-price and more to get the full experience.

However, if you see how EA have been doing recently in the stock market; it makes sense why they are making micro-transactions a feature in all future games. Their stock price keeps dropping and the shareholders probably have cause for concern.