Top
210°

DLC is Why Your Game ONLY Costs $60

The recent controversy around Evolve and its copious amounts of additional paid downloadable content (DLC) means that this is a good as time as any to discuss the climate of video game prices, specifically of the AAA variety.

To recap, Evolve has launched to generally positive critical reception, a unique 4v1 concept that we've lusted for after watching Predator all those years ago. Many players do not enjoy it it because it is light on content, but we'll digress and use it as an example for this DLC discussion.

The user reaction? Not so glowing. A quick peek at Evolve's Steam page brings attention to dozens of customer reviews lambasting the game for its paid DLC, complaining that they're being pushed to spend even more money after paying the base price for the base game, which is the standard $60.

Read Full Story >>
clashtech.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Ghost_of_Tsushima1036d ago

"rather pay $60 or $100 for your right to play a game?"

How about if they ever go up to $100 for a game I'll quit gaming!

DarkOcelet1036d ago

I will go back to PC then. Steam always has amazing sales.

Stalker trilogy cost 10$ right now and i would rather play those than play this useless trash right here. And those three games could give me over 100 hours easily and that's even without installing mods that makes it a different game entirely.

Griever1035d ago

I cant believe people defend dlc milking in the name of keeping prices down. Games used to offer a lot more unlockable content before dlc came. If profitability is the issue then why cant developers keep the costs of production down for games instead of spending upward of $50 million on each AAA title; most of which is spent on marketing instead of making a better game. The customer is not obligated to ensure the profitability of the seller by buying at hefty prices. It is the seller's responsibility to ensure profitability by keeping the costs down so he can sell to the customer at a reasonable and acceptable price.

theshonen88991035d ago

I don't agree with Evolve's DLC strategy (at all) but I'd like to mention that $60 for a game is the cheapest it's ever been when you take into account inflation over the entire history of gaming. It's hard to imagine games ever costing more than $60, but the reality is that we've been paying more than that for years.

breakpad1035d ago

BOYCOTT the game ...these developers are obnoxiously disrespectful to gamers...and the game is at best mediocrity

freshslicepizza1035d ago

evolve is on steam so saying you will go back to pc, well those dlc cosmetic items are there too.

not one person can counter how exactly they are supposed to recoup development costs. games cost $50 decades ago yet the price to develop aaa games has risen substantially.

the price of admission to see a movie when the nes came out is drastically different to today and the price of admission. hardly anyone is willing to pay $100 for a game which is why we have games with hidden fees now.

nX1035d ago

Flawed logic at work here, 60 bucks are more than enough for virtual entertainment.
Games are losing value rapidly these days because there are so many games coming out and sequels only take 1 or 2 years to come out. If you want to make money in this industry just make a good game - quality sells by itself.

Recently, Dying Light for example did everything right - without any kind of suspicious DLC it sold really well because it's simply a good game worth it's money. Techland probably made a profit out of it already so I don't understand what's wrong with some of the developers out there.

theshonen88991035d ago

I'm not entirely sure what is with the disagrees but as I stated, I don't support Evolve's strategy at all. I'm simply starting that games in the old Atari days used to be over $100 and that $60 in our present currency is the cheapest retail games have ever been. Games like Skyrim and Dragon Age Inquisition are still offering enormous amounts of gameplay at these cheaper prices (just not Evolve).

Dudebro901035d ago

@blood

Recently, Dying Light for example did everything right - without any kind of suspicious DLC

So that entire game mode that was locked behind a pre order doesn't count?

It was only made available after the have was delayed in some regions, but they still had every intention of keeping it segregated, and you still support them?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1035d ago
BC_Master_Haze1035d ago

Not to mention Canadian prices now... 70CAD is ridiculous.

GameSpawn1035d ago

What about the Aussies? Don't they get boned by their own inflation and import prices? This also ignores their bans and censorship of many games.

dreamed1035d ago (Edited 1035d ago )

They already are about $80-90 in british pounds,so glad theres no region lock anymore coz $60 is £35,digital is cheaper this gen,well at launch it is anyway.

@griever well said buddy,bubble up for that one,most of it is marketing which leaves a few $ to quickly throw a game together.AAA business is a joke.

Ubisoft said they would not be spending a aaa budget on the next splinter cell,they are just gonna try & make the best SC instead of trying & failing to appeal to the masses..

Just bring back chaos theory and all hardcore fans will be happy.

Gamer19821035d ago

with statements like this sayinhg dlc is keeping prices down they are feeding the f2p markets. I am sorry to a ton of dlc is for the f2p market. Developers are being greedy trying to tap into both.

DemonChicken1035d ago

Dear Article

Please proceed to explain why the devs and the witcher games can achieve something that Evolve can't.

Until then I call your article bullshit along with turtle rock =)

Fationably Late1035d ago

Can you elaborate on what you're referring to? What did The Witcher (an open world, RPG with story and character progression) do that Evolve (a 4v1 multiplayer shooter 'arena') didn't.

olliec94931035d ago

@Fationably late.

The witcher devs (CD Projekt Red) have stated time and time again their disapproval of paid DLC. They have said the only event where they would charge would be for a full expansion like Dragonborn or Shivering Isles. They demonstrated this when they released the witcher 2 for xbox 360 with a number of enhancements, a new game mode and much content added to the main story under the aptly named 'enhanced edition'. The enhanced edition was given free to all who already owned the game on PC.

M337ING1034d ago

This is just a general statement on why most AAA games cost only $60, especially new AAA IPs.

The Witcher is proven and already has a fan base that is going to buy it. They don't need the DLC.

Neither does GTAV, but that's just a different philosophy of selling product.

shloobmm31035d ago

If you go back and look at prices on items and services over the past 20 years they have at least tripled in price. Gamers don't realize that somehow inflation hasn't altered their favorite past time. Hell back in the early days of gaming there were games that were $100. The fact that we still pay only $60 for a core experience is huge.

sigfredod1035d ago

"cost Only $60" lol, this sites are a joke trying to defend this practice

Fationably Late1035d ago

I'm not defending DLC outright, but if your complaint is about the $60 price tag, then consider this: even if you make minimum wage in the U.S. (in some states it's $7.25 / ~15k/yr), $60 is +-0.4% of your yearly income. From a developers point of view, that should be low enough for the average person to afford (who actually make about $45k/yr in the U.S.).

Genova841035d ago

I recall paying $75 for Street Fighter 2 in 1992. That's 23 years ago ... the fact that we haven't seen games go north of $60 is due to global growth of the gaming market. Games are reaching more people so they sell more units. We're likely hitting the wall on that unless other countries start opening up to them.

That said, I already refuse to pay more than $50 for new games on pc due to the lack of a licensing fee. Almost pulled the trigger on far cry 4 yesterday but decided to hold off a bit.

3-4-51035d ago

$ If they charge $100 nobody would buy it, because it's not a $100 game.

Remember Super Mario Brothers 1 ?

Made today, you'd have to pay to use that warp pipe shortcut, or pay extra to use fireballs.

3-4-51035d ago

Some of those games were worth it, but mostly random games would go for $65 or 70 instead of $50 like most games did.

dcj05241035d ago

Isnt that how some games in the 90s cost?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1034d ago
DarkOcelet1036d ago (Edited 1036d ago )

"So, what are players complaining about? Chiefly, paying for cosmetic items.
To be frank, this is hardly a new or alarming concept. Free-to-play games, like Dota 2 and League of Legends, have built their empires on the concept of paid cosmetic DLC. “Whales,” often wealthy individuals with money to throw around, support the rest of the community’s free access to the games that they enjoy. If other players want to buy a skin or two, they have that option too."

You just gave two examples of F2P games. That are actually amazing and doesnt even require you to pay money to win. And using cosmetics in those games to support the developer is OK because the game is already free!

This game, people already paid 60$. They already paid for the full game. So why the hell every one feels it is so light on content?

Its funny though, Skyrim Budget was roughly estimated at 85 million dollars. And it got back $1,290,000,000 in revenue. You know why? Because it had enough content to last you over 300 hours without dlc and it was 60$ and no one from the developers said it should cost more. This here doesn't even have enough content to worth 30$. I mean WTF!

Please stop defending this greedy blatant POS developer and publisher.

M337ING1036d ago

It's difficult to compare Evolve, which requires much investment up front and is unproven, to Skyrim, which is a team of developers who are already quite familiar with how to develop their game and are then able to focus on content.

I think the crux of the article is not about Evolve, but about how paid DLC means we haven't seen a price increase for many years. Remember, games have cost $60 since 2005. That's remarkable when you consider inflation, and not even the rise of budgets.

lipton1011035d ago

$60 is not much concerning the work that goes into these games and the budget required to make an AAA release. It takes a lot of people to make a game. Specially trained skilled people. These people are expensive to hire. They pay for their skills, this is not a time / labor for money type of job such as that with a cashier or stock associate. Games have become more expensive to make over time. Our dollar has devalued over that same time, while game prices have stayed relatively static over the past 10 years. $60 is not enough for one game. But the U.S. market won't support any higher, so say hello to DLC. DLC nowadays completes a game, it doesn't just supplement it as in the past. These studios need to market DLC to survive and recoup the massive costs involved in making a game. Source: MBA and logical thinking

yewles11036d ago (Edited 1036d ago )

*spits out coke and laughs hysterically at the title*

The delusion is real... XD

lipton1011035d ago

You're either uneducated or ignorant. Game development costs have went up dramatically. Game prices have stayed static over 10 years, and when adjusted for inflation, the cost of a game is now less than in 2006 (because the dollar is worth less than it was in the past). DLC completes games now, they're not just supplemental. You can whine all you want about the prices but there's no such thing as a free lunch pal

yewles11035d ago

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, you must've had a part in this article. XD

IIFloodyII1036d ago (Edited 1036d ago )

My games in the UK cost 75-85 dollars, they also have DLC.
The reason your games are $60 is because the rest of us pay more, DLC has nothing to do with it.

DemonChicken1035d ago (Edited 1035d ago )

20% goes to the government in taxes - VAT

The reason we pay more is because of the government

pompombrum1035d ago

This, our government shafts us on electronics tax, we always pay more sadly.

starchild1035d ago

Exactly. It's unbelievable that some people don't understand this.

@ IIFloodyII

That's not true. That extra money goes to the government, not the developers.

lipton1011035d ago

But what about other taxes? Do you guys also have federal, state and local income taxes? I took IB for my undergrad but I thought I remembered hearing at one time that your income taxes are lower and sales tax, or the Value Added Tax (VAT) in Europe, is higher to compensate to stabilize tax rates and limit loopholes across all income levels (screwing those less off in the process, but that's a different conversation.)

IIFloodyII1035d ago (Edited 1035d ago )

@DemonChicken and Starchild
The price has still increased over the last few years, it was £40-£45 for a game now it's £50-£55 some even go up to £60 (a little over 90$).

Oh and I was only using the UK as an example, it's even worse in places like Australia and most of Europe.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1035d ago
Rimeskeem1035d ago

Why did games cost less and have no DLC 15-20 years ago then?

GreetingsfromCanada1035d ago

Adjusted for inflation they cost around $90-$100.
Read all of it and learn oh ignorant one.
http://ca.ign.com/articles/...

Griever1035d ago (Edited 1035d ago )

You need to look beyond just inflation. Technology was much more expensive back then. Every piece of technology was more expensive in the 90s than it is today. It does not means they have to be the same price today or be even more expensive because of inflation. Things become cheaper as costs come down, market size increases and the then cutting-edge manufacturing processes become today's norm. Developers need to control their costs if they want to improve their profitability instead of ripping off customers. Why the hell are you defending them so vehemently? Would you be happier paying $100 for each game? You sure do not sound like a rational customer who looks for more bang for his buck.

souldestroyer141035d ago

Ignorant? He was asking a question.. Seeking knowledge. That's not ignorance and you're a jerk ;)

pompombrum1035d ago

Inflation argument aside, it's not really comparable 15-20 years ago because game studios required a lot less people to create the games.

Jubez1871035d ago

you dont think development costs have increased JUST a little bit since the 80s?

uth111035d ago

read the article. Game development budgets were much much lower back then

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1035d ago