Top
250°

Why the Fallout 4 DLC Outrage Is Vastly Exaggerated

The Internet is filled with disapproval for Bethesda due to the Fallout 4 DLC controversy right now, but in reality this is hardly warranted by facts.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Chris_Wray884d ago

It's difficult to really justify buying a season pass at the price of a whole new game. Possibly Bethesda are the only company who you can trust to give you moneys worth in this case, but the industry just keeps asking you to trust it while giving you more and more reasons not to trust it.

Dan_scruggs884d ago

Buy it now and it wont be the price of the whole game. Seems simple enough. It only jumps to 50 at the start of March.

Theparanerds884d ago

In america...

It's already $40 in Canada

Imp0ssibl3884d ago

Agreed, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I'm not buying but that's just because I'm not interested in Fallout 4.

pivotplease884d ago

Buy something before you even really know what it is for a discount? I'm sorry but that's super shady and the people that condone such tactics are the reason why the gaming industry is in such a crappy place. The discount is really no different than a pre-order bonus. I really would like to say that the season pass is worth it, but the first two packs look like over-priced nonsense. Look at the $10 Hearts of Stone for an example of worthwhile DLC at that price point. A customizable robot companion and small side-quest is now somehow comparable?

2pacalypsenow884d ago

Season passes are nothing new, why are people acting like Bethesda is the devil for doing season passes? its an option, you don't have to buy the season pass if you don't want, you can always buy the DLC separate later.

inmusicutrust883d ago

@Theparanerds

$40CAD is the same as $30USD.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen883d ago

@Dan_scruggs
Agreed. People complaining about self inflicted wounds are really annoying.

DLConspiracy880d ago

For those of us who know it's 30 now till the 1st it's fine. For those who don't know though...

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 880d ago
yomfweeee884d ago

If the Season Pass offers as much content as a full game... isn't that justification?

Imp0ssibl3884d ago

Not sure about that but if there's any truth to their landmass claim it will be pretty big. I mean they made some huge DLCs in the past.

pivotplease884d ago

So it will offer about 80 hours of content (the approx. length of F4)? Doubtful.

rdgneoz3884d ago

The first 2 DLC are things modders have done for free on the PC since shortly after the game launched. The 3rd one is the only thing of any value so far.

2pacalypsenow884d ago

@rdgneoz3 then the modders are stupid for doing it for free.

yomfweeee883d ago

Pivot your average game gives no where near 80 hours of content. Don't use an extreme example.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 883d ago
amnalehu884d ago

There is a very simple solution to this issue and for those that feel it is over priced... DON'T BUY IT! When we make a purchase of a non-essential product or service, we are saying yes, we agree with the price vs the value of the product or service. The game will continue to work perfectly fine with or without the DLC.

ccgr884d ago

I thought the DLC seemed interesting, but will probably hold out for a sale

Frisky884d ago

I read somewhere that Bethesda has secretly upgraded the graphical performance of the game on consoles. If so, I hope they keep doing so. DLC will come and people will talk and then they will play.

Alexious884d ago

They did, and they have already added other graphical effects and fixes. There's also an overhaul coming for the Survival mode, all of this will be free.

DarkOcelet884d ago

Am sorry, what are you suggesting exactly by saying that graphical effects, fixed and overhaul to Survival mode are free?

They are Patches mate, they should be free. Or should we pay for graphical upgrades and fixes in the future?

Alexious884d ago

@DarkOcelet: You're right Dark, obviously they have to be free, but they didn't have to add them either.

It's not like they ever promised to add HBAO+ for Ambient Occlusion or weapon debris. They just did.

I personally think that Bethesda's post-launch support for their games is generally more than acceptable.

DarkOcelet884d ago

They didn't have to add them but if they could then why not?

Evo Studio did a stellar job with upgrading Driveclub's visuals and they also added tons of awesome updates for free because they want to make their game better for the fans.

Bethesda's Post-launch content might be more than acceptable but they should do that because most of their launch games sucks, Fallout 4 on day 1 had so many major issues that was fixed later on and many of those issues should have been fixed before the game's launch.

yomfweeee884d ago

Why not? Because that is time and resources which is money.

You named one example of another game doing this, which happened to be a first party title in which Sony was trying to show the power of the system... that doesn't mean it is common. Name other games that added graphical features after release?

pivotplease884d ago (Edited 884d ago )

I feel like they just couldn't get it all in by the deadline but didn't want to throw away all of their work. The game's mostly empty overworld and lack of interesting sidequests seems to imply time constraints over generosity. There are only two real communities in the game and look at how small and lacking in characters/quests/content they are.

@yomfweeee

Dying Light and TW3. Also improved graphics and performance are pretty equivalent as both make the game better and require similar resources. Pretty much every game I have in my library plays better than it did a year or two ago, so it's not unusual to get post-release improvements at all.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 884d ago
TheSanchezDavid884d ago

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, that's a hefty, unappealing price for DLC. But on the other hand, if Bethesda can deliver solid, lengthy content with plenty to do (as the company's known to do with its games anyway), then it could be worth the price of admission.

Alexious883d ago

Generally I would agree with you, because we see very small pieces of DLC. However, Bethesda is known to make huge expansions that rival the size of some full games and Far Harbor seems to fit that category easily, given that it'll have the biggest landmass they ever made for an add-on.

Ashlen884d ago

Personally I'm inclined to believe that FO4 didn't meet internal sales expectations and they are using this price hike to increase profits.

DarkOcelet884d ago (Edited 884d ago )

If 12 Million Copies sold and over $750 Million Revenue on day 1 did not meet sales expectations then this industry have a major problem.

But i dont think the Price Hike was affected by that. It was simple, they saw what Techland did with Dying Light and they did the same.

The gaming industry is becoming worse every day

EDKICK883d ago

So they added a bunch of meaningfull DLC including (if you even read the article) the largest landmass ever in a Bethesda DLC and so the price increases shocker but they're not pulling a Techland they're giving everyone two weeks to buy it at the same price. And excluding horse armour most Bethesda DLC have been great or are we going to forget about that or is the internet again going on their high horse and proclaim "Everyone is greedy, the industry is terrible, down to AAA games" while all the sane rational people stand back and say this really isn't a big deal.

pivotplease884d ago

Yeah Fallout 4 even put the FPS market to shame in sales (ironically it is part FPS). I think it was more like look at this huge install base and think of the percentage of this who will buy DLC (probably over 10%?). So it's obviously a business move and I know DLC is rarely as bang for your buck as a full-priced game, but I am interested to see how much content that third DLC pack contains because that one is the make or break one.