It’s Open Season for Season Passes

Now more than ever before, however, season passes are being paired up with game launches allowing the consumer to purchase all the DLC for the game upfront, but why is this such a bad idea?

[Valenka]

There's nothing wrong with a season pass when its value is equivalent to its price. Some gamers are understandably apprehensive and uncomfortable around season passes because you're essentially investing in a non-refundable, may-or-may-not-be worth it digital doodad. The positive aspect to season passes are that eventually, the unannounced/hidden content within is unveiled in time and for those patient enough, you can determine for yourself whether or not the value is acceptable enough for your patronage. And if one is exceptionally patient, one might even be able to secure a season pass for a discounted price. I had terrific patience with DriveClub; I played it at launch but held off on purchasing my own copy for awhile. Down the line, I ended up purchasing the game and the season pass for $20.

I, personally, could do without season passes, as I do not agree with the concept or business model, but they aren't all that bad, considering that you end up saving a percentage opposed to buying each piece of DLC separately. Those savings don't expire, so should one decide to hold off on a season pass until its contents are revealed, one would still be able to obtain one.

[SaveMeJebus]

It just another way to milk the cow. Even if that's not milk anymore. Someone has to pay for the diesel to fill the executives yachts. You.

[Dirtnapstor]

Oh God forbid if someone makes more money than you...smh.

[Army_of_Darkness]

Wow! You mean we can purchase the completed game upfront at a premium price now?! Oh you guys are spoiling us gamers.......

[DarkOcelet]

My gripe with Season Pass and dlc in general is that its price never goes down, seriously why?

I remember seeing Mass Effect 2 a while ago for $8 and the total dlc is still at $20. That is just unbelievable.

No wonder companies wants all digital, so their game prices never go down.

[Heyxyz]

Yup, while not the main reason I'd hate an all digital future, this is a big reason why a world without physical copies and 3rd party retailers would be bad.

C'mon, do you really think greedy companies like EA and Ubi would lower their prices if they only had one marketplace to sell games through? Retailer competition keeps prices low.

[ThunderPulse]

Look at old COD prices on STEAM compared to console. Hell MW3 on PC is $40 on STEAM but you can easily find $5 copies on console.

[ziratul]

EVERYTHING IS WRONG with season passes and dlc's, why? because many of you don't remember that 49,99 was the price of the GAME. Now we buy unfinished games for 49,99 + we have to pay additional 29,99 for full joy... that's ripp off.

[Exoil]

I don't know man. I look at season pass more like our times expansions.

A lot of games 10-15 years ago got an expansion for 29,99 roughly the same size as all DLC in a season pass combined.

[djplonker]

I think the current model is not very good and I would like to see someone think outside of the box.

Battlefront and rainbow 6 are normally £39.99

But because they are online only everyone who plays could download the dlc as they would have to have an internet connection so why not charge everyone £49.99 and give the dlc free?

They could end up making more money from this way aswell if everyone is forced to spend that extra £10/$15 but get free post game dlc/support for 1 year+

Win-win imo

[Godmars290]

Kind of hard to defend season passes when its more and more evident that they were planned in conjuncture with a game's production. Effected how a game was developed if not removed to be sold back.

[ProgressiveLiberal]

What you think about Fallout 4's season pass? It's clear Bethesda didn't take it out of the base game, but have no problem selling it before even knowing what's going to be in it.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"? It's clear Bethesda didn't take it out of the base game"

?? You don't actually know that and even if they did.......who cares? What can be taken "out of the base game" of a IP you don't actually own? So they took something out they own? That...that doesn't mean anything, that are legally free to do that as its their IP, not yours. You don't own the company.

MOST DLC is made with other teams and other parts of the team making it during production. Look at the credits of your games and you'll see many times they have a team in charge of just dlc, the main team rarely works on DLC.

I have no problem with the team even removing stuff from the base game as its a concept that you'll never even know anyway, its removed before you play it, thus...how are you actually hurt? From something you never even knew existed in the first place?

Your owed truthfully nothing more then the promised, marketed product. I've never heard or read anything in the EULA stating they required to hand over everything they touched while making Fallout 4.

Again...what is removed of content that isn't even legally yours? That is like saying while making your pizza you ordered, I put a TV on it....then removed it.

Was that TV now yours? Did you now lose that? Will you sue? LMFAO! THAT is what your actually saying. The removal of something that was never promised, of content that was never yours of an IP you don't own, of a team you don't own of a company you don't own.

I'm 100% fine with Season passes as many are free not to buy it and its nice to have a discount option for content that will release in the future.

[_-EDMIX-_]

If its planned during production....who cares?

Exactly what are you saying is legally wrong? What your saying is that some how its was understood by you that you where not buying the stated product, but everything the team worked on during the process...

That isn't how business works bud. Its no a all you can eat buffet where you pay a single price and everything they create or touch is yours. Your buying a set product.

Do you go to a restaurant, buy a meal, then expect everything in the kitchen to be yours too?

They are 100% free to release content how they see fit, its not your company or your IP. That is like saying if I write a book, I'm not allowed to alter or remove characters that I feel are fit for another book or its sequel.

Where did you get this understanding that you are buying the team's service and not a set product?

No BF has ever released with 40 maps too btw so that argument doesn't even make any sense, even Fallout 4 BEFORE DLC is already stated to be larger and longer then Fallout 3.

Soooo you sure it was "removed to be sold back"? You sure it was made with the understanding to NEVER be in the final game in the first place?

Base games get larger and have more content many times by default as they STILL need to market and sell a game that is a sequel, how many sequels have you seen, shorter and less content, smaller yet have MORE DLC that makes the game larger then the last game with all DLC added?

many of you don't even have real world examples, just generalizations and vague ideas.

Explain what you mean, in a legal sense, what is being done wrong, give examples, the exact. It doesn't help your case that its just assumption or guess. Better yet, what evidence shows it was ever going to be in the final game anyway? Consider we are still getting BF4 DLC, still getting Smash Bros DLC ,still getting Witcher 3 DLC..

Consider many of those teams have OTHER teams making the content....consider none of those teams even have ANY history of EVER releasing a game with THAT much content before DLC, thus...how can it be "removed" when it has no history of having that much content anyway?

How can they "remove" something of which isn't even legally yours? That is like saying you bought a burger and I must have removed a pizza because you see me making one in the back, disregarding your bought a burger with nothing stated about including a pizza.

Soooo your sure your burger was always going to come with a Pizza? You sure that maybe I'm just making your burger and making a pizza for a separate charge?

So I'm removing something I own? lol can you take it to court? Consider that is exactly what your trying to say. Where in the EULA does it state your owed everything the team made?

[BattleAxe]

What?

[Godmars290]

The argument is about removing something which could contribute to the value of the whole. Taking out a potential key game/story element like a boss fight or level which inadvertently alters the structure of a game's story.

Not talking about ordering a burger combo and expecting pizza to be included, but again paying for a combo meal and somehow fries and a soda costing extra.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Godmars- "The argument is about removing something which could contribute to the value of the whole".

Value to whom? Your stating this as if the publisher or developers goal is to make this 300 hour game with 50 maps for $60...

That is a value to you as the consumer JUST like getting a burger and a pizza for the price of one burger, that is sorta my point. Yes...its a value to you, the developer or publisher isn't making much money doing this.

You might get something from that deal, they actually don't. The pizza still cost THEM money... the content they are making...is still costing THEM MONEY! Thus...at $60, the additional content they are adding is at a loss to them. You don't know that more would buy the game based on this as people don't buy games based on a number count, they do based on quality and really based on subjectivity. it doesn't matter how many sports teams you add to game to a gamer that doesn't play sports games, it doesn't matter how many maps in a FPS you put into a game....in a game that someone doesn't like or a genre that someone doesn't like.

We still buy games because we like them and not because they have a lot of something in them.

You may not be talking about ordering a burger, but your asking for a product, then expecting MORE based on knowing they are making more, yet disregarding they never marketed to be selling you a Pizza as a combo bud.

The point was that you don't own the restaurant, you don't make those rules and you are not paying their bills to say what "you" think a "value" is.

Could I not say a "value" to me is them giving me a burger, pizza, fries for the price of a small drink? LOL! Yes..that is for "me", but they as a business won't stay open with that concept. The reality is, your buying what they marketed and what they promised, not what they are making. They are 100% free to actually add what they want to in a game or even remove what they want to in a game they own.

You don't have that say on a product as you don't own the IP.

"Taking out a potential key game/story element like a boss fight" Unless they told you it was in the game, you don't really have much of a claim bud.

Its hard to argue a company doesn't have the right to add or remove something from a game they own and are making. Even if its a boss fight you think is "key" to the game. For all we know, all the expansions to the Withcer are key to you lol That is an element they own, not you. Even if we say they do that.........so. Pretty sure again...(something you seem to never address) its not your IP, not your company, nothing on the EULA states your owed everything they put their hands on, your buying what was promised, not the souls of the team. You mad at sequels too? Was the director thinking of the sequel robbing you too because he didn't just make it a 7 hour film? At some point you need to accept what your being presented as a product as suppose to making up what you think is the real "value" based on content outside of that product.

[Godmars290]

You're thinking in terms of a whole menu rather than a single meal, Edmix. While there are good examples for DLC, I'm more concerned with bad ones such as Prothean as playable in ME, as well as Lair of the Shadow King and the Arrival. As well as all of the mess surrounding Destiny and all the hints of changes to its story. I'm talking about how potential decisions to rip sections out of a developing game to make into DLC likely ruins that game's overall structure.

Again. Talking. About. A. Single. Meal.

Not being entitled to the entire menu of a restaurant much less the entirety of a culinary grouping of meals.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"While there are good examples for DLC, I'm more concerned with bad ones"

Its subjective bud, you might as well replace DLC with "Games"

Example..

"While there are good examples for GAMES, I'm more concerned with bad ones"

Your going to get bad DLC, just like your going to get bad games...

Also the analogy about the restaurant and menu is about regarding that the content is not yours to begin with to be taken from or removed. Its theirs. They set what is on that menu, not you.

They set the price, they told you what the product was, they are free to make another and give a different price.

Buy what is being marketed, not what you think they should be including in something they never promised.

ie if your buying a meal, why do you care what they are NOT adding that isn't even stated in the meal selection? The issue is you asking for something else that has a different price due to them owning the product and not you.

You don't ask that else where, I'm not sure where you thought that made sense in gaming.

I mean....do you expect an item for free that wasn't even listed? They removed something from what you ordered that was never stated to be in what you actually ordered? Oh they are making it in the back....soooooo how does that actually come back to you being owed it when its a separate charge?

It sounds more like you feel entitled to everything they create vs having something "removed" from a game you bought. Again...how can they take something from you that you factually don't legally own?

Is it wrong for me to make many meals while I'm making yours? Was the agreement for you to own my whole restaurant or? lol So when was it a agreement that you were owed everything the team was working on?

They are selling a product that they are marketing..your actually only owed that, as to why you seem to have a tough time combating the legal argument of your claim (sorta you whole strange claim)

Like "to rip sections out of a developing game to make into DLC likely ruins that game's overall structure"

How do you know that? Could me not having those BBQ ribs not make my meal complete? Oh but that is the owner of the restaurants fault though? I mean...would it not make sense to say if you want that....buy it?

They don't owe you anything more then the promised product bud. This just sounds like content begging..

[JackVagina]

Even if they delayed the game and put the "planned dlc" in the game there would still be more DLC plans after it releases. People who want more from a game will want more and will be willing to pay for it and why cant they?

[Heyxyz]

My problem with separate DLC teams is the fact it takes resources away from the main game. Sure, the content wasn't removed, but what could've been made for the main game in the time/money it took to make that content.

[KidMakeshift]

Since holding game content for ransom is the norm now and the fact that season passes keep going up in price then the original retail price for the base game should be cheaper considering publishers make more money on DLC. Also, the digital version of a game should be even cheaper.

[FlexLuger]

"the digital version of a game should be even cheaper."

I completely agree with this, as somebody that buys all my games digitally. I buy a lot of my games in digital sales and the must haves I buy upfront/pre-order(forza 6, halo 5, fallout 4 etc.). I dont have a problem with good DLC for a good game. I have bought my fair share of season passes and DLC (probably more than most people, on N4G) but I think the cost of the base game could be dropped to 30 bucks if you are buying digitally.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"Since holding game content for ransom"

How can you hold "content for ransom" of content that isn't legally yours in the first place?

It seems many of you have legit no clue about the law, consumer rights or really any business concepts.

The concept of content being "removed" "cut" or lolz held for "ransom" doesn't even slightly make any real legal sense.

I think its best many of you actually read the EULA.

Better yet, seek to form a law suit, I would love to hear exactly how you where wronged by this....

@Flex- " I think the cost of the base game could be dropped to 30 bucks if you are buying digitally"

In a perfect world bud. Games actually still cost money to make and being boxed at retail is not a difference of $30...not even slightly. Games at $60 are actually factually cheaper then in any time in gaming....ever.

As to all those record sales in recent years, but games cost more to create, they can't make a huge AAA game and make a $30 digital version, they won't do it and it doesn't really make much sense.

[cheameup]

agree

as a consumer i dont want to pay more but I realize that games are more expensive to make than ever and actaully cost less now than what I was buying snes or PS1 games for bakc in the day

a season pass is a subscription fee , same as playing WoW

[KidMakeshift]

Well, someone's on his high horse. Sorry, I should have put quotation marks around ransom. I just figured no one would take that in the literal sense. The fact is game content is withheld from the final product and sold as DLC because they make more profit in the end from it. Hell, publishers/developers have been caught red handed locking content on the the disc and only way to access it is by buying a digital key. I miss the days when games were released as a complete functional product unlike these last two generations. Publishers are following Activisions path and you are apparently cool with that.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Kid- " The fact is game content is withheld from"

How can they withhold content they factually own? You mean they choice to do with their content what they are legally allowed to do?

Like I stated in my original post.

"How can you hold "content for ransom" of content that isn't legally yours in the first place?"

" I miss the days when games were released as a complete"

http://www.amazon.com/Doom-...

I don't know what "days" your talking about bud. If you feel your not getting a complete game because of post launch content, guess you've never technically had a time where you ever got that.

The same argument could be made for any post launch content released in gaming since the start of gaming.

Was Street Fighter 2 by your logic not "complete" because super, alpha and hyper exist? Your basing how you feel about a game, based on content released post launch.

They've been "cool" with that since the dawn of gaming, your merely either too young as the name "Kid" suggest or didn't know this has been a thing in gaming.....since gaming.

Again...do you even have a real legal claim over content you don't own? Over an IP you don't own? Over a team you don't own? I didn't know they were legally bound to give you everything they worked on, silly me, I thought you where buying the marketed, promised product and not everything the team put their hands on.

[ICANPLAYGAMES2]

and @cheamup - I also sort of agree, but at least for the most part there is something that I can do. If I look at what they have on offer, and don't personally agree that the value is worth the money they are asking for in exchange, I don't get it, and if I consider it fair I do. Prices come down quick enough, maybe the value changes enough that I change my mind (also GotY versions). All I need to do is wait, also don't pre-order (let 'em sweat it out). As a consumer, I'm not going to defend any of them, I'm out to pay as little as I possibly can.

[jb227]

It's all relative really...when a game is thin on actual content & you don't feel like you got your money's worth compared to other titles in the genre & series, and then you see a season pass w/ 3 or more chunks of game that releases alongside the retail or shortly thereafter, then yes people have the right to be upset. I don't typically have to deal w/ this as an sp gamer, but as a for instance, TLOU released Left Behind nearly a full year after the game as a standalone piece of content that only added to the story & wouldn't have fit the framework otherwise, & I was absolutely fulfilled w/ my purchase....if the game had released & the Ellie section from the base game was carved out for dlc, then that game may not have gotten the classic status it received because it was missing narrative content. For my experiences, I've never been burned by dlc, but that doesn't mean that couldn't potentially start becoming the norm, in which case people are justified in being leery of the practice as a whole.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@JB-my biggest issue is that all of that is not only unknown regarding where the content come from either from final game or made after, that either or....it doesn't even matter. You'll not only never know, even if you did, what legal claim do you have over the content?

Is the content's quality based on knowing its not part of the final game vs actually what it is? It seems that to many, they are not buying it based on fun, but buying it based on the idea that it wasn't part of the final game.

Could The Last Of Us not have ripped that content from its "real" ending? The reality is....even if they did, its their game to do so with.

This whole concept of "removed from" makes no damn sense, its neither of our IPs. Most DLC is not even made that way, DLC is not a after thought to many, many developers, publisher etc, its happening from the very start and they are planning for it to be something else. So the likeliness of it being part of the final game is really, really small.

Even stating something like "when a game is thin on actual content" ? Give an example from before and after for a team that did a sequel to a game with factual lessor content and the rest was DLC when it didn't have a history of being that short.

Many have used this claim, but form bad arguments on it as they don't give real world examples, just vague baseless comments. Not saying your wrong, merely saying use more and be exact to prove your point, otherwise it just sounds like a assumption of what is happening.

Smash Bros 4, bigger then Brawl in terms of content, has DLC.

Mario Kart 8, bigger in content then last, has DLC.

Skyrim bigger then Oblivion....has DLC

Oblivion bigger then Morrowind.......has DLC

GTAV bigger then GTAIV, longer too, has DLC

Batman Arkham Knight, 5 times bigger then last game, longer then last game...has DLC

Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Street Fighter 4, MGSV, Gran Turismo series the list goes on. I'm sorry but MOST games come with MORE content then the previous entries and most times if they don't, its likely due to an engine change, ie GTAIV. If we are going to say a game was shorter or factually had less of something that was later added as DLC of something that came with the base game last entry, that might be a good start with such an argument. It doesn't help that many can't even form a good list of games that factually do this claim that many seem to think is rampant, yet don't even have titles to list who we might call offenders of this claim.

[cheameup]

@ ICANPLAYGAMES2

totally agree. consumers have the ultimate weapon. they can choose not to buy the product.

I have never bought a season pass in my life but I will buy the battefront one cause I know I will want to buy whatever DLC there is anyway as a big star wars fan

is it a little expensive, yeah probably . is it a deal breaker to me? No . Somehting in life you are preapred to pay a little more for sometimes

[ZeekQuattro]

I bought 3 season passes in my lifetime. Hyrule Warriors, Mario Kart 8 and Shadow of Mordor which I got on a discount. All were a great value. Games that charge you almost the price of the game again with their season passes are not however. Its just greed.

[Liqu1d]

The problem I have is season passes that have absolutely no information as to what is included. For example, the Fallout 4 season pass has no information regarding the amount or type of content included.

If companies are going to do season passes then at the very least they should provide a detailed description of what we're buying.

[AgentSmithPS4]

I'd like to see devs, gamers, etc work together in a 'forum' to come up with a fair DLC plan with minimum standards, play length, balancing, etc. To make it easier to hold scum accountable.

[inmusicutrust]

I've bought a couple season passes that didn't end up being worth the cost, mainly Max Payne. I assumed the dlc would be similar to other R* games, which are some of the best (ballad of gay tony and undead nightmare are legendary to me) and bought the season pass without question. Ended up being multiplayer dlc only which I played one time. I support season passes but only with certain games and when they outline their dlc plan and I trust the Dev to put out quality content.