-
It'd be fine if they didn’t ship needing a day patch, with broken features, loot boxes and micro transactions or being lazy copy pastes of existing franchises etc.
Soul-
thats the point though right - trying to ship an (quality[?]) AAA title for 40-50 sometimes necessitates it being a loss leader for micro transactions/DLCs/content packs? No data to back this up, just a hunch. Obviously not true for Fifa-esque shovel ware.
-
Well yeah, that's my point. Publishers are moving to these sorts of schemes in order to recoup the increased development costs of modern games, presumably as they're aware of how much resistance there is to upping the price tag..
I'd rather pay up front for the game and not have to worry about which DLC bundles are worth picking up and which aren't. Or whether I'm going to get to a point in a game where I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't bought some additional item. Or having to grind to achieve something they want to you take cough up some extra money for once they've got you hooked.
Day one patches are more to do with the move to digital and not having to worry about 'going gold' anymore. Day one DLC is a different matter altogether though.
If you're talking about sports franchises then that's always been the case and I think a more transparent model would be to release a yearly DLC pack with an actual new game coming out every few years with a proper update to the game itself.
kkg337
mmccarthy
Am I alone here in thinking that £70 for a AAA game these days isn't ridiculous?
Considering the increase in size, mechanics and fidelity you see in games now vs paying £40 for a PS1 game (or similar for a SNES game) a few decades back.
Personally I'd be happier with devs making the game how they want and selling it for that sort of price instead of the various nefarious money-milking schemes put forward by publishers to get more money out of a £40 game.