X

Sessler's Soapbox: Game Pricing and Mass Effect 3's DLC

Posted: February 28, 2012
Sessler's Soapbox: Game Pricing and Mass Effect 3's DLC
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/57506/sesslers-soapbox-game-pricing-and-mass-effect-3s-dlc/
http://images.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/293013_LGST/soapbox-3-1-12.jpg
Video_57506
Adam discusses the current price of video games and the recent debate over Mass Effect 3's day-one DLC.

Comments are Closed

  • Agentownshiprebelion

    I think this DLC thing could do with some revaluation. In general, I like the idea of DLC. I've bought quite a bit for the few games I enjoy that provide it. After checking the reviews of course. And gaming is a business no doubt but it does not serve when consumers "feel" like they are being ripped off. Even if they are aren't. As a business it's the developers job to make us feel like its worth it. That's where the revaluation comes in. Someone should develop a general standard for how much you get for $5 dlc in relation to a game that comes out for $60.

    Maybe things like multilayer should be left as dlc for some games. Just for people who will never play it. It would be nice to have the option to skip on paying for something you never plan to use. Offer a trial so they can see what they are missing.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 10:19 AM
    Agentownshiprebelion
  • macross2012

    I have to agree with Adam 100%

    Currently when I see a game thats $60.00 I expect a full blown game with 25+ hours of single player game and a massive multiplayer section..

    1. I never EVER play the mulitplayer on games. The only online per say games I play are games like WOW and SWTOR. Those alone hold my MP experience in the best possible way.

    When I see games currently on the xbox or ps3 for less than 60.00 I think WHATS WRONG WITH IT? Usually it means its a value title or a game they worked on forever and gave up on fixing. When I see a 40.00 tag or even 20.00 day 1 I know its a POS.

    Honestly I wish I could buy only single player versions of games because I NEVER do mulitplayer.

    Pay as you play should be the deal. I NEVER play COD for the MP experience. I love the story and hate when its only 6 hrs long. Makes the game worthless to me.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 10:16 AM
    macross2012
  • PinkCrayon32

    The problem with your theory is this: If I bought Skyrim for 100$ on PS3... Well I'll just leave it at that.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 10:15 AM
    PinkCrayon32
  • lowkevmic

    The idea of pricing a game based on whats offer isn't that bad of an idea. Games like (Bayonetta, Vanquish, Devil May Cry, Prototype, etc.) All were good games, but since they didn't offer multiplayer, or little to no DLC to expand on the gameplay, then there is no reason why I'm paying 60 bucks for it. But on the other hand, even if a game do have multiplayer like Gears of War or COD. Or a lot of hours and DLC like Red Dead Redemption or Borderlands and Skyrim. Then they should at least offer a bare bones version with just the campaign on up to a deluxe edition with all DLC and Multiplayer already included. While in between maybe the PSN or XBLA can still sell the DLC and even multiplyer seperately, that way always providing options for the consumer. Because Im pretty sure, like me, we all have a game in our collection that we never even purchased one DLC or even played the multiplyer. So just like developers have to charge based on all of the content they put into a game, that fair because that's business. But there still should be room to offer the consumer the option to actually buy all of that content.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 10:12 AM
    lowkevmic
  • Wakeman90125

    If you don't want to spend the money.. don't..
    its a choice.. this is America.. The money makes the rules..
    Its always has, it always will..

    Posted: March 1, 2012 10:00 AM
    Wakeman90125
  • vaajtswv

    I gave up on buying games on day one. I have a back log of games to work on and will pick up games like ME3 when the with they have a super ultimate edition that has all the DLC already on it for $20 to $40. Of if there is no such edition, check for them in the bargain bin. Best part is my wallet is almost a foot thick now.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:56 AM
    vaajtswv
  • Blade1844

    Heh.... As much as I would dislike a price hike per content as you suggested, it is a fair and valid argument for a change in pricing strategy by gaming companies. Personally, I'll support any game company's pricing decision if it is justified by the content. I'd pay $40-100 for a triple A title every couple of years as opposed to $60 over the entire breadth of games and end up with a new game every year as good as "Mind Jack."

    I always buy NEW copies of a game when I feel they have the content to support the price point, BUT I most definitely will buy used games for a discounted price for the same reason.

    Great points Adam, and I'm sure you might already have an idea about the prices of the next gen games "cough, 70, cough" as you alluded to...

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:55 AM
    Blade1844
  • RaginRednecK

    The Problem is in the end that there is no garuntee any sort of customer satisfaction, a graduated price scale would drive piracy even more than currently it is driven by the uncertainty of buying a game for $60 and not knowing if the experience of that game will be worth it to the individual PLAYER at that price range.
    Dlc's are a good way for the company to keep making money off of a product that has already been released but some of the practices that I've seen the industry practicing are counter to what would help their price model.
    For instance , preorder prizes within your game content alienate some gamers who just can't get it in time or can't afford it within the preorder time given, in order to see the preorder bonus's usually your ONLY choice would be to pirate a preorder copy of the game. I don't have a problem with paying $60 for a game personally because I do a lot of research before I shell out money out of my already very tight budget, but some of the preorder strategies are pernicious at best and down right extortion at worst, and there is no garuntee to the average gamer that it will be worth the wait and the $60+ dollars for a console or pc game in the end.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:55 AM
  • TheBRADLeyB

    Is Adam getting ready to play a role in an old west movie?

    I had the CE ordered and since I've moved and will not be updating my 'billing address' (I still own the house my billing address is listed as) was forced to cancel my order with GameStop.com

    So now I'm unhappy that I thought I was getting all the extra DLC Stuff and now I get nothing. I hope my Dragon Age Armour is put into ME3. There hasn't been word of it from what I've seen.

    I'd pay an extra 20 bucks just for the DLC of the Collector's Edition. (grant it one of the DLC's is going to cost me 10 bucks now no matter what)

    So yeah. I don't know man. I do want to say, 'Oh Yay! Finally a Collector's/Limited Edition that is actually limited!' but then I want to say, 'this sucks!'...

    On the plus side I did re-preorder ME3 from a GameStop store and will be buying a Kinect because of the Buy ME3 get 50 bucks off a Kinect Sensor promotion. So Microsoft has more of my money come Tuesday.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:52 AM
  • SideByEach

    Can I get a game for $30-40 if I don't want to ever use the multi-player? With games like CoD, BF and a few others that focus primarily on multi-player I'd probably pass on.
    One of the biggest disappointments in gaming for me last year was Uncharted 3's very short campaign. If there were three version of the game available (single player, multiplayer and both) I'd feel like I was getting my money's worth. One of the most common questions I see in reviews is, "How long is the campaign?" That should tell developers and publishers something. Multiplayer is all the rage for developers now but not everyone wants play multiplayer games. See the success of Skyrim, Torchlight, Deus Ex and others.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:49 AM
    SideByEach
  • Seluhir

    Okay so prior to this whole DLC generation, we had games that came out, were complete stories - many of which were LONGER complete stories - with good gameplay, etc. and cost the same sort of pricerange. Then when they had more to tell us, they would compile all of these little extra stories they wanted into an expansion or a sequel and give them to us that way.

    All of a sudden publishers realize 'we don't have to do it that way. We can now get money constantly from these people and not have to even design as much content as before!' and now is born the DLC era. An era where games still cost the same amount, but now are incomplete at release because someone in the development team decided 'okay this aspecto f the story we want to tell can be left out and made after for 10 bucks'. Before DLC that would've never happened, either the story was important enough to tell in the core game, or it was left out. I think something like this specific dlc(avoiding spoilers) probably would've been deemedi mportant enough to include.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:46 AM
    Seluhir
  • Fryman1991

    Sess you are onto to something here. There are two problems with your idea though. Who is going to judge how much "game" is actually included in a purchase. If it is the company themselves they would probably inflate the numbers to make more money, or inflate the games so they last longer but are of poorer quality. The other problem is when you judge multiplayer based game with this idea. Pointing at games like COD and Battlefield, based on its single player you could sell it for $20 - $40, but once you throw in the multiplayer how would you judge how much "game" is actually in one of these games. A player can literally play these games for months of game time, and if a system like this was implemented companies would want to jack up these prices like crazy.

    Like you said it is a business, so if you give companies a choice between making more or less money they will almost always choose to make more. We may get longer games worth our money in game time, but will it be quality game time? Thats the real question. I feel like your model would work well for none multiplayer based games (Skyrim, Assasins Creed, Mass Effect) if they just released the multiplayer in DLC for whoever wants to pay for it.

    Like always, I love listening to your Soap Boxes.

    P.S.
    I know your the one who is going to review Mass Effect 3, your got your early copy? Haha
    Can't wait for mine to arrive on 3/6/12.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:40 AM
  • AmericanKing01

    I always prefer qualiaity over quantaty. If some games were cheaper people would flock to it and the company would make a killing.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:39 AM
    AmericanKing01
  • fpsjoe

    I think what upsets me the most is when a game is released with immediate DLC. Like what Adam said, I am the kind of person that thinks that immediate DLC should already to included in the game when it's released because it makes me feel that the game is incomplete and the game company just wants more of my money. Now on the flip side, I have no problem with them releasing DLC 5 or 6 months down the road. By that time I will have moved onto another game and the release of some DLC with new missions, extra story, new weapons etc. will be good because it will give me an incentive to go back and play the game again with a new experience.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:33 AM
    fpsjoe
  • ShinobiSylar

    The Collector's Edition is $80, not $130.

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:24 AM
    ShinobiSylar
  • ShinobiSylar

    The Collector's Edition was $80

    Posted: March 1, 2012 9:19 AM
    ShinobiSylar
AdChoices