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

  • Funkapillar

    It does seem, with all this, that the video game industry (and the entertainment industry at large) does lose sight of the fact that it is a luxury. It is competing for our disposable income with many other choices. I d like the quality of these top tier products to be like the quality of a well made mountain bike, a high end graphite fishing rod, or top of the line drum kit; but perhaps I m barking like a mad dog up the wrong skill tree. Sure I'll pay more, but do they have to resort to this marketing obtuesity (real word? No.) to get the income? Just put it on the tag.

    Posted: March 4, 2012 1:58 PM
    Funkapillar
  • VeritasRex

    Look I would just like to point out that it's not "Day 1 DLC" that has a lot of us upset...It's "ON DISC DLC". I was actually discussing this with a friend, and while we both agreed that "DAY 1 DLC" is not going to make the consumer your friend, Adam is, entirely correct: If you do want that product then you WILL have to pay for it. I have no problem with that. It's called business. However, when I pay 60 dollars for a disc, and then have to pay an extra 10 to access something on that disc; That is called Robbery. It's my disc, I paid for it, I paid for everything on there, you don't get to literally nickel and dime me to get to content I payed for. You want to take it off the disc? You want to make it "DAY 1 DLC"? We got zero issues.
    Someone on the forums used a car analogy and it goes like this:
    You just paid 20,000 dollars for your new car. Want to buy a stereo? It's extra.

    VS

    You just paid 20,000 dollars for your new car. Want to cut the stereo that is clearly in your dashboard on? It's extra.

    One of these things is completely out of the question to ask someone, the other is just poor business.

    Posted: March 4, 2012 11:31 AM
    VeritasRex
  • ajax32

    I'm so glad I pre-ordered the Collector's Edition of ME3!

    Posted: March 3, 2012 10:04 PM
    ajax32
  • travelmaps

    I agree completely with Adam on this... Every game shouldn't be 60 bucks and GOD knows every game shouldn't have multiplayer... that being said.. some shouldn't REALLY have single player. I wouldn't have minded paying 100 bucks for skyrim if other games could actually admit theyre not worth 60 bucks or at the very least cut the excess crap(like multiplayer in crysis) and focus on the main point of the game to bring it up to a $60 experience.

    Oh and I've bought every single mass effect and all but 1 dlc for me2... and first day dlc TICKS ME OFF! first i get an email saying that my preload may malfunction(thanks ORIGIN... thing sucks so bad it makes me feel like i went in to a back alley to a guy with a trench coat and thought i was buying steam and walked out with origin and a pretty bad strain of herpes) then i find out that preordering and paying extra wasnt enough cause im so lucky that when i try to play the game when it decides to let me at the arbitrary date of march 6th i have to pay more to get the full game!

    and by the way... if you can put out dlc the day the game comes out because "it just so happens to be ready then"... explain to me why i've preloaded your game but cant play it yet?! isnt it ready?! you heartless penny pinching scum suckers! jfc im done paying for games....

    Posted: March 3, 2012 5:57 PM
    travelmaps
  • geomancer21

    To me $60 represents top tier pricing. (the "$100" in your example) the price i am willing to pay for a high class game, for the best of the best. Length does play a major part, but its overall quality that matters. I may indeed pay $60 for ME3 because i believe it gives that value. but i would not pay more then that for ANY game. the average Value i see is roughly $30-$40. most of the good games i get i get in that range. any others i get when they are $20 and under.

    and you can't even argue that point because i have seen SEVERAL reviews that point to how much the game was that effected the review. Saying how a game would have gotten a better review had it been an Xbox Arcade title instead of a retail one, or vice versa. Or how a game was bad because it was priced full, or how a game was given some slack for being a discounted title. so you already judge its value and quality in the same breath as price.

    Also, getting collectors editions isn't always about wanting to show off. Some people are just completists. I myself when i buy a movie, will get the special edition if its available. Not to say "hey look what i got" but because i want all the extras.

    Posted: March 3, 2012 5:25 PM
    geomancer21
  • silverten

    "I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!"

    Posted: March 3, 2012 4:43 PM
    silverten
  • warsmith87

    ok this is not new lots of games do this and you never hear this much upset about this

    Posted: March 3, 2012 9:13 AM
  • overkill13

    I already choose how much I pay for a video game. Buy used or wait until the new copy price comes down to a level which I feel accurately represents the game. I'll pay opening day price for ME3 because that franchise has delivered an excellent experience for me (I'm primarily a single player gamer). When a series has been putting out what I consider lackluster games, NFS, I wait for the price to come down to a level which accurately reflects what I believe is the game's value. In this way I pay what the game deserves and I, in a minute way, project my opinion on the industry.

    Posted: March 3, 2012 7:40 AM
    overkill13
  • tybinn007

    it's only 80$

    Posted: March 2, 2012 9:31 PM
    tybinn007
  • poopdog_ofdefeat

    I just find it odd that all of the major game distributors and publishers price games at $60. It has all the signs of a cartel. However, I'm not suggesting that there's some conspiracy. I think that at this current moment in the video game market, we haven't evolved enough as an industry and need to support more publishers to create the market paradigm of perfect competition. This means we need to remove those barriers to entry and make it easier for people to create games.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 7:50 PM
  • U.B.C.S

    Mr. Clean + Wolverine's facial hair = Adam

    Posted: March 2, 2012 7:06 PM
    U.B.C.S
  • U.B.C.S

    Mr. Clean + Wolverine's facial hair = Adam

    Posted: March 2, 2012 7:05 PM
    U.B.C.S
  • nuttyprof

    Um Adam, the CE is 80 dollars not 130, Bioware is actually releasing a reasonably priced CE.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 5:18 PM
    nuttyprof
  • ki11dagrunts

    One factor I think that makes this topic so enraging is that people feel that this content is integral to the main story. If it was an "add on" like many of the other dlc's than I believe that most people would have been less angry at Bioware. Also, the timing hurts because it is a first day DLC. I think people have been warming up to the idea of DLC, even if there is a dislike for the price. Do you remember when games used to be $50USD back a few years ago, the increase to $60 dollars wasn't received well but it wasn't perceived entirely as the producers gouging the consumers of their money, it was just seen as a change due to inflation and increased production costs. Now, this additional $10 dollars puts the perceived price up to $70 in a short time after our last price increase. I think that is what gamers are up in arms about.

    Anyways, it is funny looking at this from a PC gamer's perspective because I "have to" pay $15 a month to play some of the big name games that I buy for roughly $45 dollars + $15 for the first month. For anyone that doesn't already know, that's paying $0.50 each day for the "right" to play the game, owning nothing but the time I spent playing it.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 5:14 PM
    ki11dagrunts
  • McTaylor24

    I completely understand your idea, but I'm afraid that it would become a reality. I can see "mainstream" games such as Call of Duty (just as an example) taking advantage of its huge fan-base, and selling a CoD game every year for about $100; and the thing is, people would still buy it by the millions, and some (and I emphasize "some") probably won't even think twice about it. They would claim it has an unlimited potential in the amount of time you can put in the multi-player, or something along the lines of it. If you think about it, something along the lines of this has already been integrated with Call of Duty Elite, how much longer until other developers would be offering/asking you to pay for such proposals? I can easily see EA doing it.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 2:32 PM
    McTaylor24
  • vampireslayer83

    This is going to be a hated comment on here and I really don't care, but anyone that actually agrees with day one DLC obviously doesn't buy their own games. Sixty dollars is expensive, especially in the economy that we're in right now. Because games are $60, I've become rather picky as to what games I buy. In fact if I charted out what games I am actually buying this year, I think I could count them on both hands, which, as a gamer, is sad. To me that says the industry is either getting stale, I'm just being picky, or both.

    Day one DLC is gigantic spit in the face of the consumer. Its saying that well we have this piece on content ready for the game, but instead of waiting a few months or just putting on the game like they should, they take the route so many others do. I feel the same way about patching a game though. To me a game that requires patching isn't a complete game, its something that the publisher tried to rush because they wanted to make money. I know its a business and they're in it to make money, but when you have to patch a game constantly that just tells me that your testers didn't do their job very well. To me both ideas are bad for business. What's worse is that its hurting the consumer and nobody seems to care.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 7:26 AM
    vampireslayer83
  • vampireslayer83

    This is going to be a hated comment on here and I really don't care, but anyone that actually agrees with day one DLC obviously doesn't buy their own games. Sixty dollars is expensive, especially in the economy that we're in right now. Because games are $60, I've become rather picky as to what games I buy. In fact if I charted out what games I am actually buying this year, I think I could count them on both hands, which, as a gamer, is sad. To me that says the industry is either getting stale, I'm just being picky, or both.

    Day one DLC is gigantic spit in the face of the consumer. Its saying that well we have this piece on content ready for the game, but instead of waiting a few months or just putting on the game like they should, they take the route so many others do. I feel the same way about patching a game though. To me a game that requires patching isn't a complete game, its something that the publisher tried to rush because they wanted to make money. I know its a business and they're in it to make money, but when you have to patch a game constantly that just tells me that your testers didn't do their job very well. To me both ideas are bad for business. What's worse is that its hurting the consumer and nobody seems to care.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 7:25 AM
    vampireslayer83
  • Allermana

    I thoroughly agree that games pricing is really running in to a territory in its inflexible nature, that it's not always reflective of the value of the goods, and I think that's very bad.

    As you point out, Adam, this does lead when you open this discussion to a case that a highly valued for instance multiplayer game's publisher gets to ask for a little more. I don't find that bad, or offensive, providing again that what's being offered is made with that understanding. So, maybe you do see a falling back of the more aggressive dlc to become included content.
    I think there's a big problem where everyone prices their game at launch for the $60, and the would-be buyer can be left unsure of whether there will be $60 worth of game waiting for them once they get to playing.

    Nintendo, actually, last year I think, put forward the idea of pricing content according to its individual value. I don't know why the idea hasn't seemed to gain traction or focus, because I think that the evolution of payment models, and the acceptance that increases for digital content, in which arena the creator is free to (regularly directly) charge the figure of their choice, weighing up factors such as need to sell and other considerations - there seems like there may be a convergence, a situation that allows an arriving new console generation to reconsider the delivery of games, look again at matters greater than just bumping the possible poly count, and smoothing out the frame rate.

    I'd very much like the pricing model of games to be discussed perhaps, on an upcoming Feedback, or inquired about directly to platform holders, because I think there's a possibility that all sides could benefit, publishers, developers and players, from a greater certainty in the value of games, rather than playing guessing games in the store after seeing the price on the sticker. The reluctance to sometimes offer demos, further contributes to obscure a game's value to anyone, and it's no wonder that some people rely initially on the score in a review, often over its text context, if they're keen to find out quickly, what a game they're aware of, is actually worth.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 7:02 AM
    Allermana
  • Xtraflossy

    How about a little less ME3 ads before EVERY video now?
    We get it..
    "In the not so distant future..." ... I GET IT ALREADY lol

    Posted: March 2, 2012 5:47 AM
    Xtraflossy
  • Zzanzabar

    What this one incident has finally done for me is to teach me patience. I used to line up for the 'midnight' release of a favorite game, pay first for the DLC when available, and occasionally buy a CE edition for a game (the last I bought was Halo3's), but no more. The same game will be there in 2-5 months, as well almost ALL of the DLC that will be released, at a SUBSTANTIALLY lower price. Just look at SKYRIM it is now being sold new at $29, half of its retail (lower if you buy it used with a discount). Is it the same game as a couple of months ago? Yep. Will I have the exact same experience that I would have had if I'd bought it day one? Yep. Am I going to wait this one out even though I have multiple saves of ME? You know what? I think I am just because of your idiotic 'day one DLC'.

    Yes companies are in it for the profit, but you don't have to rub my nose in your bottom line as a consumer, and no matter how you try to spin doctor it, 'day one' DLC is telling me that I am SO hooked on your game that YOU feel you don't even have to buy me dinner before you screw me. The truth is that your profits are totally generated by consumers of a LUXURY item, and while there maybe a lot of buy crazy fanboys out there, you can go to the well once too often and alienate enough of us that we start to turn to other producers for our entertainment.

    Posted: March 2, 2012 5:05 AM
    Zzanzabar
AdChoices