You are entitled to your opinion.
Thanks. As are you, of course.
I said nothing about their business plans, I commented only on their ethics. Saying they will not rip off the customer is not reporting their business plans.
That did sound differently:
Originally Posted by guspasho
When you are faced with the prospect of receiving content piecemeal instead of in expansion packs, and when every extra Civ will cost $5, every additional map $4, every scenario $10, every tech $2, etc, it isn't chump change. This is what irritates me most about the apologists' defense; $5 isn't much, but how much will they charge for what would have cost 30-40 in an expansion pack? It's highway robbery.
Yet that is not the prospect. Not for civilization, at least. Were it to turn out that way, I can guarantee you I'd be up in arms right alongside you.
I understand that the term 'prospect' can be interpreted in any way, yet at least it does not include anything like 'ethics' in Joe Average's understanding.
I never said they were evil or greedy. It is simple fact that any product they sell must make money, and must make enough to warrant the shelf space. With their higher costs, trying to sell games as cheaply as digital distribution allows flatout does not work.
This was of course an exaggeration and may have been misunderstandable.
Fact is that to the best of my knowledge Amazon for instance sold the game cheaper than Steam. Amazon is not that small a company and although delivering the physical copy, makes it's business online, thus sitting somewhere in the middle between Steam and brick and mortar.
Yet, is looks like neither of the ones or the others had so many complaints about Amazon's way.
To me it looks like Steam (in cooperation with the distributor) is looking for the highest price they expect to be paid by the customer and then going to sell it for this price.
This is not "bad" or "unethical", but it contradicts the statement they would have been "forced" to ask for at least the price they asked for.
"Not in the works"? I never said that. I said "not in development", which is very different; Development to me means you are past the planning stage and actively working on the content. Of course it was 'in the works'.
Where you left out what was the main part of my remark:
* 'developing' (understood as creating, testing, modifying until the desired quality is met) the DLC within a month
* while at the same time being expected to be more than busy with patching.
I understand that the graphics are quite independent of patching, but the balancing should involve quite some people who are busy with the patching, too.
You by yourself claimed that DLC is an additional way to make money.
*I* wonder why they should not follow this way further down when obviously they can create such content in rather quick time.
*You* may say that from your talks with the developers you don't believe that they (the developers) have the intention to spill out many DLC-packages.
*I* would say, it far behind their decision. If 2K needs more money, the order will just be passed down the lines and then they will have to deliver.
Up to the point where the customer is fed up and maybe even a bit further. After all, they are listed.
And finally, I think we can find some reason for the way you are arguing:
I have said numerous times that I dislike DLC, as a consumer. My point is that for a developer, it is incredibly beneficial, and that it can indeed benefit the consumer as well. And frankly, I've come to look at games more and more from the point of view of the developer, as I intend to pursue a career in game design.
To be quite open: I as a consumer don't have the slightest reason to care about the developer.
It is the responsibility of the developer to create pricing models which make him stay in business. It is not my responsibility as customer to accept any of these.
In fact, I as a customer are very well advised to be very critical and to constantly question the justification of said pricing models.
Otherwise I will get ripped off. As is going to happen right now and here, and the combination of one teaser and one thing (which following your own words was a "pre-order goody" and therefore already included in the calculation) which already was depreciated is just to have some kind of justification for later prices: "Don't forget, you've got the first DLC FOR FREE!".
Yes, but the second already came with a price and according to your own words is not worth that price.
Did Firaxis have any other game out at the time that utilized DLC? No, no it did not. DLC offsets the cost of games in development, or offsets the costs associated with patches, expansions, etc.
I completely understand the economical importance of DLC.
I completely understand that DLC is a convenient way to generate more income, which may be used to fund the work going on with patches and expansions.
Yet, it is additional income, adding on the planned sales of said expansions.
It is not that expansions would be plainly impossible without having DLC in the meantime.
And I am pretty sure that the cost-value ratio for DLC is extraordinarily high in comparison to the "normal" game or the "normal" expansion.
And *that* is the reason why we are confronted with DLC. Less effort (in comparison) combined with higher revenue.
You are free to misinterpret what I have said all you wish. That does not, however, mean you are correct in the aforementioned misinterpretations.
Once again, here I would claim to be entitled to have my own opinion about this.
