Well, see for yourself
I sincerely hope that this serves as a wake up call for console players. Who in their moronic millions slavishly buy COD after COD, and pay exorbitant amounts for half baked DLC. There are some big publishers, it seems, who seem intent on treating triple A title games a bit like candy crush. If it isnt play to win, then they lock off a whole load of content that should have been in there from the start. As much as this is a criticism of their marketing strategy, it is also a criticism of those gamers who repeatedly buy those types of games.
I would like to say that the market should sort it out, but it seems as though Activision have paid for the market. Seen most glaringly in their "victory" in game of the year last year. Thats the gaming equivalent of WaterWorld being voted the best film of the 90s, or Die another Day being voted the best Bond film, or Ringo Star being voted the best member of the Beatles.
So, for the sake of human decency, if you own a console, please dont buy Destiny. We should shun all companies that have huge amounts of paid for DLC from day one and who also have a clear marketing strategy to milk as much as they can from their fan base without any real reason.
I should make a brief mention of examples where this marketing strategy can work. One example is Elite Dangerous (IMO). Their marketing model is to release a game once a year, which you pay £40 for, and then you get all updates throughout the year in staged patches. Based upon last year, then that equals a significant amount of content. The game is also massive. Another example could be WOW, which has been good enough to justify its subscription style service. And another could be the micro transaction system in TF2. But the point is that these examples are an exception to the rule, they are not the rule in and of themselves.
I sincerely hope that this serves as a wake up call for console players. Who in their moronic millions slavishly buy COD after COD, and pay exorbitant amounts for half baked DLC. There are some big publishers, it seems, who seem intent on treating triple A title games a bit like candy crush. If it isnt play to win, then they lock off a whole load of content that should have been in there from the start. As much as this is a criticism of their marketing strategy, it is also a criticism of those gamers who repeatedly buy those types of games.
I would like to say that the market should sort it out, but it seems as though Activision have paid for the market. Seen most glaringly in their "victory" in game of the year last year. Thats the gaming equivalent of WaterWorld being voted the best film of the 90s, or Die another Day being voted the best Bond film, or Ringo Star being voted the best member of the Beatles.
So, for the sake of human decency, if you own a console, please dont buy Destiny. We should shun all companies that have huge amounts of paid for DLC from day one and who also have a clear marketing strategy to milk as much as they can from their fan base without any real reason.
I should make a brief mention of examples where this marketing strategy can work. One example is Elite Dangerous (IMO). Their marketing model is to release a game once a year, which you pay £40 for, and then you get all updates throughout the year in staged patches. Based upon last year, then that equals a significant amount of content. The game is also massive. Another example could be WOW, which has been good enough to justify its subscription style service. And another could be the micro transaction system in TF2. But the point is that these examples are an exception to the rule, they are not the rule in and of themselves.