Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

Neuro5i5

Neuro5i5

CAGiversary!
Feedback
151 (100%)
This thread will attempt to provide a place to discuss past/present/future PC gaming deals. While mainly focusing on Steam games, any standout sales may also be presented. I will not be updating every Daily/Weekly/etc. sale. The tools to help individuals become a smarter shopper will be provided below.

See this POST for links to store sale pages, threads of interest and other tools to help you become a more informed PC game shopper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 11 Downvote
Mooby said:
I understand DLC is going to be a thing now and forever but... this game [Derpstiny 2] just came out on consoles in September and hasn't even released on PC yet... and already in three months from release (less for PC release) there's an expansion? Content-wise, sure it's great. Value-wise it seems horrible if it's going to be a paid expansion every three or four months. At least with Bethesda there's a fairly discreet amount of DLC (if you exclude the crappy building stuff).
Click to expand...
Serious question, what would be an acceptable time for the game to be out before they release an expansion?

 
Mooby said:
I understand DLC is going to be a thing now and forever but... this game [Derpstiny 2] just came out on consoles in September and hasn't even released on PC yet... and already in three months from release (less for PC release) there's an expansion? Content-wise, sure it's great. Value-wise it seems horrible if it's going to be a paid expansion every three or four months. At least with Bethesda there's a fairly discreet amount of DLC (if you exclude the crappy building stuff).
Click to expand...
It's an expensive game, that's to be sure. You basically have to think of it as buying a premium game for $100+.

The value proposition all depends on how much time you spend playing D2. A lot of people spent 1000+ hours playing D1.

Mooby said:
I can tell you from first hand knowledge that most 8-bit original NES games were around $35-40 in the 1990's. Yes, there's inflation. Such that $50-60 isn't effectively a cost increase. But wanting $100 or more for games with DLC that come out within a couple of months is, in fact, an increase.

Obviously today the prices on MOST games tend to drop rapidly after launch but that's rarely the case with Activision/Blizzard titles.

Edited to add: I don't know how Destiny works but the argument that you don't 'have' to buy the expansion while technically true, is like arguing you can play D3 without Reaper of Souls. If you're at all interested in the online/grouping aspect (which Destiny apparently focuses on heavily) then chances are you're going to want access to the content most players are currently doing.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of $30-40 brand new PS4 games today as well. That's not the spirit of the discussion at all.

I don't understand how we could be comparing these massive games of today like Destiny 2 with anything from the past. You have to think of it as a lite version of the MMO pricing model. It's not as expensive as a monthly subscription. Nor as much as what people are paying for things like League of Legends.

It's the Call of Duty pricing model. Many people happily pay it without a second thought. I understand that you're interested in purchasing the game but struggling with justifying the cost. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have about the game. If $100 makes a big difference in your life then you probably shouldn't buy it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
archibishopofBAH said:
Have had it for ages (I got it back when you could get games super cheap from Russians) and finally decided to play a bit of Road Redemption this morning. It was a helluva lot of fun. Its literally a new school Road Rash and plays like it. Its not AAA quality by any stretch but it gets the flavor of its influence down pat. It ran really well and I had a lot of fun with it.
Click to expand...
I'm actually kind of surprised I never got this... I've certainly looked at it a number of times and knew allot of friendly Russians.

archibishopofBAH said:
This game is in the Monthly tomorrow. No one will play it cause its not a Steam key (its the Humble Original) but it looks ridiculous
Click to expand...
It looks kind of like the Trials series... Its certainly odd but at least its a style of game you don't see often...

 
INMATEofARKHAM said:
I'm actually kind of surprised I never got this... I've certainly looked at it a number of times and knew allot of friendly Russians.
Click to expand...
Besides the Russian traders, it's been as low as $8 on Steam before but the buzz was always "Don't bother, it has no online multiplayer wtf?"

They just finally got the online multiplayer going a few weeks ago -- and is/was recently disabled as they try to iron out some bugs but is supposed to be back up soon if it isn't already.

 
IAmTheCheapestFox said:
Serious question, what would be an acceptable time for the game to be out before they release an expansion?
Click to expand...
At least 6 months? Anything earlier than that shows they were working on an expansion when they should have been working on the original release. An expansion right after a game comes out basically says yeah I know, we could have made a better game but fuck that. Give us more money instead.

 
I assume that at least part of the reason why they want DLC out the door quickly is to capitalize on people buying the game in its initial launch.  Game comes out in January, in July they release DLC but you finished it in February or March or April and have long since moved on.  And the sort of people buying it 6-12 months later aren't going to buy full priced DLC -- they'll wait for the complete edition or the DLC to be 75% off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If people could get past the mental hurdle of paying $100-120 for a new game, then developers would just include free major content updates.  But people aren't okay with that because games need to cost $60 and anything more needs to be an expansion pack.  So they have to call updates "expansions" and convince people to buy into their particular vision of 'games as a service'. 

For my money, devs and publishers can label paid content whatever they want.  I don't care; I'll take transparency and upfront honesty any day over an unplanned future and ambiguity in regards to the pricing structure.  All that matters to me is the volume of game content once completed and the bottom line cost you have to pay to get all of it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Memories of CD Projekt Red being hailed as heroes for announcing that Witcher 3 would have no paid DLC -- then releasing paid DLC and saying "It's an expansion, not DLC, doesn't count!!!"  :lol:

 
KrAzY3 said:
At least 6 months? Anything earlier than that shows they were working on an expansion when they should have been working on the original release. An expansion right after a game comes out basically says yeah I know, we could have made a better game but fuck that. Give us more money instead.
Click to expand...
Eh. AAA developers especially basically have to be working on the expansion in concert with a base game. It entirely depends on the DLC though. If its something like a campaign addon or even map packs, its going to take a lot longer than six months for a lot of that stuff, especially if its got things like voice acting and unique music. Look at something like BF1, we're basically a year into its lifespan and not all the DLC (map packs) are out yet.

In the case of things like map packs, for some of these games the intricacies of the maps demand it. We're not talking about Unity Asset flippers here. That all has to be coordinated and speaking from experience, they're not going to schedule a voice actor or musicians for a session a year after the initial one unless its something that they didn't come up with until further in the development cycle. Its not cost effective for a AAA publisher especially considering the production value the biggest games receive. On top of that, a lot of development teams at big studios will immediately move on to the next project and have a specific team to work on post-launch things. If they put the same production value into the DLC, its going to be made right alongside the base game with all hands on deck.

The more pertinent question is, what is feasibly considered "fair" when making decisions on what to cut/include/exclude for DLC purposes. How long should a base game be? What is worth paying extra for? The timing is largely irrelevant since few studios release DLC quickly.

I don't think theres any rule that should apply to the timing of DLC release. If the content is quality, who gives a shit? I'd rather see quality content than stupid crap like horse armor or other useless things like character skins. If I don't want to pay MSRP, I wait for it to go onsale.

 
Syntax Error said:
Well, there was (there's always been hobbyist computer kits or parts) -- you just had to know more than "I can do a 15 piece LEGO set". In fact, the whole "You save SO much by building your own!" came from the days when you did save 50-60% on the cost because a lot fewer people were doing it so components were priced cheaper.
Click to expand...
Yea, everything is plug and play now. My first custom computer was around 1996. I picked all the parts. Tinkered a ton with it. Having to figure out IRQ order so moving the mouse wouldn't cut sound, cable order determining master/slave...

mcdull said:
Now the market is much much larger, there is no need to raise the video game price (actually they did raise $10 for each recent console generation) and still make more money than before, let alone the insane profit from selling DLC and subscription.
Click to expand...
No they didn't. It's been $60 MSRP for about as long as I can remember. There's no $10 increase per generation. And while the market is larger, so are the productions. Have you seen the credits in major games nowadays? It's like hundreds of names.

GBKeroberos said:
This is very inaccurate. My brother's old 486 IBM clone was built by his 14-year-old friend. I remember him upgrading to a Creative brand CD-ROM drive bought from Best Buy along with this in 1994. People who have been around longer than me can probably attest to their experiences even earlier than that.
Click to expand...
Yep. Knew people back then that were sponsored by major tech companies back then, with like $20k computers (SCSI was expensive) as fuck.

warreni said:
(and let's not even talk about "liquid cooling")
Click to expand...
Sorry, but liquid cooling was around in the 90s. It was just way too expensive for almost anyone.

Mooby said:
I understand DLC is going to be a thing now and forever but... this game [Derpstiny 2] just came out on consoles in September and hasn't even released on PC yet... and already in three months from release (less for PC release) there's an expansion? Content-wise, sure it's great. Value-wise it seems horrible if it's going to be a paid expansion every three or four months.
Click to expand...
Does FFXI count? It launched in the US with the first expansion. But Destiny 2 is really an MMO. It's not for everyone. It's not for me either, but I kinda see why they do it.

 
Syntax Error said:
I assume that at least part of the reason why they want DLC out the door quickly is to capitalize on people buying the game in its initial launch. Game comes out in January, in July they release DLC but you finished it in February or March or April and have long since moved on. And the sort of people buying it 6-12 months later aren't going to buy full priced DLC -- they'll wait for the complete edition or the DLC to be 75% off.
Click to expand...
Solution: Make DLCs standalone expansions.

 
Syntax Error said:
Memories of CD Projekt Red being hailed as heroes for announcing that Witcher 3 would have no paid DLC -- then releasing paid DLC and saying "It's an expansion, not DLC, doesn't count!!!" :lol:
Click to expand...
Lets not drag CD Projekt Red through the mud. They do a better job than almost anyone in regards to finished game value proposition, and by making their standard releases into nice collectors editions.

I could only dream that every other publisher did as good of a job as CD Projekt Red. They lead by example. But I also understand that many PC-only people don't care about physical packages at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
archibishopofBAH said:
The more pertinent question is, what is feasibly considered "fair" when making decisions on what to cut/include/exclude for DLC purposes. How long should a base game be? What is worth paying extra for? The timing is largely irrelevant since few studios release DLC quickly.
Click to expand...
I would argue that there's an issue with deliberately excluding anything for purposes of DLC. I mean at the same time we're talking about pricing and older games, but there was a time many games were designed (shocking, I know) to be the best possible game upon release. Look at the greatest N64 games for example. Ocarina of Time did get Master Quest, but it was a masterpiece as it was. It was the best game they could possibly make, at release. It wasn't, what can we hold back and charge people for later.

I know, I know. Not PC, but you get the point. The idea of holding back content for a game to try and charge more later is at best disingenuous. You're not really getting the finished game, you're getting part of the game and they'll charge you later for what they left out. I mentioned 6 months as a minimum not to applaud that either, but as the earliest I could see the argument being made that they couldn't fit that content in for various reasons. A more reasonable approach would be like Diablo 2 did, when their expansion released around one year later.

I think part of the issue is that an expansion is a chance to really improve the game experience as a whole. An almost immediate expansion release can't do that, it is just more of the original game. I get why they're doing a cash grab, but that's all it is. It's excluding content from the original game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KrAzY3 said:
I would argue that there's an issue with deliberately exclude anything for purposes of DLC. I mean at the same time we're talking about pricing and older games, but there was a time many games were designed (shocking, I know) to be the best possible game upon release. Look at the greatest N64 games for example. Ocarina of Time did get Master Quest, but it was a masterpiece as it was. It was the best game they could possibly make, at release. It wasn't, what can we hold back and charge people for later.
Click to expand...
Nintendo is one of the only companies that still does this.

But it's understandable that things have changed because the development cycles of games have become so bloated. There has to be incoming revenue streams in order for support teams to continue working on their games.

 
elessar123 said:
No they didn't. It's been $60 MSRP for about as long as I can remember. There's no $10 increase per generation. And while the market is larger, so are the productions. Have you seen the credits in major games nowadays? It's like hundreds of names.
Click to expand...
My bad, they didn't increase for current gen, but PS2 and Xbox games were $50 and PS3 and Xbox 360 were increased to $60. The same PC games were usually $10 cheaper because no license fee needed to pay the console maker.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
Lets not drag CD Projekt Red through the mud.
Click to expand...
If factually restating their announcements about DLC is "dragging them through the mud", that's more on them than it is anyone else.

They announced no paid DLC, took in all the free press and adulation and then went back on it with a semantic argument that "expansions" weren't DLC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're signed up for the Awesomenauts newsletter they emailed Steam codes for the Ghost Announcer for Halloween.  We should play that again soon, I remember enjoying it.  

 
KrAzY3 said:
I would argue that there's an issue with deliberately excluding anything for purposes of DLC. I mean at the same time we're talking about pricing and older games, but there was a time many games were designed (shocking, I know) to be the best possible game upon release. Look at the greatest N64 games for example. Ocarina of Time did get Master Quest, but it was a masterpiece as it was. It was the best game they could possibly make, at release. It wasn't, what can we hold back and charge people for later.

I know, I know. Not PC, but you get the point. The idea of holding back content for a game to try and charge more later is at best disingenuous. You're not really getting the finished game, you're getting part of the game and they'll charge you later for what they left out. I mentioned 6 months as a minimum not to applaud that either, but as the earliest I could see the argument being made that they couldn't fit that content in for various reasons. A more reasonable approach would be like Diablo 2 did, when their expansion released around one year later.

I think part of the issue is that an expansion is a chance to really improve the game experience as a whole. An almost immediate expansion release can't do that, it is just more of the original game. I get why they're doing a cash grab, but that's all it is. It's excluding content from the original game.
Click to expand...
Your argument is flawed. Here's two different examples:

Assassin's Creed Syndicate - The main DLC for this game was a separate campaign about Jack The Ripper that takes place well after the events of the base game. No one can say this was made after the main game, it was made at the same time. They refined it and held it back for a little while and then released it.

Batman Arkham Knight - Throwing out the technical BS that this game dealt with, the DLC was largely stuff taking place on the main game's map. New missions and stuff like that. On top of that, they had mini-campaigns with different characters. All of this was made at the same time. Some of this was DLC worthy, some of it wasn't.

Both of these games' DLCs were released in a similar time frame, and in the case of Batman one of those mini-campaigns (Harley Quinn) was a pre-order bonus available on launch day.

The quality of the content is what matters. Not the timing. If the content is good enough to be sold at a premium price, I have no problem with it unless Im getting fleeced. Almost all DLC is "cut from the original game" at least in respect to when it was created, but they're also creating content specifically for DLC. Stuff like Diablo are completely different animals, their expansions drastically change the course of their games. Blizzard also only makes 1 or 2 games a year at most. Companies like WB and Ubisoft churn out multiple huge titles across all platforms.

 
its funny that everyone complains about DLC, but when its a blizzard made game I never hear complaints.  I have never heard anyone complain that WC3 TFT was just DLC for WC3 or all those starcraft 2 "expansions".  Maybe its because they typically have enough content to be a worth what you are paying?

 
archibishopofBAH said:
Your argument is flawed....

Stuff like Diablo are completely different animals, their expansions drastically change the course of their games. Blizzard also only makes 1 or 2 games a year at most. Companies like WB and Ubisoft churn out multiple huge titles across all platforms.
Click to expand...
Well, we are talking about stuff I do pay for vs. stuff I don't pay for. So you can call my argument flawed, but I expect a higher level of quality and dedication to the product. You can be more tolerant, but I'm not.

 
I'm going to see Blade Runner 2049 this weekend and I can't fucking wait for Cyberpunk 2077. Gotta say, that's my most anticipated game of the future.

Syntax Error said:
If factually restating their announcements about DLC is "dragging them through the mud", that's more on them than it is anyone else.
Click to expand...
Your post is good. The situation was funny. I get it. I'm not arguing with you at all. Just making separate comments on the matter. They're just the poorest example one could use for criticism when the company is doing everything the right way. Every other developer/publisher should follow the example CD Projekt Red has set with their published games.

CD Projekt Red, Rockstar, and Nintendo (the core first party games) are the very top of the food chain when it comes to releasing top-notch finished products. Complete games, regardless of what add-ons they choose to release later. It's unfortunate that these companies don't get more recognition for leading by example.

AdmiralGialHackbar said:
its funny that everyone complains about DLC, but when its a blizzard made game I never hear complaints. I have never heard anyone complain that WC3 TFT was just DLC for WC3 or all those starcraft 2 "expansions". Maybe its because they typically have enough content to be a worth what you are paying?
Click to expand...
Blizzard is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Blizzard people are a mindless cult. Fifteen years ago they were the best in the business. They're far from it now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
It's an expensive game, that's to be sure. You basically have to think of it as buying a premium game for $100+.

The value proposition all depends on how much time you spend playing D2. A lot of people spent 1000+ hours playing D1.

There are plenty of $30-40 brand new PS4 games today as well. That's not the spirit of the discussion at all.

I don't understand how we could be comparing these massive games of today like Destiny 2 with anything from the past. You have to think of it as a lite version of the MMO pricing model. It's not as expensive as a monthly subscription. Nor as much as what people are paying for things like League of Legends.

It's the Call of Duty pricing model. Many people happily pay it without a second thought. I understand that you're interested in purchasing the game but struggling with justifying the cost. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have about the game. If $100 makes a big difference in your life then you probably shouldn't buy it.
Click to expand...
I would take you up on that but I'm about to lose my house, can't pay muh power bill, and the mobsters are after me... all 'cuz I spent $100 on DESTINY 2! WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!!

 
Nothing371 said:
Blizzard is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Blizzard people are a mindless cult. Fifteen years ago they were the best in the business. They're far from it now.
Click to expand...
Not that I don't think Blizzard is a total scam job these days ('dem double negatives) but is it any different than what Activision does with CoD and Derptony?

Anyway, I still question the value. I don't buy a VIVE not because I don't have $500 but because the shit that's on there isn't anything I'm interested in playing. Destiny 2 strikes me as a Diablo-like game that wants to go with some hybrid subscription method that essentially works out to $10 or so a month depending on their 'expansion' release schedule. Right off the bat you have to spend $90 to get the game plus the first two expansions. Not an entirely uncommon practice with games selling a 'season pass' but I question how many more 'expansions' will this game see in a year? The model strikes me more as a buy-to-play MMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
If people could get past the mental hurdle of paying $100-120 for a new game, then developers would just include free major content updates. But people aren't okay with that because games need to cost $60 and anything more needs to be an expansion pack. So they have to call updates "expansions" and convince people to buy into their particular vision of 'games as a service'.

For my money, devs and publishers can label paid content whatever they want. I don't care; I'll take transparency and upfront honesty any day over an unplanned future and ambiguity in regards to the pricing structure. All that matters to me is the volume of game content once completed and the bottom line cost you have to pay to get all of it.
Click to expand...
I can barely get past the mental hurdle of paying for the BTA tier of a Humble bundle.

 
archibishopofBAH said:
This game is in the Monthly tomorrow. No one will play it cause its not a Steam key (its the Humble Original) but it looks ridiculous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwjDgg8yFIs
Click to expand...
I wonder what grade dude got in his online college game design class for this?

The question is, is this Asshole Goose Sim ridiculous, or just I cant believe Humble added this ridiculous?

 
Mooby said:
WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!!
Click to expand...
Not played Destiny 2! Ohhhh

Mooby said:
Not that I don't think Blizzard is a total scam job these days ('dem double negatives) but is it any different than what Activision does with CoD and Derptony?

Anyway, I still question the value. I don't buy a VIVE not because I don't have $500 but because the shit that's on there isn't anything I'm interested in playing. Destiny 2 strikes me as a Diablo-like game that wants to go with some hybrid subscription method that essentially works out to $10 or so a month depending on their 'expansion' release schedule. Right off the bat you have to spend $90 to get the game plus the first two expansions. Not an entirely uncommon practice with games selling a 'season pass' but I question how many more 'expansions' will this game see in a year? The model strikes me more as a buy-to-play MMO.
Click to expand...
I hate Activision too. Bobby Kotick is the biggest piece of shit in the gaming industry; he ruins everything. But I love Destiny. And that's how much you have to pay to play it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And speaking of B2P MMO', Elder Scrolls Online Bonemarrowwindz edition is $16 at Amazon (US) if you have prime with free shipping -- it's a box copy.  I was considering that until someone mentioned other DLC which, I found out after a Google, there's like half a dozen more content packs where they sell off dungeons and cities piece meal.

Also, a note about old games not comparing to modern ones... most of the old games were actually better.  I'd hold a $40 1990's currency NES game like Golgo 13 up to any $60 modern AAA title.

Fake/real edit:  Golgo 13 was actually late 80's!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
Your post is good. The situation was funny. I get it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't so much "funny" as it was manipulating the gaming press and their customers (via their fawning comments on message boards, social media, etc) by running a line of shit about their DLC pricing and then going back on it with a ridiculous bit of sophistry about how "expansions aren't really DLC".

Look, you like their games, that's cool. And it sounds like you like their boxes. But let's not handwave away shitty and deceitful behavior just because you liked the end product.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like seeing the word 'sophistry' in posts.  It's such a cool word.  I am not being sarcastic.  No, really, I'm not, no yellow font!

 
Mooby said:
Also, a note about old games not comparing to modern ones... most of the old games were actually better. I'd hold a $40 1990's currency NES game like Golgo 13 up to any $60 modern AAA title.
Click to expand...
Why are you posting here when you could be off stalking a Super NES retro-box somewhere?

 
archibishopofBAH said:
No one will want to play that over KF2. Not even you lol. And yes, was up/out late and didnt get a lot of sleep so deffo a bit cranky :D
Click to expand...
Probably cranky you missed out on those back to back chicken dinners too. YOU AREN'T THE ONLY ONE ANYMORE BAH! WHEN YOU SAY "ONE TIME WE HAD BACK TO BACK CHICKEN DINNERS," 3 MORE PEOPLE CAN NOW SAY "ME TOO!"

 
archibishopofBAH said:
No one will want to play that over KF2. Not even you lol. And yes, was up/out late and didnt get a lot of sleep so deffo a bit cranky :D
Click to expand...
Foxs Mom said she couldnt get you out of her house last night. Anyway, what item are we failing to acquire tonight at KF2?

We have a marginally better chance tonight because I wont be playing that shit support class. I think my commando is like lvl 13 or something. The only bitching you will hear is cranky bah tonight, that and maybe cranky bears in the background if pallalacks shows up

 
Nothing371 said:
Not played Destiny 2! Ohhhh

I hate Activision too. Bobby Kotick is the biggest piece of shit in the gaming industry; he ruins everything. But I love Destiny. And that's how much you have to pay to play it.
Click to expand...
My thesis: you enable Bobby Kotick. How could you?

 
The KF2 item is those stupid nuclear explosion glowing neckbolt things that Fox insists on wearing.  I haven't bothered to get them yet independently which should give a hint as to how much I care about them.

 
Syntax Error said:
The KF2 item is those stupid nuclear explosion glowing neckbolt things that Fox insists on wearing. I haven't bothered to get them yet independently which should give a hint as to how much I care about them.
Click to expand...
you are talking about a guy who shopped for and paid for a particular ugly mask in the game. Nothing more needs to be said.

 
Syntax Error said:
It wasn't so much "funny" as it was manipulating the gaming press and their customers (via their fawning comments on message boards, social media, etc) by running a line of shit about their DLC pricing and then going back on it with a ridiculous bit of sophistry about how "expansions aren't really DLC".

Look, you like their games, that's cool. And it sounds like you like their boxes. But let's not handwave away shitty and deceitful behavior just because you liked the end product.
Click to expand...
Guess I'm more of a "the ends justify the means" type of guy. They set a good example to all the other players in the industry. That's stop with all the bullshit DLC (by giving several small pieces for free) and give people gourmet dessert for their additional paid content, after you've already filled them up with meat and potatoes from the main course.

That's an important message in this day and age. I was glad to see them get some recognition.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
smackattack said:
Foxs Mom said she couldnt get you out of her house last night. Anyway, what item are we failing to acquire tonight at KF2?

We have a marginally better chance tonight because I wont be playing that shit support class. I think my commando is like lvl 13 or something. The only bitching you will hear is cranky bah tonight, that and maybe cranky bears in the background if pallalacks shows up
Click to expand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tg-KZQeCIY

 
Syntax Error said:
I assume that at least part of the reason why they want DLC out the door quickly is to capitalize on people buying the game in its initial launch. Game comes out in January, in July they release DLC but you finished it in February or March or April and have long since moved on. And the sort of people buying it 6-12 months later aren't going to buy full priced DLC -- they'll wait for the complete edition or the DLC to be 75% off.
Click to expand...
I suspect that this is probably right on the money. The idea is probably to get the DLC out in time to capture the early adopters because once those people "finish" your game, they probably won't be going back to it. Unless you've announced a specific plan of expansion content just after or prior to the release of your main game, it's harder to make your money back on something that you produce post-release. Personally, I find it hard to go back to a game to play an expansion if I've spend 100+ hours on a base game if I don't have that content waiting for me when I finish. I think the way many games probably work these days is that the dev starts working on season pass content before the initial release and continues working on it post-release.

Syntax Error said:
If factually restating their announcements about DLC is "dragging them through the mud", that's more on them than it is anyone else.

They announced no paid DLC, took in all the free press and adulation and then went back on it with a semantic argument that "expansions" weren't DLC.
Click to expand...
AdmiralGialHackbar said:
its funny that everyone complains about DLC, but when its a blizzard made game I never hear complaints. I have never heard anyone complain that WC3 TFT was just DLC for WC3 or all those starcraft 2 "expansions". Maybe its because they typically have enough content to be a worth what you are paying?
Click to expand...
I do think this goes back to bah's point about value for money. I doubt anyone would seriously question the quality and quantity of content that was contained in the Witcher 3 or StarCraft II expansions. Yes, you can argue that a DLC and an expansion are not really different things, but I think qualitatively at least it's easy to tell the difference between the two. No one would call a costume pack or horse armor an expansion pack and not expect to be laughed out of the industry. Similarly, I don't think you could pass off paid content that consists of one or two single-player missions or quests as an expansion.

That's why I am still of the opinion that CD Projekt RED was true to its word regarding DLC for The Witcher. They released a bunch of relatively-straighforward DLCs alongside the main game for free, but the Blood and Wine and Hearts of Stone expansion packs contained significant additional material (20-50 hours' worth); I just don't see the argument that charging for this content was reneging on their promise in some way. If you don't like The Witcher 3, that's one thing and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I believe--as a fan of the Witcher games--that most of the people who do like it are glad to have the opportunity to play these continuations of what, if CD Projekt RED's statements on the subject are to be believed, will be their last Witcher game featuring Geralt.

 
Nothing371 said:
Guess I'm more of a "the ends justify the means" type of guy. They set a good example to all the other players in the industry.
Click to expand...
I guess we can leave it at "You and I have dramatically different ideas on what constitutes a good example when you're blatantly lying to your customers for a cheap PR boost"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top