Season Passes are an insult to gamers

I know, I know. "You don't have to buy it. It's only $20". That's not the point. The game is not even out yet and a big announcement plastered all over gaming sites to buy a Watch Dogs Season Pass. If they are supposedly working on these DLC's now, why not just include all this shit in the regular game?

It's like devs are saying 'pay $60 plus tax on 3/4 a game and put another $20 - $30 on more content we've decided to cut from the game and charge you extra money for? Play as a character you have no reason to care about and get some new single player missions and unlock more outfits we cut from the main game so we can make more money off of you feeding into the hype. Shit is getting ridiculous. This is another reason why I ignore the hype and either wait for price drops or get the GOTY edition.

I don't do much season passes. The only one I've bought so far is for Bioshock Infinite. I thought it was okay. I'll play Burial at Sea Episode 2 as soon as the final exams are over.

I simply don't buy them. Period.

@Lulu_Lulu: Can't even disagree with that. Devs are so upfront with it because they know the hype will turn profit. It's to a point where before I think about even buying a game, I look at the devs DLC history and time frame between game launch and GOTY releases before deciding.

Seasonpasses are not anything,.

First noone forces anyone to buy them and if you dont like it then dont buy it.

So if you look at this from a mature sensible stand, noone in their right mind would blame the companies for adding products that will increase their income.

So in the end the problem is with the consumer not the gaming industry.

@HipHopBeats: i do think it's an insult. It's a pre-order of a pre-order for something you don't know the quality or content of. So i never buy it before a game is out. I do sometimes buy it if it is worth it after it's been released

I agree, never bought a season pass and never will.

i hear you. prime example; Battlefield 4. the vanilla game has craploads of weapons you can't use unless you get the premium (basicly a season pass). other people can still play against you with those weapons, therefor the vanilla game is incomplete without the premium. those locked weapons are by no means more powerful, but that's not the point.

biggest gripe for me is the fact that you have no idea of the value with those season pass deals. for all you know the additional content might be total shit.

solution; don't buy them. send a message.

I don't really think so. Personally I just consider them a bundle of the dlc for a cheaper price then purchasing each piece of content seperately since you can simply wait until all the dlc is released before buying the season pass. I've purchased season passes for games like Gears of War 3, Gears of War: Judgment, and Call of Duty: Ghosts because I enjoyed the games and knew I'd want all the dlc for them. So far I've been very happy with my season pass purchases because I make informed decisions to buy them.

@HipHopBeats:

I think developers really need to start explaining the development process nowadays to people, because many complaints I see come from a lack of understanding in how it works, especially in regards to DLC.

For one, games have deadlines they need to meet. Yes, some games get delayed, but its really a last resort thing for most publishers, as it costs them more money, as they have to continue to pay the high rate of production costs while not getting anything for it. That hurts. Some developers do have the luxury of taking their time and working without strict deadlines, but this is not common.

So, what usually happens is that the release version of the game gets finalized in the months leading up to release in terms of content. Once the content is finalized, the rest of the time is generally spent working on bug fixes and optimization to ensure the best playability on Day 1. I know I know, sometimes there's still a lot of problems on Day 1, but this is usually a result of the rush of development to hit the deadline. But what developers *also* do is outline a plan for DLC ahead of time. This is not content that is just sitting there ready-to-go, cut from the final game to sell you later, but usually ideas, sometimes alpha work that wasn't going to get finished on time, and just a general plan for future development support to keep content coming after release, maintaining interest and sales for longevity. Usually the planned work on DLC will get started before release, as they don't want to wait too long before they are able to put out something, as timeliness of DLC drops are important.

Could all this DLC content be put into the final release? Not without large delays. Delays which usually cant be afforded. And even if they did put this content in there, they would still want to do *more* DLC afterwards, as again, keeping longevity in sales is important. These guys don't make money, they don't make games. So the same problems occur, with the DLC still needing to be given a head-start.

And my personal opinion is that having post-release content is actually pretty awesome. Not all DLC is great, but there's been some pretty incredible stuff put out that I'd be sad to not have. It often gives developers a chance to have learned from the development of the main game to create better quality content.

Finally, the Season Pass thing. Personally, I like that its an option. Its definitely a way for publishers to extract more money up front while the game is still hot(same reason they push preorders and have biggest marketing push in the month before and after release), but it is actually something that's nice for hardcore fans of a game. I don't tend to buy them unless its a series I know and love, with a developer I trust to put out good post-release content, and would never think of getting the Season Pass for a new, unproven IP by a developer who hasn't really had amazing post-release content in the past(like with Watch Dogs). But if somebody is properly hyped about Watch Dogs and thinks this will be the game for them and is already planning on buying all DLC in the future, then this is nice to have as an option, so they can just save some money in the process.

In the end, Season Passes don't hurt anything. It gives people an option and they don't have to buy it if they don't feel its worth it, or they are cautious. In fact, if there's one thing that I feel it *has* changed in terms of development, is that basically ensures a legally-binding *promise* for post-release support in most cases.

I don't think season passes in general are an insult.

But what watch dogs does, is an insult. From the looks of that trailer, the DLC seems to have been worked on a lot during the development of the main game. Perhaps it's not complete yet, because if it was, that would add further insult to injury.

IMO devs shouldn't work and focus on DLC first, they should focus on offering a complete product first, before moving on to making DLC.

I've never bought any but they usually offer a small discount for multiple DLC.

For a game you like it looks like a great deal except for the fact that a month later they are releasing special editions of the games that include all the DLC usually.

Yeah, forget season passes.

Its usually more like 12 months later.

@maynardburger: I meant a month after the last DLC for the season pass is released ie Borderlands 2.

Depends on the game, really. I've bought season passes in the past, and GOW 3 turned out to be a good deal; however, GOW:Judgment was not. It's hit or miss, just like the purchase of any game. I agree to at least wait until you get the game to see if you'd stick around long enough to want to play more DLC with it.

At least the option to buy certain DLC that comes with season pass is always there. You may not like some of the offers they have, so in reality you could end up spending less than the $20 and get only what you want. Usually what they throw in with season passes isn't worth it anyway (like a gun skin or new outfit. Who cares?)

Ah, gotcha. Well that's true in some cases, but as with many things in life, good things come to those who wait. People holding off on a next-gen system, or are holding off buying pretty much any game you could mention will likely save money by waiting.

But not everybody wants to wait. Especially when it comes to multiplayer-focused games, waiting often means missing out on much of the peak player population times.

sometimes DLCs aren't that bad , Skyrim's dawngaurd made me play it all over again , Mass Effect 2's shadow broker did the same . actually sometimes they make you go back to a game that you haven't played in a while

but those are the only DLCs I ever bought.

but cutting something that could be in the game already , thats stupid . I mean the DLC that they want to release for watch dogs is made at the same time they were making the game , so why not put it in the game ?

even worse , some DLC content of Mass effect 3 was already IN THE DISK that you bought for 60$ , and you had to pay 20$ more to unlock that content ! thats an Insult !

That's exactly the point of DLC. They want to keep people interested in their game. It creates more sales, and it also keeps people from trading in or selling their games after a month or two, when used sales hurt them the worst.

@HipHopBeats: I don't agree. If they were charging for one future DLC, fine. Season passes give you access to all DLC. It's no different from Special Editions that give you all expansions for a game. They're usually a better deal than individual DLC, so what they basically are is bundle packs.

I think you need to read up on what seasonpasses is and what most companies bring out as DLC. Also the companies don't need to explain anything.

Because from your post it seems like you missed a lot of what the complaints is about. Yes we have decent developers like Rockstar who make truly new content as DLC, which shows a care for their product and their fans. But on the other side we have companies like 2k Czech and Mafia 2 where you clearly could see that all the DLC was 100% part of the main game and was intended for the main game but was taken out because they knew it would make them more money.

And we have more leaning towards 2K in the industry then we do towards Rockstar so while i do understand the complaints its not really the industries fault, people keep buying it so why shouldn´t they take advantage of it.

@groowagon: The only way I ever buy Battlefield games is when the Premium Edition with all DLC's goes on sale. It sucks being the noob in a game of pros, but $20 for Battlefield 3 Premium Edition was a great deal. I'm definitely doing the same with Battlefield 4. Plus I hear it's still glitched to hell with server lag and rubber banding.

Examples that are in the minority.

I don't know about Mafia 2, but the vast majority of DLC is not ready-to-go before the game is released. Complain about specific examples if there's proof that the DLC was just ready-to-go content, but don't extend that to all DLC.

I'm also not sure where Season Passes come into play here. This is just a general DLC complaint and has been around well before Season Passes started.

As for me needing to read up on what Season Passes are, I don't understand what that even means as I know very much what a Season Pass is. Its not terribly difficult to grasp and I don't I showed anywhere that I didn't know what one was. Furthermore, if you could just once start off your post with something other than a condescending remark, it would be really appreciated. Gets very tiring as you do it quite regularly.

And how do you know this? do you have a source for that claim because otherwise what you're doing now is just guessing and considering the proof there is more to the fact that content is being ripped from games then that they just make so much content that it can't be put into one game.

@maynardburger:

Even if what you say is true with the development process of DLC's, it's still a bunch of bullshit imo. The real reason Watch Dogs was delayed was to push sales for Black Flag. Who in their right mind would chose Black Flag over the hacking hype of Watch Dogs if both were released in the same time frame? With new games constantly coming out, people eventually get over AAA games being delayed. They could have included all this shit in the final release.

When you look at that trailer I linked, you can see those DLC's are damn near completed and have been in development for a long time. Look ar how long ND took to develop Left Behind. How long did Levine take to finish Burial At Sea? The time span between The Walking Dead episodes. My point is Ubisoft is clearly choosing not to include these DLC's in the final release so they can make more money rationing out these DLC's over time to make season pass holders feel like they saved money and jumped on a 'good' deal.

People look at it like 'no one is forcing you to buy it'. True indeed. But Ubisoft is indirectly telling you, the consumer, 'hey we know you're salivating and going nuts over playing our hyped up product. We know it's tough on you gamers trying to decide which Watch Dog edition to pre order, but since you're spending money anyway, why not throw us an extra $20 to save money on future DLC already in development? Not only that, you will get to play this DLC weeks before other gamers who will have to spend more money buying these DLC's individually.' Psychological marketing at its finest.

Business is business, I know. DLC's are here to stay. The fact that devs are so in your face with it, boldly making these announcements a month before the game releases rubs me the wrong way. I feel like I'm paying $60 plus tax for a game I know is not complete because there was an announcement made of new content before the game even hit the shelves.

In the end, I know it's the gamers fault for so readily feeding into the hype, throwing money away. And why not capitalize off of suckers feeding into the hype right? It's still a shady practice and makes me lose respect for the gaming industry.

Devs should at least have the decency to wait a few weeks until people have a chance to play the game and have a chance to appreciate what the game can offer before making season pass announcements asking us to spend more money and twist it like they're doing us a favor by offering us a chance to save money in the long run. It wouldn't make it any better, but it would at least show, devs have some respect for the gamers who keeps them employed.

I only buy Season Passes to make an original game into a GOTY edition. And usually pay less than 5 bucks for it...during a Steam Sale. Which more often than not is cheaper than buying the DLC separately, even during the Steam sale.

...did the same thing for Last of Us, so sometimes it works with PSN, too; but not as often as it happens thru Steam.

@The_Last_Ride: Ha ha! Exactly!DLC's like Skyrim or Fallout can be pretty good because at least you know ahead of time, the content has replay value and could last you a long time. Bullshit like Watch Dogs DLC's, unlocking new outfits, cyborg mission, play as a new character, are something many gamers will blow through in one or two sittings and be done with it. It will be no different from Black Flag DLC's. Blow through the main mission, run around getting all collectibles if you're a platinum hunter and that's it. All of this could have been included in the game for free, lol!

@Threesixtyci: PSN had a sale for Left Behind? I'd probably get it for $5 but after seeing how short it is, no way would I pay $15 for it.

The season pass just lets you know what the game is really going to cost before it comes out. I don't really view it as dishonest. I almost never buy games at release anymore, though, largely due to DLC. I'd rather just wait until the game is finished and play it with everything included, and usually you can get a GOTY version or something with everything on the disc for $30.

I don't mind the season pass for Bioshock Infinite. The two episodes I wanted to play took place in Rapture rather than Columbia (Bioshock's Infinite's home world).

Also consider the game was delayed. So the DLC is pretty much done i think. If i see anything good for that game i will buy it, but i won't buy the Season Pass

My source is developers themselves. I've talked to some of them and I've heard others basically say the same thing. Obviously this cant cover every single situation and I'm sure there's exceptions, but the basic development process and thinking behind the DLC plan is going to be similar for most large-scale studios/teams nowadays.

I appreciate your concerns and they are not invalid when it comes to Watch Dogs here. I can definitely see how you'd think that this content was ready-to-go. But if we've learned anything recently, we should realize that small slices of gameplay don't indicate a complete product. We saw full areas of Dark Souls II in demos that were downgraded by quite a big degree on final release. Same thing with Watch Dogs' early footage.

So we can see that this content isn't actually fully complete at all. Its possible that what we're seeing was already a work-in-progress, but it doesn't mean it was complete and fully bug-tested and ready for release. Its possible, don't get me wrong. There are a few examples of developers holding back DLC to sell later on, but I don't think its fair to accuse every developer of doing so just because they are working on DLC before release. I can understand why people are sceptical now, and that does suck, but we should still be reasonable.

And you're totally right in terms of the message Ubisoft is trying to send us, taking advantage of the hype and trying to get people to buy the Season Pass. But you know what? When have companies *not* gone out of their way to sell products to us? We see commercials every day of our lives on TV that exaggerate and mislead. We see billboards and store windows and ads on trains and buses that make spurious claims of the benefits and superiority of their product or service. It ultimately comes down to us, as consumers, to wade through the bullshit and figure out what's worth buying. They play their games and we have to be wise to it. We cant expect every business out there to be perfectly frank and open and honest with customers. Its unfortunate, but its the way of the world, and I think most of us have come to acknowledge this with most consumer aspects in their life and I think us gamers need to accept it in the video game business as well.

I agree that waiting a few weeks before making a Season Pass available would be ideal(for us), but its not smart from their end. Like pre-orders, selling Season Passes is a way of cashing in on the hype. Interest in games can be a fleeting thing and no game is a guaranteed hit, so a few weeks after release and they might well sell a fraction of the Season Passes they would have if they did it earlier, while the game was still hot. Like I said, marketing pushes happen the month before and after a game release. Waiting til the very end of this window to sell a Season Pass is missing out on opportunity.

Again, its up to us to be wise to this sort of thing and make smart, informed choices. If this seems like a bad deal to you, then by all means, avoid it. Don't buy it. I'm with you on that. Too risky for me since I don't know what I'm getting, Ubisoft doesn't have a great track record of great DLC and I don't even know how good Watch Dogs will be in the first place.

I learned my lesson last gen.

These publishers can go **** themselves with the nickel and diming. I was actually surprised at how fast the 'collected' version of ACIV was announced after it's release. Actually, I found it sort of funny because I'm betting it's gonna get faster for a lot of other publishers as well---because I've noticed a trend with a lot of AAA developers---they're all making something like 3-6 games at any one time on whatever platforms. It's crazy shit.

I didn't buy MGS:GZ---because it's bullshit---and a test for KJP/Konami to see how foolish people are with their $$$, for themselves.

I'm still waiting for the last expansion of StarCraft 2 before buying the whole set.

Diablo 3: RoS should be getting a release date for PS4 any day now.

Online service fees for a service that these console makers don't even provide (ISP) is a joke when the PC family has never dealt with that bullshit---EVER.

And lastly, but not least---I don't buy anything from EA anymore, because they only publish busted ass shitpiles. Everytime.

A consumer/gamer at my age that has witnessed and played games since arcades and before consoles like Caleco Vision and beyond, has seen the industry turn into a pretty disappointing show of flagrant anti-consumer practices. It's maddening really.

I'm not going to read through what everyone else has said, but I wanna put my thoughts in real quick.

First, I understand your point but I also don't understand whats so wrong with a developer saying, "Hey, we're going to support this title after it releases with DLC." So they should put it in the main game? So, what you are saying, is DLC they are working on before the game releases should be put into the final game? They should push back the release of the game to put this DLC in it to please you? I can understand the Capcom type DLC, where it's already mostly there, but wtf?

Just because they are working on DLC before the game releases, does not mean they are taking content out of the game to sale later as DLC. I highly doubt that Naughty Dog cut content out of The Last of Us to sale later as what ever the name of their last DLC was. I could go on, and on with this type of example, but I think you get what I'm saying.

I agree with you 100% though, DAMN those developers for supporting a title after it comes out. Should release their games and then go on to their next title and forget about the current one.

@dotWithShoes:

What should've been obvious in what he was originally saying is: it's obvious when publishers/developers have cut content just to sell it later, compared to content that was actually conceived of and created later for the longevity and fandom of the game.

And consumers should at least have the decency not to pirate games. If only we lived in a perfect world.

I'll go with maynardburger on this.

@dotWithShoes: Lol, cool sarcasm. DualFace best summarized the point I was making. I said Left Behind and Burial At sea are examples of DLC's that you can tell were not cut content and took time to develop. Bullshit like Watch Dogs DLC could have been included in the final release.

The 6 month delay was probably a combination of Ubi pushing sales for Black Flag, the threat of loosing sales to GTA V and Ubi working on DLC that clearly shows them supporting Watch Dogs long after release.

Expect Watch Dogs 2 no later than 2016. You will see an article talking about how they spent the last 3 years working on Watch Dogs 2.

I love video games but I'm already upset that they raised the price to $60 when, at the same time, the market vastly expanded - top games sell millions of copies so there's simply no need to even charge $60 each in the first place, much less practically extort another $30 - $50 on top of that by excluding some choice content from the "base" game to sell separately!

In this case, it's clear that the devs/producers (whoever it is that controls the sales/marketing) are every bit as immoral as software pirates who pay nothing for the game. I understand that the companies that make these games should be paid for their hard work, but the greed of large corporations actually bothers me a lot more than the greed of people that want to play those games without paying for them.

NO ONE is saying that devs should immediately forget about a game once it's released and that's not usually how it went with PC games that were popular before this whole "pay DLC" thing became common. If a developer has come out with a successful new game they sell a lot of copies and now they have money in the bank. Yes, if they want to stay in business they need to start thinking about the next game or a sequel - but - if they're even halfway decent folks they'll appreciate the customers that bought their game by fixing up some bugs, stripping away annoying DRM, and polishing up a few pieces of the game that might not have quite been ready or just didn't make it into the release initially for whatever reason and they players can enjoy some cool new items, or a few additional "chapters" of the game while they wait for the developer to finish the next great "full game" release.

I have a real problem with something like Battlefield "map packs" (that aren't free) where you buy the game but you can't play on any of the popular servers because everybody wants to be running the latest and greatest hot new maps. I just spent $60 on the game and millions of other people did too, just give me the damn maps so I'm not staring at A) empty servers I can join or B) servers that have players, but I can't join because I didn't pay the DLC tax.

Season passes are optional and that's it.

"And consumers should at least have the decency not to pirate games. If only we lived in a perfect world."

I want to buy the games, but I'm sad how long I have to wait, generally, to get them on sale for $40 or so, which is what I'm comfortable paying unless it's something huge and epic and awesome like Skyrim, which I'll gladly pay $60 for. But I reallydon't want to buy a game for $60 and then - but wait, you don't get the whole game for that price - if you want to be able to have this or that type of item, or you want this or that empty spot on the map filled in, well then you have to buy more.

So, I guess my only choice is to wait an entire year, or two perhaps even, and purchase the "GOTY" or whatever "complete" version. I'm glad that's an option, but it's really only reasonable for "single player" games.

I really don't like that this pay DLC and "Season Pass" are basically becoming standard - if it were more of an exception to the rule, it wouldn't be so irksome. The way some publishers do it it's so offensive it makes me want to encourage piracy.

But, the [pay] DLC content is practically not optional for many games these days. I literally couldn't play multi-player Battlefield 4 most of the times I tried to find a populated server because there were none that I could connect to without buying extra maps.

If I keep buying the DLC as it's released that costs more, not less than buying the "Season Pass" - so I think the main thing that's upsetting is that the companies are trying to do whatever they can to extract more and more money out of us consumers without considering whether it's reasonable from an intelligent thinking consumer's perspective - their goal is to fleece the mass of nearly brainless sheep that just buy buy buy it all regardless.

Wouldn't be a thing if the consumers didn't buy it, So I blame those that purchase it more then the developers for it to be such a thing nowadays.

That the publishers and developers want more money for their products I can understand, and that we the consumers don't wanna spend more then needed is certainly understandable too. So season passes is a valid way for the product creators to get some additional revenue from the get go.

But Season Passes are a gamble for the consumers since the additional unknown amount of content might range from something like "Blood and Wine - Witcher 3" scale to a handful of cosmetic content. So your additional 20$ very well could give you 3 new hats for your character in the specific game only.

Ehmm, the thread is over 2 years old???

Thread necromancy is just bad

@Critofur:Reviving a thread over 2 years old is lame, but anyways.. Saying you are upset that games are $60 shows how short of a period you've been either A. Playing video games, or B. Paying for them yourself. Games back in the 'olden days' were much higher. Ever wonder what Mario 64 cost when it released? Look it up! It'll shock you.

Production costs have gone through the roof while game prices haven't moved in decades. They are even lower in many cases not factoring inflation which proves my point even more. Stop bitching!

@GoldenElementXL said:

Production costs have gone through the roof while game prices haven't moved in decades. They are even lower in many cases not factoring inflation which proves my point even more. Stop bitching!

It seems you've been getting ripped off in the US far longer than those of us in the UK. Maybe that's why you're more willing to accept this crap.

Games when I grew up, brand new on release, used to be £30. Now, or since the last gen, they are £40-50, not factoring in DLCs and all that rubbish.

It's unacceptable. The problem is, most consumers are willing to accept it because it has now become an addiction for many.

Remember back 10 years ago when the season pass was the game? And if some huge expansion came out, you would just pay for it? Not today.

As long as they announce what the actual content is, in detail, not much issue with it.

If (for example) they are wanting £19 and it's for 0 budget cosmetics, power boosts and multiplayer maps, it's pretty much a rip off imo.

Some, such as The Tyranny Of King Washington, or Darksouls 2 I would argue are better than the main game itself.

Bullshit. With exchange rates, you paid more than the US did during the 16 bit days. Your SNES prices were through the roof!

yes and no.

I kind of think they're forcing it down the gamer's throats sometimes. There are a lot of mediocre games out there that get DLC and the resources should be spent elsewhere.

I kind of miss the old days where you put 110% effort into making a game, and if it did well, you make an expansion for it. If it did not do well, or not well enough, then you move on to the next project.

Expansions (DLC back in the day) were much higher quality imo because they kind of continued the legacies of great games, instead of being something a developer would just phone in and do to make some extra profit for mostly superficial stuff. Command and Conquer had great expansions. Homeworld: Cataclysm was an expansion that rivaled the original game.

With that said, there's been some good DLC released recently, but overall a lot of it is garbage. I prefer it when a developer takes the more "expansion pack" approach to a game than the "obligatory DLC which is 90% superficial" approach.

*also I know this is a necro'd thread but it's good conversation so maybe don't lock?