After the big BlazBlue DLC character crap yesterday it got me thinking of how so many developers/publishers now days make games, but lock content on the disk or withhold it, and then charge for it later, usually being stuff that used to be unlockables in pretty much every game of the previous generation. However some go the extra mile and actually withhold content for DLC that there competitors give for free or offer a lot more of, and/or just offer all around less content than the previous installments in the same franchise as well.
Now with that said I have noticed some publishers, namely Capcom and EA, have been complaining about there games not selling, profit loss, and used games sales. They have been specifically attacking the consumer saying they don't have money to buy games, they're not wanting games, and blaming the economy problems for it, and of course blaming retailers like gamestop when it comes to the used game department. So today Nintendo President Iwata finally called them out on it and blamed it on poor games and not the economy.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6266806.html?tag=latestheadlines%3Btitle%3B1
However I do think it goes just beyond bad games, but also these company's nickel and dimming consumers as much as they can with DLC. After all the biggest complainers of lack of game sells are the companies that offer the worst DLC that gets the most complaints. Even if it is actually the economy and gamers just can't afford to buy games then shouldn't you be trying to get gamers to buy your games by offering more content at a cheaper price than doing the exact opposite? Why are the average consumer going to buy your game over someone elses when they can get a similar game at the same retail price that offers everything you offer at that retail price, but also includes all the content you charge extra to download already avaliable for no extra fee? I mean let's look at some examples.
BlazBlue Continuum Shift: 15 characters, only 3 more than previous installment, yet also is going to have 3 DLC characters, with 1 of those deliberatly not included in intial release to be DLC, for a total of 6 more than previous version after all additional fees. Arc have said they are wanting to be top of the fighting game chain, how can they get to the top when people might just not buy there game since there competitors offer more at the same, or close to the same price? I mean people will still buy this particular version if they don't know, but once they find out what will there thoughts be? Could it effect them enough to not buy future games in this series or from this company? I mean look at there competition, some of which they have specifically called out on wanting to "out do."
Super Street Fighter IV: 35 characters, 10 more than the previous version and all included right out of the box in the retail price tag, almost twice as many characters than what BBCS offers, including it's DLC characters. There is talk of Super getting more down the line if they add more to upcoming arcade version, but still 35 characters + DLC characters > 15 + DLC characters.
The King of Fighters XIII: 31 characters, 9 more than previous version, and we don't know how many bosses it will have yet, if any or all of them be playable, and if any more will be included in home version, and just like SSFIV, almost double BBCS' complete roster.
Mortal Kombat 2011: Another fighter planning to have DLC characters post release, however this fighter will have at least 26 characters right out of the box, 8 more than BBCS will have even after DLC.
Others too, Tekken 6 with around 40, and Marvel vs Capcom 3 with over 30 (talks of DLC for it too).
Anyway, good luck on competing with that and trying to sale that to the average consumer, you're going to need it. I'm sure most people will just kindly over look the fact you are charging more, for half of what your competitors offer.
Resident Evil 5: Co-op and multiplayer focused game, but this game shipped with no multiplayer, instead they chose to withhold it from the coding, and patch it into the games coding through Mercs and charge 5$ for it right after release. 5$ to patch something in when pretty much every other company they are competing with includes it in theres for free.
Gears of War 2, co-op campaign like RE5, horde to cover mervs mode, but *gasp* multiplayer was already free with the game.
Left 4 Dead, co-op game, but oh look, there is that little multiplayer mode, free with game, they added more versus too it later on, oh look it was free.
Of course Halo, and well pretty much every shooter of the last few years offer everything RE5 did but more. But what really seperates these other shooter from Resident Evil 5 is, YOU CAN F****** MOVE AND SHOOT! Sorry Capcom RE5 was just a generic shooter, not a survival horror game, so RE4's gameplay didn't work with it, just made the game look dated and crummy.
Have to talk about EA's brilliant lets make multiplayer DLC that you only get 1 code for so you have to buy it new policy that was just introduced with Tiger Woods 11. So EA's idea to get people to stop buying there games used or renting them, is to give them reason to not even buy there games! Besides that EA's other idea to get people to buy there games and to buy them new is tomake day 1 DLC that you get for free if you buy the game new but have to pay a overpriced cost to get it if you buy it used. This is just annoying, it's pretty clear if someone buys a just released game used they clearly have little interest and might play it once and probably will just take it back and get there money back once they beat it, so they're just punishing gamers who buy there games by making them have to download stuff first thing after buying the game. This is nothing major, however it is annoying and it's something I could see turning people off there games just out of annoyance, and plus it's a waste of hard drive space.
Hey you remember how awesome it was when you beat Bayonetta to gain a ton of unlockables, then beat it on other difficulties to get even more unlockable bonus weapons, then you get a bonus boss battle eventually, a hidden weapon eventually, tons of unlockable costumes, 2 unlockable characters, 1 of those offering all the unlockables you get for Bayonetta, and just all this content? How awesome would it have been if other action/adventure games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden II (360), and God of War 3 did that? Too bad all those decided to not only include hardly anything close to the ammount of content Bayonetta did, but way less content than there previous installments, but in NGII and GoW3's case, make bonus costumes like previous installments, but DLC only, well God of War 3 gave you a wopping 1 hideous unlockable bonus costume, yippie.
Speaking of costumes, I like how Capcom lock there alternate costumes on the disk in Super Street Fighter IV and then charge almost the same price as the full game for all of them, not only that but they locked regular SFIV's alternate costumes on the disk and still made you pay for those if you hadn't already bought those in regular SFIV. This one I am not sure if it actually stopped people from buying the game, but it sure did the annoy the hell out of everyone. I mean it's pretty pathetic when you have games like Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, and Tekken that not only offer you quite of few alternate costumes, but full blow character custimization as well, but with Capcom they are selling additional costumes at almost full game price, and unlike there competitors you can't even mix and match for unique looking characters. Not sure how much it effected potential sales, but it does make Capcom just look pathetic and cheap compared to there competitors.
Also one more thing on Capcom. You had to pay to unlock the difficulties in Megaman 9? Now that's just plain out pathetic and cheap, and definitely not helping sales there.
Thing that really bugs me the most though is how some gamers defend all this and talk about how they're a buisness and a buisness is to make money, but they don't think, you can't make money on DLC if no one is buying your game because you're offering less than others. Then there is expansions like BlazBlue, I keep seeing gamers defend the DLC characters (even though there is half as many DLC characters as there is new characters included on the disk) by using the excuse "it's only 40$, that's 20$ less than a full game!" yeah that's because it's an expansion idiot. Most of it is a copy and paste job, if it wasn't the developers would refer to it as a sequal and not as expansion, all the new stuff is supposed to becovered in that 40$ price tag since that's the whole freaking point of a expansion and why it was priced at 40$ in the first place, instead with DLC characters you are paying full game price for a expansion. Yes story is important in BlazBlue, however it's a fighting game and characters are the whole point of a fighting game. So with it in the end you are paying full price for less content than you get in full fighting game sequals, and in some cases even cheaper expansions. So with BB Continuum Shift you are basically paying 40$ for a game you already own to some extent, now with a few extra modes and a new story since Arc decided to make half of what a fighting game expansion is supposed to be DLC, and you know what? If that's how they they're going to do it then they should have just made all the Continuum Shift characters DLC for Calamity Trigger instead of bothering to release another game because that expansion has to sale for the DLC to sale, and a lot of people probably aren't going to buy the expansion because it doesn't offer what a fighting game expansion is supposed to offer at 40$ without an additional fee which brings me back to the whole point of this blog. Why pay more for less?
So what do you think? You think DLC is effecting game sales and turning more and more people off and in turn making developers lose more money than they could be making without DLC? Have you ever bought 1 game over another, or just plain out didn't buy one because of DLC? Do you think withholding content to make it DLC is good idea for developers to make extra cash for cheap, or do you think people that defend it are plain out stupid and are part of the reason developers are screwing both gamers and themselves? Do tell.
Also one more thing I wanted to cover in this blog since it also sticks with this theme.
It looks like Microsoft's Kinect for XBOX 360 will be priced at 150$, the same price as the Wii. The whole point of Kinect, or at least this is the audience MS is currently marketing for is casual gamers, and to entice people from the Wii. Basically there idea to get casual gamers to buy a 360 is to offer them a add-on that costs the same price as the console they're trying to keep them from buying. Do Microsoft's really expect casual gamers to spend 200-300$ for a console so they can then get a add-on that costs the same price as the console they don't want them to buy, and to then buy games for that add-on? It's just plain out stupid! I mean even people that already own a 360, do MS really expect them to pay 150$ for a add-on for games that most people that already own a 360 don't want when they can pay the same price for a full console that does something similar to what Kinect does, but comes with actually good games? My bet is next E3 MS will be trying to push Kinect on "core" gamers, and then by the E3 after they will be trying to pretend it doesn't exist to the best they can. Congradulations Microsoft, you made Eyetoy 2!
Log in to comment