Not to mention make it an Origin exlcusive as well.
Plenty of people will avoid any future EA game simply if it requires Origin, so surely that has to have an affect on sales aswell.
Personally, I will avoid any origin games as much as possible as i personally find the client awful. BF3 was a disappointment from a user interface standpoint with all the origin issues (awful battlelog, no mic support, horrendous chat system (had to have multiple chat windows with the same person, one for origin client, another for battelog and another for in squad))
Regardless if any of these features and been improved, I refuse to buy into the exclusivity aspect.
@ResEv Indeed a shame considering CD Projekt are one of the last good developers out their not trying to milk their customers, but instead try and deliver the best game they can.
I got both W1 and W2 on sale, but will very much look forward to a day 1 purchase...although I may need to delay upgrading my PC now until much closer to launch :D
The gaming industry is completely different industry today than it was years ago.
Without a question, its all about the 'corporatization' of the industry. (I know thats not a word, but you'll get the point)
Developers are told from their publishers/owners to find ways to maximize revenue or final new revenue streams to further squeeze more money out of people. Some DLC can we worth while, but the majority of DLC are rehashed customizaions that really are money grabs with the least amount of development time and effort (something as a cautious consumer I don't buy into the motion...I see it as nickel and diming)
There truly was a time when many developers had the attitude of current day indie developers. People trying to honestly get loyal fan support instead of capitalizing on the casual gaming.
EVery comment I posted on this article comes from a generic standpoint. I've never played DMC or have any interest. But seeing this alarming trend of garbase DLC skin/weapon/map packs are truly a joke IMHO.
For as long as a select few are willing to keep supporting this horrible trend in DLC, the more developers are gonna change their ways to keep squeezing more and more money out of you after already putting $60 down on the base game.
if you willingly paying for such content, then the companies have in you a chokehold and know your willing to pay for more and more bonus 'small' content.
To me, it seems all developers doing this are pushing custometers to the edge to see where their limits are in terms of exatly how much nickel and diming people can tolerate.
Surprisingly, a lot of them are getting a way with it because of people like @cursealoud are willing to give them more money. You don't realize that the developers don't care about you, they are just looking into more ways of making more money.Whats the point of paying $60 a game if in the long run, its gonna cost you nearly twice the initial investment into a game *CoD map packs cough*
I guess the young generation needs to wait a little longer, when they get older and realize it with their own wallets and not their parents...
Why should you support this garbage DLC in the first place. Thats what the commotion is all about, which in end wants people to pirate the game even more.
Something that very easily should be free (in general to all games: all custom character/weapon skins, buying unique weapons etc for $0.99+ a piece is nickel and diming...pure and simple.
5-10 years ago, before this micro-transaction trend started, this kind of stuff never existed. Micro-transasction for free to play is somewhat understandable because developers make all revenue from such purchases...
But for AAA titles to charge the standard full $50-60 price point for a game and then provide these few minor things close after launch for more money outrages customers. Makes you feel like you got a half-a$$ed product to begin with and patched with additional content.
Piracy is not good, but when you purposely squeeze money out of your customerrs...your enrage enough that people stop supporting you and start pirating your games.
This is the kind of garbage DLC thats ruining the gaming industry.
Pure nickel and diming of your consumers. If you provide these 'skins', and in general, any costume, gun or unique item as bonus DLC for a price, you WILL upset people.
In this specific case, this would have been the perfect opportunity for the developers to show their gratitude to their loyal fanbase by provide this DLC free of charge. Instead they made the decision to change the characters appearance and essentially piss-off loyal fans, while charging them an additional $4 to get the old character's look.
All the bad press and poor user review scores would be reduced if they made this free.
(Note: All this coming from a PC gamer, never have played nor have interest in DMC, but the general principle for garbage 'skin' DLC's)
@Gruug I was a bit skeptical of Borderlands back when it first released. I ended up buying the first one about 6 months ago and actually enjoyed it. Amazing sense of humor, gameplay and the art style was ok after playing it a lot.
To me graphics isn't as important as overall quality, the gameplay experience and story. Games like Mafia tell amazing stories and it didn't matter to me that the graphics weren't up to par with others at the time. A game like BF3, while very impressive visuals, the whole battlelog and origin client thing ruined the game experience for me.
If developers try and push visuals over good narrative, story and experience, they are gonna lose customers.
@LesserAngel on steam right now to add the entire Sims 3 DLC will cost $420.
Not even sure if Steam has all expansions though (might may be origin exlclusives? im not sure)
But even during the steam winter sale, 66% off, so ~$150 where not everything was on sale is still way too much for a single game...talk about nickel and diming...EA knows how to squeeze money out of people.
@DJKrayz_basic I think the whole premise of the steambox is to convert current console gamers to the idea of a unified experience across multiple platforms. Offer Steam-Play compatibility so if you happen to purchase a game on the steam box, you have the option to play it on PC or Mac system too years later. It seems like a growing trend the current consoles are trying to move away from backwards compatibility.
I too personally don't see the need to own a steambox as I'm a PC gamer too, but I think Valve simply trying to extend their reach and give consumers better choices (too much negative news recently with current rumors of the other next-gen consoles).
I also see don't care about any of the other topics either (except quality over quantity, so better stories/narrative etc). As long as next-gen offers better hardware, then that means PC gaming will not be held back further (and hopefully a steambox will help improve the quality of console-PC ports as PC games for the most part very seldomly have games fully optimized for current hardware available. I'm not referring simply to improvements to visuals, but user experience/controls etc on PC always seem rushed or not as polished as they could.
YoungCardinal's comments