I've taken a break from Dark Souls III before killing off what I think is the last boss in the game. For this break, I've chosen a more relaxing game I picked up from the special offers, namely Life is Strange. I'm curious to see if this game is as amazing as many people say.
I might finish off Dark Souls III if I suddenly get a burst of energy during the weekend, but let's see.
@BAMozzy "Bigger" is perhaps not the best term to use, but when it comes to video games, one expects the next game to be somewhat richer in content. This differs between types of games. A game like Uncharted is more comparable to a movie or a book, and the enrichment of content will be focused towards graphics and a new creative story. But generally one expects the next entry in a series to offer more than the last. That is why many people were dissappointed by GTA IV, for example. And with a shooter like Call of Duty, where the story, gameplay and most other aspects will always remain very similar, they could at least expand the amount of content we can use. This has gone very slowly to not spoil the audience, because they aim for a full new release every damn year, and when it does expand, it comes at a rough price. They sell millions of copies. It wouldn't hurt to earn some goodwill by impressing the customers without having them pay through their nose. But they don't need to impress or earn goodwill, because they get truckloads of money from every teenager and his/her friends.
Nonetheless, if you claim that games are not chopped up to add to the DLC package, you are simply wrong. It is not so in all cases, but it's an ever growing problem. There are so many examples. Why does Batman: Arkham Knight have two season passes, when other games offer more than the value of those two season passes with a single one? Because the publisher is a moneygrabber! Why are certain fighters in Mortal Kombat X locked out in grey, as if they weren't even additional content? To tempt you to buy them! You can fight against them, but not play as them without paying extra! The fighter is already there! I remember my early days of gaming, when we didn't need that kind of additional content, because additional content was already on the disc ready to be unlocked THROUGH PLAYING, NOT THROUGH PAYING MORE! New maps, new characters, additional levels, ect. It was something to play for, not to pay for. These bastards just figured they could make teenagers pay for them instead. But many developers choose to refrain from this, because they love games. Activision and WB Games do not love video games. Gaming is big business now, bigger than ever, so it attracts money-grabbing businessmen in a bigger scale than before, and these businessmen develop exploiting strategies. That's the point of their job! To earn money for the company as easily as possible, without compromising the brand!
About playing with friends, don't be silly. If you paid for additional content, have been waiting for it, and is already sick of the older content, you want to play it. It doesn't mean you dislike your friend, it means you want to play what you've bought. That pressures others to by the same as you (in these multiplayer games), because you want to stay as a group with the same interests. You can't possibly not understand my point. If so, it must be on purpose.
@BAMozzy It seems you didn't quite understand what I meant about getting shut out. Sure, if I'm in a lobby with them, we can only play the maps that everyone have. Therefore, they're not going to want to be in a lobby with me. The first couple of months, they played the avaliable Zombie-maps to death. They played them until they weren't exciting anymore. I could've joined them in that if I had the basic game, but come January or whenever, they'd prefer to play in the new and unexplored Zombie map, which I wouldn't have, so therefore I would be a restriction in their party.
Activision knows this, and that is why they go to the length of adding unique maps as a pre-order bonus, so that friends convince each other to even pre-order the whole lot. That's what my friends did. They checked with each other to see if everyone were willing to pay up those 100 euros, so that they could play every specific map at the release of each. That makes the base game "outdated" rather quickly, and people get better prepared for a new Call of Duty release all together just a year later. Activision has designed it so that people play each part of the game to death in proper order, by restricting variation from the get-go. If all of the DLC content had been there from the start, or at least most of the maps, one could vary to a greater degree and it would take longer to get sick of each map.
Now, about game size, games are supposed to get bigger as technology develops. To say they always had the same amount of maps isn't an excuse for season passes. The Witcher developer too could say that "The Witcher games have always been around 30 hours long, so The Witcher 3 will also be of that length with 2 or 3 season passes, for a cost of only 150 euros." But they didn't, because they are great and passionate developers. They know the income will increase with the production costs because more people buy games now. They will sell more copies. They don't have to increase the price of the game and release it in pieces.
@BAMozzy It seems you are misunderstanding a crucial point. Even though sceptical gamers might hold off from buying a season pass before the content is proven to be good, many people still buy it, even before knowing what it will contain. This incentivates developers and especially publishers to cut out content that might and often should have been added to the base game, and add it to the season pass to make it more attractive or even nessecary to buy to get the full experience.
The worst example I can think of is Shadow of Mordor. The base game doesn't really have an ending, but it would have had one if season passes didn't exist. Another perfect example is Call of Duty. If people like you didn't buy the season pass for every game, the base game would probably have contained more maps to make the game more attractive. But as you say yourself, you pay full price for a game that is rather boring without the additional content from the season pass, so you pay another 75% of a retail price to complete the game and make a "potentially good game" into a "properly good game". That is horrible. My friends paid almost 100 euros for the newest Call of Duty. Activision would still be rich if they sold it for the standard 60 euros, but they want to be super rich because people like you allow them to.
Additionally, it is difficult for a group of friends to properly enjoy a multiplayer game together if only a few have the season pass. If I bought Call of Duty: Black Ops III to play with my close friends, I'd feel forced to fork out additional cash for content I don't want, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to play everything that they play. The result would be them shutting me out from one time to another, or maybe even most of the time, to play the DLC maps that I don't have. I'd definately cave in and buy the season pass as well in the end. That is why season passes, especially if they're announced before the content is even thought of, is dirty business.
Didn't Dark Souls II also offer a season pass? Nevertheless, it's a shame that such a great series uses an exploit like season pass, but at least From Software has made it known that they can make the additional content worth the payout, without compromising the basic content. Let's hope it stays that way.
Comments 7
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? - Issue 115
I've taken a break from Dark Souls III before killing off what I think is the last boss in the game. For this break, I've chosen a more relaxing game I picked up from the special offers, namely Life is Strange. I'm curious to see if this game is as amazing as many people say.
I might finish off Dark Souls III if I suddenly get a burst of energy during the weekend, but let's see.
Re: Not Even Dark Souls III Is Immune to the Season Pass
@BAMozzy "Bigger" is perhaps not the best term to use, but when it comes to video games, one expects the next game to be somewhat richer in content. This differs between types of games. A game like Uncharted is more comparable to a movie or a book, and the enrichment of content will be focused towards graphics and a new creative story. But generally one expects the next entry in a series to offer more than the last. That is why many people were dissappointed by GTA IV, for example. And with a shooter like Call of Duty, where the story, gameplay and most other aspects will always remain very similar, they could at least expand the amount of content we can use. This has gone very slowly to not spoil the audience, because they aim for a full new release every damn year, and when it does expand, it comes at a rough price. They sell millions of copies. It wouldn't hurt to earn some goodwill by impressing the customers without having them pay through their nose. But they don't need to impress or earn goodwill, because they get truckloads of money from every teenager and his/her friends.
Nonetheless, if you claim that games are not chopped up to add to the DLC package, you are simply wrong. It is not so in all cases, but it's an ever growing problem. There are so many examples. Why does Batman: Arkham Knight have two season passes, when other games offer more than the value of those two season passes with a single one? Because the publisher is a moneygrabber! Why are certain fighters in Mortal Kombat X locked out in grey, as if they weren't even additional content? To tempt you to buy them! You can fight against them, but not play as them without paying extra! The fighter is already there! I remember my early days of gaming, when we didn't need that kind of additional content, because additional content was already on the disc ready to be unlocked THROUGH PLAYING, NOT THROUGH PAYING MORE! New maps, new characters, additional levels, ect. It was something to play for, not to pay for. These bastards just figured they could make teenagers pay for them instead. But many developers choose to refrain from this, because they love games. Activision and WB Games do not love video games. Gaming is big business now, bigger than ever, so it attracts money-grabbing businessmen in a bigger scale than before, and these businessmen develop exploiting strategies. That's the point of their job! To earn money for the company as easily as possible, without compromising the brand!
About playing with friends, don't be silly. If you paid for additional content, have been waiting for it, and is already sick of the older content, you want to play it. It doesn't mean you dislike your friend, it means you want to play what you've bought. That pressures others to by the same as you (in these multiplayer games), because you want to stay as a group with the same interests. You can't possibly not understand my point. If so, it must be on purpose.
Re: Not Even Dark Souls III Is Immune to the Season Pass
@BAMozzy It seems you didn't quite understand what I meant about getting shut out. Sure, if I'm in a lobby with them, we can only play the maps that everyone have. Therefore, they're not going to want to be in a lobby with me. The first couple of months, they played the avaliable Zombie-maps to death. They played them until they weren't exciting anymore. I could've joined them in that if I had the basic game, but come January or whenever, they'd prefer to play in the new and unexplored Zombie map, which I wouldn't have, so therefore I would be a restriction in their party.
Activision knows this, and that is why they go to the length of adding unique maps as a pre-order bonus, so that friends convince each other to even pre-order the whole lot. That's what my friends did. They checked with each other to see if everyone were willing to pay up those 100 euros, so that they could play every specific map at the release of each. That makes the base game "outdated" rather quickly, and people get better prepared for a new Call of Duty release all together just a year later. Activision has designed it so that people play each part of the game to death in proper order, by restricting variation from the get-go. If all of the DLC content had been there from the start, or at least most of the maps, one could vary to a greater degree and it would take longer to get sick of each map.
Now, about game size, games are supposed to get bigger as technology develops. To say they always had the same amount of maps isn't an excuse for season passes. The Witcher developer too could say that "The Witcher games have always been around 30 hours long, so The Witcher 3 will also be of that length with 2 or 3 season passes, for a cost of only 150 euros." But they didn't, because they are great and passionate developers. They know the income will increase with the production costs because more people buy games now. They will sell more copies. They don't have to increase the price of the game and release it in pieces.
Re: Not Even Dark Souls III Is Immune to the Season Pass
@ToOGoodOfAPlaya I agree. The Bloodborne DLC was a worthy addition to an already complete game. The same goes for Dark Souls DLC.
The Witcher 3's DLC is such great value for the money that I found it reasonable that they even named it something else than a season pass.
Re: Not Even Dark Souls III Is Immune to the Season Pass
@BAMozzy It seems you are misunderstanding a crucial point. Even though sceptical gamers might hold off from buying a season pass before the content is proven to be good, many people still buy it, even before knowing what it will contain. This incentivates developers and especially publishers to cut out content that might and often should have been added to the base game, and add it to the season pass to make it more attractive or even nessecary to buy to get the full experience.
The worst example I can think of is Shadow of Mordor. The base game doesn't really have an ending, but it would have had one if season passes didn't exist. Another perfect example is Call of Duty. If people like you didn't buy the season pass for every game, the base game would probably have contained more maps to make the game more attractive. But as you say yourself, you pay full price for a game that is rather boring without the additional content from the season pass, so you pay another 75% of a retail price to complete the game and make a "potentially good game" into a "properly good game". That is horrible. My friends paid almost 100 euros for the newest Call of Duty. Activision would still be rich if they sold it for the standard 60 euros, but they want to be super rich because people like you allow them to.
Additionally, it is difficult for a group of friends to properly enjoy a multiplayer game together if only a few have the season pass. If I bought Call of Duty: Black Ops III to play with my close friends, I'd feel forced to fork out additional cash for content I don't want, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to play everything that they play. The result would be them shutting me out from one time to another, or maybe even most of the time, to play the DLC maps that I don't have. I'd definately cave in and buy the season pass as well in the end. That is why season passes, especially if they're announced before the content is even thought of, is dirty business.
Re: Not Even Dark Souls III Is Immune to the Season Pass
@springboy64 Agreed.
Re: Not Even Dark Souls III Is Immune to the Season Pass
Didn't Dark Souls II also offer a season pass? Nevertheless, it's a shame that such a great series uses an exploit like season pass, but at least From Software has made it known that they can make the additional content worth the payout, without compromising the basic content. Let's hope it stays that way.