I want to shed light on a tactic that involves collecting data as you play, feeding this data into complex algorithms and models that then alter the rules of your game under the hood to optimize spending opportunities.
I want to shed light on a tactic that involves collecting data as you play, feeding this data into complex algorithms and models that then alter the rules of your game under the hood to optimize spending opportunities.
DLC is honest. I get a thing in exchange for money. I know what the price tag is, and I’m happy to pay what I think is a fair price. And I only pay once to keep the thing I paid for, unlike a subscription.
Let me just cut straight past all your deflecting. Do you think that the final version of DBFZ, with all of its DLC, sold at its price, should be able to exist in this form?
I’m not participating in your all-or-nothing hypothetical. We just discussed how this exact game could have emerged without this exact business model.
And the version of the game with all the damn characters is the version where you had to keep paying to get all the damn characters.
If you mean, from today onward, should the game be priced piecemeal on Steam, then no. But it doesn’t magically revert to its launch state. I want them to sell the whole game… like regular. This is not a sprawling MMO. There’s not terabytes of content. It’s a 1v1 fighter with like thirty characters. If Arc honestly thinks the damn thing should be $130 when everything’s 70% off, let them stick that single price on it, and good fucking luck.
I don’t think you understand how much work it takes to design and balance that many characters in a serious competitive fighting game. Serious question, do you play competitive fighters at all, do you know anything about how they work?
In fact, the best way to ensure they’re all polished is to start small and expand incrementally over time. This is the right model for a competitive fighter. You’re deliberately ignoring the path to get from point A to point B if you think that in your world it would just be the final version right away. I’m saying that in your world, the fighting games I know and love would not be the games that I know and love.
Personally, my favorite game of all time is Skullgirls, and they have been very open and transparent about all the expenses involved in developing a much smaller cast. Look up their finances, look up how long it took their small team to get from the eight characters at launch to what they have today. And I’m very happy with every cent I spent on that game, they didn’t scam me by offering more of my favorite game. This is a game that has entertained me for a decade. Even if I count all the money I’ve spent on traveling to tournaments, which is far more than I spent on the game, it’s still quite possibly the most efficient form of entertainment I’ve ever gotten my money’s worth from.
Can I have the games that I know and love, in the format that allowed them to be the games that I know and love? There is no third option here.
Who are you talking to?
We just discussed how to incrementally build a game, without this specific business model. I am only against the business model. Do you know how to address that, without slapfighting a strawman? ‘Game design is hard’ doesn’t excuse this creeping systemic abuse.
Again: this is the low end, and it still expects $130 for an eight-year-old 1v1 fighter. 70% off. This business model inflates prices to the absurd extremes, even when it’s not an antipattern vortex.
I’m talking to you. You’re living in fantasy land claiming these games could be the exact same thing without the business model that made them possible. They would not.
Can I have the games that I know and love, in the format that allowed them to be the games that I know and love? There is no third option here.
We don’t have to leave your stated examples to find disproof of your pet dichotomy. SF4 had the same kind of evolution while selling versions like they still came on cartridges. It’s possible. You just don’t like it.
Unless you mean one single byte of FighterZ being different would be a completely different game, in which case, just, shut up. You keep trying to treat any change what-so-ever as equivalent to the whole game ceasing to exist. That’s horseshit. You need to stop.
I already told you that SF4 is exactly what people don’t want to go back to. The game was widely criticized for the fact that you had to buy every upgrade or be left behind. You might be the only person in the world who thinks that’s better than what we have now.
By the way, despite characters not being DLC when they should’ve been, SF4 did sell costume DLC, which you seem to think is the worst thing ever. IIRC, the kicker with SF4’s costumes is that your opponent couldn’t see them unless they also bought the costumes, and that was also something people disliked because they didn’t want to buy costumes no one will see.
That is what it means, to sell content. That is what actual expansions are. This song-and-dance where you have the whole game, but you’re not allowed to really have the whole game, is inseparable from everything you would call predatory. It’s only a matter of degrees.
One of the several alternatives you’ve repeatedly ignored is that these additions can be added to the game people already bought. Surprisingly, this does not involve slave labor for artists, because games that stay popular keep selling more copies. Do they make as much money? No. But it turns out maximum corporate revenue is not a guideline for ethics.
It is not inseparable from predatory, because it is not predatory to begin with.
The idea that they should just make all DLC free is not a viable alternative.