Don't forget about g2a.com . I've seen so many good deals on there. Just do your research to understand what it is.

With the crazy amount of sales going on and websites like Humble Bundle I have to agree with you. For $15 I got Valkyrie Chronicle the entire Dawn of War, Total War and Company of Heroes franchise.

Well, with the exception of Nintendo (apparently?) I would say console gaming is the same as well. The deals you can grab for new games is insane nowadays, and on top of that you have the instant game collections they pump out each month with the sub services are incredible. Just got Tropico 5, a game released on PS4 a year ago (which has been on numerous sales), just dropped for free for PS+ subs in the month of May. That's essentially a game for $2.08.

Don't forget the Monster Manual.

For a video game, that would be the equivalent of getting told that you had to buy three seperate things- the basic gameword and items (Dungeon Master's Guide), the Character Creation and levelling system (the Player's Handbook), and things to fight (the Monster Manual).

Furthermore, not all DLCs are bad. $2 weapon reskins for PvP is bad. Broken Steel, which was created as a response to player outcry, was not, and in fact could not have been included in the base game originially, as gamesas didn't know there would be a backlash against the original ending. Should they have included it anyway for free, considering that making it actually required additional development time and resources that went above and beyond simple patching?

I know what you mean. Just look at Civ VI. They want $80 for it now. I view new video games just like movies now. For movies, I just say in most cases, it's only 3 more months before it comes on Blue Ray. For video games the wait is a bit longer, but now I say, the beta comes out (actual release date) and in about a year or two is when the REAL release date comes out and usually get it cheaper as well. Just like in Civ V case. I didn't buy it, waited till the complete edition came out and got it on sale to boot. I guess that is why the game is being sold for $80. This way Firaxis/2K is getting my $50 instead of $30 lol.

There is. And nothing can be done about it, as long as gamers are willing to pay, which we always are.

Speak for yourself.

Based on how many millions of gamers still buy dlc for their incomplete games, I really don't have to. The collective attitude must be apathy, even gratitude, if consumers aren't organizing in large numbers to stop publishers from doling the completed game.

How do you determine what "should have been" part of the original game and what is a legit add-on? I mean, software development projects need to have a set scope so that costs can be managed and release dates can be hit. When the developers want to add features and content that can't fit into the scope for the development of the base product, how else can the features and content be made available if not as add-ons? Software costs money (lots of it) to develop, test, package, distribute, support, etc. In general, games cost a lot more to develop now than they used to. Many games from the '80s (and even the '90s) were created by teams of 1-10 people. Modern AAA games require dozens of people to develop.

Where does one draw the line between what "should be" part of the base product and what can justifiably be sold as an optional add-on? Or, should the features and content that wouldn't fit into the original project just be left on the "cutting room floor," never to be seen by gamers? That, of course, is assuming that all DLC is content that was planned as part of the original project, which in many cases is probably also an incorrect assumption.

I think this needs to be defined before any claims that content is being intentionally withheld for the purpose of fleecing/milking customers can hold water. It might be true in some cases, but I'm not buying the idea that all DLC is sold for the purposes of milking a customer base.

And what would you consider a complete game? If you want to get technical, no game in the history of video and computer gaming has ever been complete.

Actually lot's of them are

That's cool! Good thing all humans are not alike, right?

I have always had a "wait to purchase" policy and it works well for me. The best part is the working out of most (many?) bugs. Then I can usually buy the game cheaper and in a more stable state

Only time that rules doesn't apply to me is Bethesda Elder Scroll Games and Fallout. Usually they are Day One buys for me. Except for Fallout 4, that was my first ever Pre-Purchase and with Season pass as well.

I completely agree. I would rather be gaming on a PC today then back in the horrible 80's or 90's.

And I am an "old fart" myself. In fact, I'm probably older than anybody in this thread. Age has nothing to do with it.

Most games of yesteryore were "complete." Internet access was not a common thing and delivery of "additional content" was much more difficult. Did the Ultima SP-RPG series have any added content? I don't know as I have yet to play them. Baldur's Gate (one of my first RPGs) had no additional content, but it did have a sequel.

Now, I'm not sure if any game has released with "all" of the developers hopes for features, as many get cut along the production process and time crunches come in. Sometimes that practice is quite obvious.

I think what wrankles in many minds is the "Day 1 DLC" crap we hear about every now and again, or game discs that have locked content included on them. And while there is usually a big "internet stink", players still buy millions of dollars worth.

What about Rock*? They have given all the DLC for GTA5 for free.

They can afford to because of the shark cards. With every new update they get people who want all the new stuff now and use those cards to get it right away rather than grind to make in game money.

That single player is nothing more than an afterthought. A useless vestige of the past that would be better off dropped for good.

IOW, what just about any publisher of multiplayer games thinks any more.

That's really kind of a subjective thing.

TBH, that bothers me a lot less than the 10+ GB "hotfix" that gets released on Day One.

From what I've seen its a good run through though, many positive reviews from people who had low expectations.


Plus that level creator is going to encourage the old user-created content community to get building fast. There will be plenty of single player content beyond just the campaign.

Sure, but it'll be just like Super Mario Maker. You'll have your impossible maps, gimmick maps, wacky maps etc, but you will not have anything with depth. It all comes across as superficial at best.

For me, aesthetics are an important thing and we'll see nothing "new" in those user-created maps. If people could upload their own licensed music, that'd be cool, but it won't happen because it's licensed. Likewise, we're not going to get anything from anything that's even a slight rip-off of anything licensed.

This is exactly the same problem as the Creation Kit for Fallout 4 and why it's going to bring nothing but utter disappointment to consoles.

It's [censored] pointless!

Even the CK lists Mods as "cheats" essentially, so no Achievements either.

Why even bother?

not really.. they still had content that was cut due to time or budgetary constraints, they still had bugs that weren't fixed, there were still things that after release the devs went "damn, you know we really should have added that!"..



only difference now is, that can more easily add and fix those things now.. but that doesn't make a game without the DLC any less complete than an RPG from the mid 90s..

Which I said in the part you cut out of my quote

As for adding and fixing, sure it's easier now. But it depends on the DLC, really. Hearthfires (as an example), could have been in the base game. Dawnguard and Dragonborn were completely new storylines. I don't recall any RPGs of old that added new stories without releasing a whole new game, or sequel. But I never played all the games, so I'm sure there are exceptions

Can you imagine trying to patch an old NES game?

When is a game finished? You can always add more.


I think this whole DLC movement is in response to the market. $60.00 is a hefty price to pay, but to make that $90.00, or $110.00? Ridiculous. And yet that's something we pay ultimately.


Video games used to sell for $50.00, right? Then they cranked it up? The industry wants to grow, and so they implement a deal to break through the consumer psychology.


At the end of the day, whatever makes you more money allows you to exist, even in a fiscal environment that could potentially be toxic.


And eventually inflation will catch up. Maybe it already has. There's a point when a $59.99 game becomes a $49.99 game again.