Lol I remember when N64 games were 19.99 and my parents used to say that was SOOO expensive..... Man I miss the 90's.

Features such as bonus skins, new weapons, houses, "entertaining the patrons," and horse armor. I do not count expansions, such as Dawnguard.


Quoted the wrong post. Above are examples of content I count as part of complete game. I don't buy dlc like Hearthfire or Wizard's Tower. For one, I don't play games to play doll house. Second being I shouldn't need to pay. I'm grateful they have "bonus" content, not grateful enough to buy it. I didn't pay anything for Firemoth, and that came with a trove of ebony and quest to reach it.

Ok first off you seem to not understand what's going on with fallout 4. Bethesda announced the season pass in september 2 months prior to the release and they were still working on getting it gold. Where did they withheld content from the base game? Automatron adds nothing to the core story of fallout where your son gets kidnapped. It's additional, optional, content you had to pay for. It does add new enemies yes but lets be honest those new enemy types isn't a big change.

You spent $30 for the season pass for pretty much far harbor coming out midnight today in 10 hours from now(for americans on the east coast, 9pm pacific). Automatron and Wasteland Workshop were pretty much free and to top it off if you bought it when it was cheaper you get the other expansions free of charge as well. If you waited you're pretty much paying for far harbor and the next 2 dlc's afterwards since automatron and WW are cheaper.

Bethesda is not a great example to claim you're paying for the game twice. That is actually reserved for Destiny: you bought the original game 2 years ago at October 2014 and then you need spend an additional 40 dollars for The Taken King and expansions I and II in order to play the game as it is now. Since i got the base game for free i'm overlooking that but this season pass for fallout 4 are content they made AFTER fallout 4 was launched and they started working on it in December and then took 2 weeks break and continued in January. So how did they withheld the content? Explain and cite sources please.

I can't speak for anyone else but for PS+ i feel there's just too many indie games being pushed for free and not enough other games like batman arkham knight, or battlefield 4 or assassins Creed 4.....etc none of these had a price cut on PS+ in the past 7 months. Mean awhile before PS4 playstation 3 actually had these types of games get a big price cut or even free. PS+ for ps4 has been a disaster and it's clear the only reason to have PS+ is for multiplayer access which is a darn shame.

I think that's mainly because you only see games where devs need that instant guaranteed cashflow from Sony. The only way a game gets put on that collection is if the dev/pub wants it to be there and then an agreement is worked out. In the early days, I'm betting the bigger guys saw this as an opportunity for better cash flow but realized later on that it wasn't as big as they hoped for. Take Psyonix for example: They have stated that Rocket League could have sold on it's own and there's a good chance they would have made more money on PS4 than they did, but it wasn't guaranteed. Many of the Sony users that have the game got it because of PS+, but many more got it afterwards because of how they heard the game was so much fun. The big question is: how well would the game have sold if not for being part of the IGC on PS+? Hard to say, but if as many users would have bought it who now have it, oh yeh...it would have been well worth it to not put it on that list. Then again, next time they could probably negotiate a bigger sum.


The deals you get from it though still work very nicely. And there are always games on sale on PSN in general, not just PS+ (usually when a sale goes on, there are two listing prices...the sale price, and the PS+ sale price).

The point I'm trying to make is that it's a logical paradox to claim that DLC exists today because games aren't released in a complete state, yet games released before DLC was "a thing" were released in a complete state and wouldn't have released additional features as DLC. The fact is that before DLC became a possibility, we have no idea whether or not the developers would have released additional features and content as DLC because they couldn't have if they'd wanted to (not in any sort of practical way, anyway...what would they do, mail everyone a stack of floppy disks?). The whole argument that the state of games and their "completeness" at release are different now than they were then can't hold water for this reason.

The fact that companies release additional features and content as DLC today is only an indicator that they can do something in today's world that developers of yesteryear could not. Any further assumptions on the subject would be just that...assumptions (and in at least a few cases I'm pretty sure they'd be incorrect assumptions). Again, I've been gaming since the early '80s, and I can think of at least a few games from "back in the day" that likely would have released unfinished content as DLC if it had been an option. Patches as well...

So far not much indie games interest me on there. Some seem too oldie for my tastes as i'm a bit older and my tastes while expanded in variety is more accustomed to current style games.

As i said the PS+ right now on PS4 has in my opinion has been terrible. PS3 PS+ was far better. Instead we should call this Indie+ because that's really what it's turned into and quite frankly that's NOT how the system was meant to be. It was meant for deals of games and silly stuff like avatars and themes.

Looking on the PS+ Discounts the selection right now is pretty terrible and no justification for it. I'm not saying there should be new AAA titles being 20% off or something but give us things like Lords of Fallen, battlefield, call of duty, any games that people can recognize those are the titles that needs to be on there. The indie games are nice but when your entire PS+ free collection consists of NOTHING but indies than people will say "screw this. PS+ is only useful for multiplayer not the games" which is a shame because they should be working in harmony not one being the main focus for everyone.

No game has ever been complete. Declared finished because of time and budget constraints maybe, but not complete. They always have some kind of glitch or can be improved in some way. Console games too.

And as far as pre internet access, many games needed patches. I know this because every issue of PC Gamer that I had in the 90s(I subscribed for about 10 years) had either a 3.5 floppy or a CD that had patches for games. And that was for DoS before Windows 95 came out.