Home » News » Game On or Game Over – Greed is good! Or Is it?
News

Game On or Game Over – Greed is good! Or Is it?

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Andy: What was the last truly great game you played? I know, we don’t usually start the topic with a question but it’s fitting. Let me explain. How many games that have been released in the past say five years that have stood by themselves as great games. It seems like a day doesn’t go by anymore where I don’t hear the words “did you get the new DLC?” How many games have been released recently where out of the box that’s the experience you get? It seems like we have moved from entertainment and developers making their grand visions to gamers being nothing more than cash machines with the ideal that “build it and they will come”. Downloadable content, heck, more and more we’re seeing Day 1 DLC available, micro-transactions and even the dreaded ‘grinds for hours to afford that new shiny or just pay us and you can unlock it now’. I can’t think of the last game I bought where there was no DLC attached to it.

To take it a step further look at companies like Capcom that have released a full retail game with things cut from the game and hidden behind a ‘DLC’ model but everything is still on the disc. Remember Elder Scrolls Oblivion released the horse armor? It’s frustrating as a gamer that the game I buy from the store, sealed and brand new is not even the full experience anymore. Add to that what seems like blatant copy and paste from some developers releasing pretty much the same game with each installment. It’s nothing more than a blatant cash grab, but also does nothing to innovate the industry and developers stop thinking outside the box to come up with something new. Before I get on too much of a soap box here, what are your thoughts on this?

Nicholas: Whenever I think of ‘great games’, my mind always goes to Mass Effect 3. That said, I feel it’s somewhat of a cop-out given I constantly use it as an example, so I decided to think a little harder. There’s no doubt that I’ve played some good games lately – Forza Motorsport 5 or Need For Speed Rivals, but I guess I wouldn’t call them great. For me, the last game that I’ve probably put some serious hours into, and which truly impressed me, was Pokémon X for the 3DS. It’s actually quite fitting that this would come to mind, especially when you ask how many games have been released that stand on their own as great games without the need for new DLC.

The topic of incomplete games or cut content that is then later released as DLC is something that gamers have been vocally upset about for a while now, and I know it’s certainly a topic that I’ve discussed multiple times with a close friend of mine. I can see how the horse armour in Oblivion was ridiculous, I can understand how Capcom holding content that was available on the disc can annoy gamers as well (it happened with DLC cars for Need For Speed ProStreet too), and I can certainly see how gamers can feel like Day 1 DLC is a rort too. That all said, I like to try and see the other side for most of these issues.

Let’s start with the horse armour. A trivial piece of DLC? Undoubtedly. Did the developers force you to buy it? No. Did it really make a difference on the game? No. For me, it was a joke of content, but it wasn’t anything that gamers couldn’t have just avoided. Withholding content on a game just to have it released later via paid DLC is a joke, and I completely agree that it’s a dick move. As far as Day 1 DLC goes, I can see both sides of the fence. Yes, it’s all good and well to assume that the developers are reserving content and charging us, but it also relies on an assumption that the DLC was finished prior to the game going gold. While there’s always a chance that developers are potentially trying to squeeze more money from us, I think it’s unfair to assume all developers are doing this all the time. When we don’t know whether the content was finished, or whether it was being worked on late in the development cycle, these are all speculations and I think sometimes we like to overreact and assume the worst.

Sticking with DLC though, I don’t necessarily believe that it needs to be a bad thing. Think of games like Grand Theft Auto IV or Red Dead Redemption. Now both are released by Rockstar, but even though the games had DLC packs released for them, there’s no denying that the base games themselves were amazing. You mentioned some of the seemingly money-grabbing tactics that we’re starting to see from the industry. Now to me, I think things will only get worse, but the question I’d like to ask you isn’t just whether you agree, but why? Things like cut content, Day 1 DLC and pointless add-ons, do you think this only exists and continues to exist because gamers continue to support it? That despite being vocal, we never end up ‘voting with our wallets’?

GoGo-Greed-01

Andy: Gamers are certainly an interesting bunch aren’t we? I think a good majority of it exists because gamers keep snatching it up. Naturally, as a developer if customers are willing to buy it, there is no incentive to change the model with which they are working. Like you, I know of several people who complain endlessly about DLC and micro-transactions. They deride it as an evil scheme by developers to suck as much money out of games as possible. Then, you join a game with them and they are running around with a gun wrapped in bacon all because it’s funny and was only $2. Therein lies the problem, gamers complain about all number of things yet time after time they continue to purchase the very thing they are complaining about.

Since we’re talking about DLC I think we should touch on the different types of DLC just so we’re on the same page here. There’s expansion type DLC, generally a little more spendy but offers up a ton of content. When I think of expansions I think of Red Dead Redemption Undead Nightmare or Dragon Age: Origins Awakening. Next you have what I’ll call more traditional DLC; here you have map packs for FPS games, story-based DLC such as “Pint Lookout” from Fallout 3 or the “Citadel” from Mass Effect 3. The third type is DLC that really doesn’t add to the gaming experience and is purely cosmetic or allows those who purchase it to unlock things they could otherwise earn by playing the game. This would be things like weapon skins, micro-transactions, time saver packs, etc.

So, with that out of the way, my biggest point of contention with DLC are the ones that fall into the third group – character skins for a FPS, gun camouflage, character skins in games like Minecraft and liveries for cars. Those are the things that make me just want to scream at gamers to stop buying them. They serve no real purpose and after five minutes you forget they are even there. If you look at the cost-to-gameplay ratio they are, in my opinion, not worth the purchase price. It seems gamers are conditioned to buy anything that comes out for their respective franchises without much thought or critical thinking behind it. I understand supporting a game or franchise, yet blindly doing so by purchasing things that don’t impact any aspect of the actual game is something that gamers need to be more conscious of and stop supporting.

One of the reasons I am so passionate about this is a retail game here in the US is $60. Using Call of Duty Ghost as an example the myriad of both traditional DLC and micro-transaction type DLC. A couple weeks ago they released the “Soap McTavish Legend Pack” for $3.99. A simple skin pack is 1/15 the price of the full retail game, when a company can generate that type of additional revenue and continue to churn out skin packs and weapon camo, there is zero reason for them to change anything about what they are doing. Just typing this reply has gotten me thinking and since I’m such a nice guy I want to make you think as well. Is it just my perception or is it the more successful a franchise the more likelihood that money grabbing DLC practices will be instituted? It seems like with each additional game in a series/franchise more and more DLC is tacked onto it. Or have I lost my mind?

Nicholas: That’s a really interesting question, but I wonder whether it has something to do with the franchise or whether it comes down to the developer/publisher – perhaps even a combination of them both? If we stick with the Call of Duty example, even if it’s something as trivial as a livery for your weapon, developers know, publishers know and I’m sure we both know, that there are going to be people out there willing to buy them. Now is this because CoD has a massive fanbase, and even if only 1% of gamers buy it then Activision will generate a sizable amount of money? Very likely. Alternatively, as one of the largest publishers, does Activision simply say that they need to make this content and it’s irrelevant what the franchise is? Also possible. I think it’s important that when it comes to (seemingly) trivial things like gun skins, that we recognise it isn’t specific to just one or two franchises either. I’ve actually had a friend who told me that a cosmetic skin for a weapon in Counter Strike fetched a few thousand dollars recently. Yes, A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS!

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that gamers need to change their spending habits, and I think this is a major reason why we’ve yet to see any real push back on publishers to fix these seemingly money-hungry ways. Like you said, gamers are well and happy to complain about micro-transactions and sneaky DLC practices, but are we really telling these companies that we’ve had enough? For everyone who complains that the Call of Duty franchise isn’t innovating – how many purchase the game anyway? For those people who complain about content being blocked from a game only to have it released via DLC later – who never purchased another title from the series? This for me is the underlying issue – yes, it’s all good and well to say that we’ve had enough, but show them we’ve had enough beyond a few snarky comments on a YouTube video or forum post. For me, I’m often not impressed with the price of DLC and what it offers so I pretty much never buy them. Seems simply to me.

I don’t think you’re too far off the mark with your final comment either. Sticking with Call of Duty Ghosts as an example, yes, the franchise does appear to have more unnecessary DLC packs than games before with, both with map packs and ridiculous things like Snoop Dogg’s commentary online). Even consider something like Forza Motorsport 5 where 80% of the car packs are recycled vehicles from the last game. Personally I only see this getting more prevalent (and dare I say worse) for as long as publishers can see that it works and it brings in the money.

Perhaps it’s important to play the devil’s advocate for a moment. So far we’ve been talking about these publishers/developers being merely money-hungry. Now it doesn’t take a genius to realise that games today are becoming greater and grander than over – just compare Forza Motorsport 5 to Super Mario Kart, or the original Super Mario game to something like Tomb Raider. Do you think, just possibly, that developers are employing these sneaky practices just so that they can pay for their new projects? Do you think it can be justified at all?

GoGo-Greed-03

Andy: If, and that’s a big if, that is a reason why developers employ DLC and micro-transactions I’d be just a tad bit okay with it. I think anytime you buy a game new you do two things. You support the series/franchise and you also support the developer and I’m completely fine with that. Yes games are bigger now and utilize more resources both in time and the talent to make them. I just don’t think either of those are necessarily a reason to start nickel and diming gamers to purchase all these trivial things. Why don’t developers take it a step further and really step on a gamers throat? Battlefield wants to make more money have micro-transactions for every 100 rounds of ammo, or if you buy 1,000 you can save 20%. Forza should charge for gas too – 20 gallons per increment but of course you can save 25% if you purchase 500 gallons in one shot. Final Fantasy could charge for each time the gamer saves their game. I mean, if they are going to charge us for everything just jump in and go full tilt, right? The sad reality is, there are gamers out there that would complain about it on the forums and then log onto their preferred gaming system and buy the very thing they were complaining about.

You bring up a very valid point about Counter Strike as well. I have a friend that got a box in the game and opened it up and received a rare knife valued at over $500. It’s amazing the amount of money that other users will pay to get rare items. Look at Blizzard and their Auction House for Diablo, though it has since been taken down I believe. In the news last week there was a story where Star Craft is suing a group of players who used hacks and exploits to get an insane amount of credits for the game. I remember in Borderlands when it first came out, visiting a gaming forum and people offering to sell duped items to people. It seems the days of paying retail price for a game and not having any other fee or transaction attached to it is getting smaller and smaller.

I do think the size of the developer and the success of the franchise is a direct indication of how much DLC and micro-content will be available for it. Also related to that is what a developer can get away with in terms of future games. The one game right now that is sticking out to me is the next Borderlands game, the Pre-Sequel. Randy Pitchford from Gearbox announced that it would not be available on the PS4 or Xbox One because the install base of those consoles was not high enough to make it worthwhile for them. That was at a point where the Xbox One had sold 5 million units and the PS4 had sold around 7 million units. That’s 12 million consoles for an install base. In the first month Borderlands 2 was released in September2012 it sold 1.48 million retail units. I don’t see Mr. Pitchford’s logic that there are not enough next generation systems in people’s homes to justify having it on those systems. The conspiracy theorist in me looks at that and thinks that Gearbox just doesn’t want to do the additional work of getting it ready on a new system, instead they’d rather copy and paste code to minimize the cost of a new game, but still charge full retail value and create as many new DLC options as they can. For that reason and the fact that I probably won’t buy another Xbox 360 game, I’ll never play the next Borderlands game even though I rather enjoyed the first two.

Regardless of the game, franchise or developer, if gamers keep throwing their money at new games that are essentially older games just with a slightly different look or characters, developers will keep churning out game after game. How many iterations are there now in the Dynasty Warriors series, Call of Duty or sports titles? Oh man speaking of sports titles, is there a worse offender than them? It’s almost always the same game with a few minor tweaks and new player rosters. I bought NHL 14 last year and was done playing it by the end of October. There was nothing different about it. I hate to say it but I’m probably done buying more sports games. That’s me speaking with my wallet though. Are there any games that you have played where after a few in the series you were frustrated and just stopped buying them? Do you think that’s the only way gamers can change that cycle?

Nicholas: The issue of developers still producing games exclusively for last generation consoles is a major gripe of mine. Reading above about the decision for Gearbox to make a game and release it only on the last generation consoles, when the new ones are in swing, is just frustrating. Yes, there are more Xbox 360s and PS3s out there right now than Xbox Ones and PS4s, but seriously? Seriously? I was extremely frustrated when I heard that the upcoming GRID: Autosport game wouldn’t be sold on the new consoles. No matter how good the game might end up being, I would rather go without it than support a publisher that is making games for old hardware in the pursuit of profits. It’s pathetic.

To answer your final questions though, to be honest, not really. I’ve been bothered by a few franchises before – DiRT and MotoGP come to mind, but despite this, I’ve still continued to purchase their games. Like I’ve mentioned in previous articles, some of this is due to the fact that there’s a part of me that hopes things will be different with the next game. With MotoGP for example, I’ve noticed improvements in presentation and gameplay each time, but it’s never been dramatic. Still, I enjoy a good motorbike game and because there’s so little out there I’m willing to give it a chance. I think the notion of speaking with our wallets is an important one, but it’s one we don’t follow through nearly enough. Even though I’ve said I’ll still buy new games each year, the one thing I’ve always been reluctant about is paying for micro-transactions and DLC, and while I’ve not done the former, I very rarely buy add-on content. As a matter of fact, if it wasn’t for the fact I’m fortunate enough to review some packs for free, I’d not touch them at all.

I do also think not paying for bad DLC and last generation titles is the only, and I stress only, way that we’ll break this cycle. A business will do what it can to make money, so if a model like micro-transactions works then you can best believe that they’re going to use it. If it doesn’t, then they’ll drop it and try something else. I think a lot of developers are still trialing it though now, and for the greater part are just riding off the success of freemium mobile games. What I mean by this, and as we discussed a few weeks back when we covered mobile games, is that companies know that micro-transaction to buy lives and power-ups work for mobile games. So knowing this, developers/publishers of retail games are seeing if it can work for their products too. I don’t know how successful it currently is, but I suspect if the commotion online is any indication, and if people are thinking as I do, then it’s something that will fizzle out. Bad DLC though is probably here to stay, because it started with the last generation and it’s still going on now.

I mentioned freemium games above, and I think it would be fitting to delve into this a little further in this article given the topic. We saw Xbox One try this model out with Killer Instinct and while some people said it was an alright game, it’s not one I’m seeing a lot of constant discussion on. For you, what are your thoughts on retail games potentially going down a freemium path? What do you think of freemium games overall, and do you think it’s a feasible option for these publishers to explore?

GoGo-Greed-04

Andy: Ah the rise of the freemium games. They are becoming more and more prevalent on consoles aren’t they? Killer Instinct, Happy Wars, World of Tanks, Warface and just last week Powerstar Golf went free to play, with the caveat that you have to buy the courses. I see them just like micro-transactions, they are a way to suck more money from gamers. I remember reading an article that broke down the profit from a retail game with DLC and a freemium game. Taking the average price of a new game at $60USD and a $25 season pass versus a freemium game that had varying degrees of paid content, the freemium game average price paid was right about $35. Of course there were outliers but the average was $35, and for a free-to-play game that’s a good profit. Yet, in my experience with F2P games, if you aren’t willing to invest either a lot of time to grind out challenges to get those credits or fork over real money, the enjoyment factor drops significantly. I personally rarely ever play a F2P game mostly because the time commitment to “get the good stuff” is usually insane and I refuse to spend the amount of money that is basically a pay to win scenario.

My worry for this new generation of games is that we are going to be nickel and dimed at every turn as developers and publishers continue to come up with new ways to separate us from our money. I said before that I probably won’t be buying any new games on the Xbox 360 because I want gaming to go to the next level. If gamers continue to throw money hand over fist at games that do not advance the industry then there is literally no motivation to do something new. I am also finding that I am being more selective of what I buy right away. Just look at the last few years of gaming, how many games had a number at the end of the title? Forza, Gears of War, Resident Evil, Assassin’s Creed, Halo and the list goes on and on. Sure I enjoyed most of those games at some point, but after a while doing the same thing over and over again gets old. That’s why I’m excited for this newest generation of gaming, to see what developers can do and what new experiences we can have.

At the same time I’m worried that those new experiences will come at a cost that changes how we play and experience games. I think it’s a genuine concern that gamers should have about all DLC, micro-transactions and what exactly a retail purchase of a game will truly mean. To close things up this week, for all the pomp and circumstance that ushered in this next generation of gamers – do you think the gaming landscape is changing for the better or are gamers in for years of micro-transactions and creative ways to be separated from our gaming dollars? Do you think we are going to see a proliferation of more DLC attached to games and even more freemium games?

Nicholas: I don’t think it’s all doom and gloom just yet. Sure, gaming has changed from how it was almost two decades ago – no longer is the game you purchase from the shelf going to be the final product and yes, we now have in-game purchases and transactions, but I think it’s still too early to say that gaming is on the brink of being ruined and we should look for another hobby to pursue. The lack of innovation was a serious threat that a lot of critics raised about the last generation and a lot of this seemed to stem from the fact that the last generation was becoming stale. We have new consoles now and I’m excited to see what they’ll bring, but we need to be a little patient and see where that goes. Both the Xbox One and the PS4 have been out for under a year now, and we’re still yet to see the release of a game that, at least for me, really pushes what’s possible with the new technology. Sure, there are some nice looking games (think Forza 5), but there’s no true ‘next-gen’ game … yet. I’d say we should give it another year, wait for developers to completely cut off support for the old consoles, and then see how business practices are then and whether they’ve changed/evolved.

Downloadable content offers developers a chance to improve, support and build upon their games post launch, and there’s no doubt that this is the way gaming should be heading. As with all things, some companies will use this as a chance to truly innovate and impress gamers and some won’t. Right now though, not every developer is trying to squeeze every last cent from us, and for those companies which are, for the greater part, you can avoid these attempts and still have a decent gaming experience. Freemium games might stick around for a while, but I don’t think we’ll see them stay around for long – it just isn’t a model that would work with full retail games in my eyes.

As we’ve said though, gamers just need to be aware of what’s going on and they need to not just speak with their words, but with their dollars too. If there’s something they don’t like, don’t just make a post on Facebook, don’t just make a tweet on Twitter and don’t just make a thread on a forum. Instead, actively show these developers and publishers that this isn’t a path we want the industry to go down and don’t buy their products or DLC. Maybe we might miss out on a good game or two, but perhaps one or two good games is a worthwhile expense if it means putting the entire industry back on track again.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.

Tags

This article may contain affiliate links, meaning we could earn a small commission if you click-through and make a purchase. Stevivor is an independent outlet and our journalism is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative.

About the author

Nicholas Simonovski

Events and Racing Editor at Stevivor.com. Proud RX8 owner, Strange Music fan and Joe Rogan follower. Living life one cheat meal at a time.