Beamer wrote on Dec 21, 2024, 10:04:
I think it's unfair to judge a game on extending itself simply because plenty do it poorly.

I mean, I only had one of the Quake expansion packs. Did that mean I only had 2/3 of the game?

For a lot of developers, it's a way to add things beyond the additional scope without having to make a full sequel. It let's them be more creative and fake more risks. We shouldn't discourage this automatically, and it isn't as if expansion packs are a new concept. Hell, remember how much buying 3 additional cars, on floppy disks, cost for the original Test Drive games?

Yes, some developers exploit this, but I can only really think of one time I felt like I got an incomplete game, and that was only because Patriot Prime or whatever in Fallout 3 was so heavily featured but you needed an expansion to get the payoff to the story, which was slight anyway.

Otherwise? I personally have never felt let down and like I've needed to buy an expansion. Your experiences may be different, and your opinions, but it seems pretty clear plenty of devs do this honestly and in ways that benefit consumers.

I don't necessairly disagree with you in theory, but it is money man and these are just video games. Once you get burned a few times, where you feel like you got shorted or they are just trying to milk you.....it's kinda hard to get myself put money into anything resembling that business model again. Particularly when the digital age offers so much in terms of entertainment these days.

I guess bottom line, I think you can hold future games accountable for the actions of past games. It's an industry. They gave up their opportunity for me to treat them as art when they told me I don't own my games and it's just a service. If the industry doesn't wan to be held accountable for the actions of its members, the industry ought to clean itself up. paricularly when executives and employees jump companies all the time. How the hell should I know who to hold accountable when I am not happy? Seems like the best option is to simply not give them money in the first place until I am comfortable with what I see happening. Which right now...is the GOTY edition 5 years later usually.

Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 21, 2024, 11:18:
Although I would grant some caution on how the "average" car price was calculated.

Oh definitely.
It was simply the top text in a search.

I consider a honda accord the average (don't ask me how I calculated it , but people are buying more expensive suv's and pickups nowadays - which would significantly inflate the average) https://www.kbb.com/honda/accord/1995/
today a new 2024 accord shows a Price Range of $27,895 - $38,890 of https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2024/?msockid=1f1d0123436f640312df157f428165ab

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 21, 2024, 09:02:
In 1995, the average price of a car was $18,000.

In 2024, the average price of a car is $47,000.

The Minneapolis Fed inflation calculator shows that same 1995 $18k in today's dollars is worth $37143.79

Is that the reason we have subscription headlights?

Apparently and unsurprisingly, corporate greed has inflated also? Although I would grant some caution on how the "average" car price was calculated.

I think it's unfair to judge a game on extending itself simply because plenty do it poorly.

I mean, I only had one of the Quake expansion packs. Did that mean I only had 2/3 of the game?

For a lot of developers, it's a way to add things beyond the additional scope without having to make a full sequel. It let's them be more creative and fake more risks. We shouldn't discourage this automatically, and it isn't as if expansion packs are a new concept. Hell, remember how much buying 3 additional cars, on floppy disks, cost for the original Test Drive games?

Yes, some developers exploit this, but I can only really think of one time I felt like I got an incomplete game, and that was only because Patriot Prime or whatever in Fallout 3 was so heavily featured but you needed an expansion to get the payoff to the story, which was slight anyway.

Otherwise? I personally have never felt let down and like I've needed to buy an expansion. Your experiences may be different, and your opinions, but it seems pretty clear plenty of devs do this honestly and in ways that benefit consumers.

yonder wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 10:59:
Why?

Are you unaware that it's a 100% perfectly valid game with all free updates if you don't buy the completely optional DLC?

I will never understand the hatred for this content model

As someone who once dearly loved Stellaris, I can answer that in regards to this specific title.

The base game has radically changed over time (the loss of multiple modes of travel, the completing gutting and replacing of planetary management, the change of fleet compositions, total reversal and changes of some culture types, etc) solely to service the DLC.

The current base game is nearly unrecognizable from the release base game and not for the better in many ways. Butchering the base game to soft pressure you in to continuous DLC purchases is bullshit, plain and simple.

In 1995, the average price of a car was $18,000.

In 2024, the average price of a car is $47,000.

The Minneapolis Fed inflation calculator shows that same 1995 $18k in today's dollars is worth $37143.79

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator

Is that the reason we have subscription headlights?

JTW wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 22:40:
When people refused to budge on the price of new games increasing,

I'll admit I have a partial mental block on this. According to the inflation calculator I have bookmarked:

1995 -> 2024

$30.00 -> $62.10
$50.00 -> $103.51

So, I really should not mind too much paying $100 for a game. But I admit, anything over $60 gives me pause. But I also know games aren't the only product which has the mental block for me and I suspect it is true for others. Something I am aware of and occasionally try to stamp down...

This comment was edited on Dec 21, 2024, 08:47.

people refused to budge on the price of new games increasing,

source?

Just based on inflation, most new games should be about $110 each now. And that doesn't include the increased costs of making a game with 20 people in the 90s vs 200 people now. If prices were a function of cost (even taking into account volume), games should probably be closer to $130.

When people refused to budge on the price of new games increasing, publishers had a choice: find another way to make up for the loss, or stop making games.

Thus we get DLC, season passes, battle passes, and games-as-a-service. It was our own choice.

Pick your poison.

I'm mostly playing Marvel Rivals and Indiana Jones now. Indiana Jones is such a weird game. People love it, and I like it too, but it feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be. I just run around punching nazi's. I hardly use stealth. The game isn't hard. The AI is very dumb.

I'm looking at the Final Fantasy VII Remake since today for some reason. Not sure why. I've never played FF. I think I need a flashy, bombastic single player game and Indiana Jones just isn't scratching that itch.

yonder wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 10:59:

Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 08:01:
I saw Stellaris was 90% off so I was thinking, yeah I can do that for $4. Then I saw the bundle for some expansions, and thought "Hmm, maybe?" And then I saw "Season 08 - Expansion Pass".. and said, "Yeah, no thanks -- so much for that idea."

Why?

Are you unaware that it's a 100% perfectly valid game with all free updates if you don't buy the completely optional DLC?

I will never understand the hatred for this content model

For me it's because I have experienced games that roll fixes and quality of life changes into DLC. Or worse, they make game modes they promised to be in release part of a paid-for after release DLC. Companies do that shit all the time. It's really damn annoying. No idea if this game has done that, but it has happened a couple of times to me with other franchise and it eventually changed how I look at game purchases in a predictable fashion. Now if I know the game plans to have extensive DLC, liek a Stellaris, I just never start it in the first place or I wait until they are done releasing DLC and see if the "whole package" is being sold for an amount I think is reasonable. More often then not it is leading me to not buy the game at all. I also think that for me some of it is basic FOMO or a completionist mentality, which is normal, but not rational obviously.

yonder wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 10:59:
Why?

Are you unaware that it's a 100% perfectly valid game with all free updates if you don't buy the completely optional DLC?

I will never understand the hatred for this content model

Hatred is too strong a word. It is more along the lines of distrust. My warning radar goes off when I see so many expansions/updates, especially "seasons". Seasons in something like Path of Exile, I get it. Seasons in a strategy game? That sounds weird. But I'll take a closer look...

Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 08:01:
I saw Stellaris was 90% off so I was thinking, yeah I can do that for $4. Then I saw the bundle for some expansions, and thought "Hmm, maybe?" And then I saw "Season 08 - Expansion Pass".. and said, "Yeah, no thanks -- so much for that idea."

Why?

Are you unaware that it's a 100% perfectly valid game with all free updates if you don't buy the completely optional DLC?

I will never understand the hatred for this content model

Jim wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 10:00:
One model some developers use is to continue producing content for their games after launch. That doesn't mean the base game is incomplete,

All true, perhaps all the expansions are worth their various costs. But it is too much for my minor interest to deal with.

It's fixed now, but amusingly the "Popular New Releases" section on steam had a hover-over that would display hardcore porn on it. NOW it's a series of 4 static, non-explicit images. I dunno if that was Steam's doing, or the dev's doing (I don't know who decides what's shown in the hover-over). I don't really CARE, so much as I'm amused by it, but a friend of mine was concerned that it was plainly visible. And just in time for the holiday sale when tons more people are going to be perusing the front page than usual!

Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 20, 2024, 08:01:
I saw Stellaris was 90% off so I was thinking, yeah I can do that for $4. Then I saw the bundle for some expansions, and thought "Hmm, maybe?" And then I saw "Season 08 - Expansion Pass".. and said, "Yeah, no thanks -- so much for that idea."

One model some developers use is to continue producing content for their games after launch. That doesn't mean the base game is incomplete, just if you enjoyed it and wanted more then more is available. stellaris has some pretty positive reviews and the price is decent

I saw Stellaris was 90% off so I was thinking, yeah I can do that for $4. Then I saw the bundle for some expansions, and thought "Hmm, maybe?" And then I saw "Season 08 - Expansion Pass".. and said, "Yeah, no thanks -- so much for that idea."

Xero wrote on Dec 19, 2024, 22:13:
Stickers are lame. I think Steam would make a killing if everyone dollar you spent earned you points to spend on games. Something like every other company is doing in regards to fast food or coffee places. It gives you an incentive to spend more.

Valve would have to foot the bill for that. They'd have to pay the publisher for each game that was given away free. Excepting Valve games which most folks own already.

Oh yeah, well 3dfx 0wn3z J00!

Seems kind of weird to stop giving away cards like they used to. It costs Valve nothing and it's free money if they get sold on the market. Valve and the publisher get a small cut of the sale, and the seller can only spend that money on Steam. Back when they used to give away 3 cards per day and foils were in the drops, you could make a few bucks each event, which I put toward buying a game. I remember one event I got 3 foil drops, which sold for over $3 each. When they started giving one card per day without foil drops, it wasn't worth the time for a few cents.