Topic: PlayStation4 - News/Rumor/Speculation - Over 1 Million Sold on Day 1

[Fatty The Hutt]

The difference between a book and a video game is development costs. A single person can write a book, and the only equipment required is a typewriter, computer, or a pen and paper. The person writing the book probably isn't even being paid to do it. So the cost to write a book is extremely low, and almost free really. But video games are a very different story. Have you ever sat through the end credits at the end of a video game? There can be hundreds of names of people involved. All or most of them are being paid a wage to do it, and some of them like well known celebrity voice actors and composers are probably getting paid very well. So the amount of money required to develop a major game is not very different than the huge amount of money required to make a major motion picture.

That's why a used game market could be more problematic than a used book market. A lot of game developers/publishers seem to be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and many have come and gone over the years. Clearly its not a very easy market to thrive in.

This argument is complete bullshit. I don't have the time or patience to explian why. I'm just stating. Used books are left alone because of long-established law and tradition, not because they cost less to produce. Book publishers and sellers are routinely facing bankruptcy too.

[Ceric]

...
Used books are left alone because of long-established law and tradition, not because they cost less to produce. Book publishers and sellers are routinely facing bankruptcy too.

Agree with that statement.  Publishers have always belly ached about used book sells.  Though they have sort of had to allow it because books have been around for so very very long.  Also they get a bit of cushioning that games do not get.  A lot of books the amount you get for trading them in or the amount you save from buying used really isn't that much plus you know the whole Library thing.

[nickmitch]

Books have development costs. Who says they don't? Most publishers give advances to people who write books so that they can eat and pay bills while devoting their time to writing the book. Each time a publisher does that is basically a gamble since the book may or may not sell.

[oohhboy]

Capcom takes a piss in own cup and drinks it. Capcom makes no differentiation between DLC on or off disc.

Relavent? Yes. Why? Shows the level of contempt most major publishers have the gamers. Why support people and companies that are out there openly insulting you. I thought they learned their lesson with Mercenaries. I am clearly wrong.

At this point it doesn't matter what kind of justification they use for XYZ. If they can't even treat paying customers properly, there is no reason not to treat every large publisher including Nintendo with open hostility and contempt until there is a permanent, positive change to their behaviour.

We need a thread for gaming name and shame.

[Spak-Spang]

Actually I kinda agree with Capcom...however from a different angle. 

Basically on or off the disc many companies are using DLC to get a few extra bucks off of a customer.  These companies are doing it by withholding content already developed in the initial game release, for any number of reasons.  Though, the largest now seems to be able to sell it later. 

So if the content is already developed it doesn't matter if it is initially one the disc or if it is installed later because in both those cases the developer initially withheld product from the consumer to make more money.

I think download content is more acceptable when the developer creates the content after the game is created to add a new mission or subplot or something after the fact.  Then that is justifiable...and obviously not on the disc. 

[nickmitch]

If I pay for a complete experience and get a complete experience, I'm happy. If there's something on the disc that I have to pay extra for, then I don't really care. I don't have to pay for it. People who enjoy fighting games may feel differently with characters, a compulsion to complete the roster, but they were gonna make you pay extra for something. How it got to you is kind of a moot point.

[Adrock]

Capcom takes a piss in own cup and drinks it.

Not everyone considers that a bad thing.

[NWR_insanolord]

There was an interesting discussion of this kind of thing on Weekend Confirmed a couple weeks ago. The argument made was that the DLC content only exists because the business plan was to sell it. It's not a question of charging for the content vs. including it for free; it's charging for the content or the content not existing. Once you realize the business end of it, that the content wouldn't be there at all if they weren't charging for it, it becomes irrelevant whether it's on the disc or not.

[tendoboy1984]

There was an interesting discussion of this kind of thing on Weekend Confirmed a couple weeks ago. The argument made was that the DLC content only exists because the business plan was to sell it. It's not a question of charging for the content vs. including it for free; it's charging for the content or the content not existing. Once you realize the business end of it, that the content wouldn't be there at all if they weren't charging for it, it becomes irrelevant whether it's on the disc or not.

But it makes no sense to charge for a patch that just unlocks content that's already on a disc.

You already bought the game, why should you be denied content that is already on the disc?

Making DLC that is an expansion to the game is a better idea, IMO. It extends the replay value of the game.

[NWR_insanolord]

The content wouldn't be on the disc if they weren't going to charge for it, though. The business plan for the game involves that content being paid DLC. Whether it's on the disc or has to be downloaded later isn't important

[tendoboy1984]

The content wouldn't be on the disc if they weren't going to charge for it, though. The business plan for the game involves that content being paid DLC. Whether it's on the disc or has to be downloaded later isn't important

But the whole concept of having to download an unlock key to access content that is already on the disc is ridiculous. It's like buying a car, only to find out you can't use the radio unless you pay an extra $30. I know you're not paying for the game's unlock key, but it's a decent analogy.


I remember when we used to unlock extra content by actually playing the game. Only the most skilled players could unlock everything in the game.  Smash Bros. Brawl and Kid Icarus Uprising are perfect examples of this.

[Stogi]

I think it's pretty underhanded as well. But I really don't care either way. In fact, I'd prefer "DLC" be on the disc so when hackers get through with it, you don't have to deal with these underhanded tactics if you don't want to.

DLC is a terrible thing to begin with. There is no way in hell that it can't become a slippery slope into debauchery. At least Capcom is honest about it. How many levels do you think are made after the fact for Modern Warfare? I'd bet less then half. I'd bet you anything that Activision withholds the entire product in order to sell it slowly through DLC.

More companies are bound to follow....even Nintendo. But why can't the purchase of the game not be enough?

[TJ Spyke]

Capcom are hardly the only company to charge people to unlock something (it's not DLC then). It's moronic and insulting since the content is already done. It's different to plan to do DLC, a good example is WWE 12 added in Brodus Clay, who made his return after the game was already out. I refuse to pay for content already on the disc.

[BlackNMild2k1]

PlayStation 4: Sony “confident” of pre-Xbox 720 release
http://ht.ly/a1pXW  <--VG24/7

The design goalposts for PS4, including specs, were in place at least two years ago, we were told. Our source said that Sony is “confident” it will have the console at market ahead of the next generation Xbox next Christmas.

“Sony are completely in the belief that they have the jump on Microsoft this time,” they said. “You should be watching the timing of next year’s E3 keynotes, and who’s going to go first.”

A second source said this morning that all next-generation systems will be in place “by 2014″.

We were told today that Crytek was scaling its tech on the assumption that PS4 was going to be using a 24-core Cell processor as opposed to the eight-core unit in PS3. The studio was forced to halt development and start afresh when it was informed PlayStation 4 won’t be using Cell at all.

In addition VG247 has been told that elements of Vita’s launch hardware were changed to ensure that PS4 and Vita will be able to connect in a similar style to Nintendo’s Wii U and its controller – due for release this year – with Vita’s being used to control PS4 games with both twin sticks and touch.

I know both Sony & MS said they will not be talking Next Gen @ E3 this year, but you just know that one or both of them are gonna drop some sort of teaser to attempt to spoil the Nintendo party that will be E3 2012. And for as much as we will all likely luv luv luv E3 this year, E3 2013 is gonna be INSANE!!!

[oohhboy]

Insanolord, at what point does DLC stop becoming DLC and become fraud by deception?.  Would you consider it fair game if they sold you 10% of a game at full price and then asked you to pay extra for the for the remaining 90% they had already developed but locked behind a pay wall? 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10%?

Sure the company planned this all along, it's in "The Budget", but that plan doesn't matter to the consumer. the consumer doesn't give a rats ares what justification you might give. All they see is you double dipping. There is no percentage you can say this is where DLC stops and fraud begins. Even by stripping out content off disc and selling it back to you later is fraud since the very action revolves around the company actively being dishonest about their products.

All this DLC abuse will only poison gaming to future growth. There is no reason why such behaviour should ever be condoned as acceptable.

Looks like Crytek got trolled.

[Chozo Ghost]

Wasn't the Cell processor supposed to be some revolutionary huge leap forward that supposedly shattered Moore's law? At least that was how Sony seemed to have trumpeted it when it was first introduced. I guess it really wasn't all it was cracked up to be if they are kicking it to the curb.

[broodwars]

Insanolord, at what point does DLC stop becoming DLC and become fraud by deception?.  Would you consider it fair game if they sold you 10% of a game at full price and then asked you to pay extra for the for the remaining 90% they had already developed but locked behind a pay wall? 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10%?

If the content accessible to you normally on the disc feels like a full experience, does it really matter?  That's really the key when it comes to DLC: regardless of the origin of the DLC content, does the game you buy at retail already feel like a worthy experience?  I've seen games on both sides of that question.  In the case of something like Fallout 3 or Valkyria Chronicles, I will eagerly tell you that what was on disc was well worth my $60+.  In a lot of Capcom or EA titles, perhaps not so much and I budget my money accordingly

I get rather tired of the entitled gamers of this generation who feel like they should have access to everything a company does for a game, just because that's how it's been in the past.  Gaming in modern times is IMO the best it's ever been overall, and it's easily the cheapest it's ever been as well (accounting for inflation).  There are so many options and so many different ways you can acquire games, and people latch onto this one (mainly, I suspect, because they choose to not afford it).

If you don't like DLC, don't buy it.  It's really that simple.  But if you're not going to buy it, don't act like you're entitled to it.  I'm just sick of the whining over this subject.

[Stogi]

But they could pull a McDonald's and make the cheeseburger smaller and smaller each year until you don't recognize it anymore.

[broodwars]

But they could pull a McDonald's and make the cheeseburger smaller and smaller each year until you don't recognize it anymore.

So don't buy it.  That's how capitalism works.  Take your business to Wendy's, where they make better burgers anyway.

[Chozo Ghost]

Insanolord, at what point does DLC stop becoming DLC and become fraud by deception?.  Would you consider it fair game if they sold you 10% of a game at full price and then asked you to pay extra for the for the remaining 90% they had already developed but locked behind a pay wall? 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10%?

If the content accessible to you normally on the disc feels like a full experience, does it really matter?  That's really the key when it comes to DLC: regardless of the origin of the DLC content, does the game you buy at retail already feel like a worthy experience?  I get rather tired of the entitled gamers of this generation who feel like they should have access to everything a company does for a game, just because that's how it's been in the past.  Gaming in modern times is IMO the best it's ever been overall, and it's easily the cheapest it's ever been as well (accounting for inflation).  There are so many options and so many different ways you can acquire games, and people latch onto this one (mainly, I suspect, because they choose to not afford it).

Its the principle of it. DLC is supposed to stand for "Downloadable Content", right? But lately its more like "Disc Locked Content".

If you don't like DLC, don't buy it.  It's really that simple.  But if you're not going to buy it, don't act like you're entitled to it.  I'm just sick of the whining over this subject.

Since games are $60 new, I think people have the right to feel entitled to what is already stuffed on the disc at the game's launch. The point of DLC was for developers to continue working on the game and adding new content AFTER the game's release and then consumers can optionally purchase that.

The issue here is this content is already completed and included on the disc at the game's launch. Its not something introduced months later. That means this stuff was already completed and ready to go, and the only reason it was locked out is so companies can squeeze even more money out of people.

There is some serious potential for abuse with this, because with this precedent being set, where does the line get drawn on what should be locked out of the game as DLC? Stuff that would otherwise be included in the game by default might get dissected and locked out so consumers can be charged another $5 or $10 or whatever.

[NWR_insanolord]

Insanolord, at what point does DLC stop becoming DLC and become fraud by deception?.  Would you consider it fair game if they sold you 10% of a game at full price and then asked you to pay extra for the for the remaining 90% they had already developed but locked behind a pay wall? 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10%?

Sure the company planned this all along, it's in "The Budget", but that plan doesn't matter to the consumer. the consumer doesn't give a rats ares what justification you might give. All they see is you double dipping. There is no percentage you can say this is where DLC stops and fraud begins. Even by stripping out content off disc and selling it back to you later is fraud since the very action revolves around the company actively being dishonest about their products.

All this DLC abuse will only poison gaming to future growth. There is no reason why such behaviour should ever be condoned as acceptable.

Looks like Crytek got trolled.

I'm not trying to defend that kind of DLC, only pointing out that whether it's on the disc or not isn't the huge distinction some people make it out to be. Overuse of DLC can be a major problem, but whether the part of the game they're charging extra for is on the disc or held back so that you have to download it later isn't important at all.




EDIT: Although I'm sick and tired of the overuse of the word entitled, I agree with the general point Broodwars makes, in that if enough people refuse to buy the DLC, and stop supporting companies that abuse it, it will go away. Unlike him, however, I believe you're fully within your rights to argue that content that's released as DLC should have been part of the game.

[broodwars]

The issue here is this content is already completed and included on the disc at the game's launch. Its not something introduced months later. That means this stuff was already completed and ready to go, and the only reason it was locked out is so companies can squeeze even more money out of people.

If the content that you purchased with that $60 satisfied you as a full experience, you really don't have a right to bitch that you should have had access to more.  If that content didn't satisfy you as a full $60 experience, then why do you care about DLC?  You probably already traded the game in.  Just don't the DLC you don't want to pay money for.

So long as the developers make you feel like you got your money's worth with the main game, I really don't see what "right" people have to complain about content on the disc they have to pay to access.  For example, Bioshock 2 was one of the earlier games that was controversial for having multiplayer DLC on the disc that you had to pay to unlock.  As as Single-player gamer, though, I feel like I definitely got my money's worth for that excellent SP campaign, as well as a moderately fun multiplayer mode.  I really didn't give a damn that there was multiplayer content on the disc.  I was content with what I had, so I didn't buy that DLC.  Half a year later, the excellent Minerva's Den SP DLC was released, and I did buy that and enjoyed it.  I bought what I felt was worthy of my money and discarded what wasn't.  Crisis averted.

[Chozo Ghost]

So don't buy it.  That's how capitalism works.  Take your business to Wendy's, where they make better burgers anyway.

That only works as long as competition exists and offers a suitable alternative. When everyone is making their products smaller you can't just take your business elsewhere. And besides, video games aren't commodities. If you are a fan of a specific game you can't take your business elsewhere, because no other company is going to offer that exact same game.

you really don't have a right to bitch

We have just as much a right to bitch as you have the right to bitch about us bitching.

[NWR_insanolord]

I really don't see what "right" people have to complain about content on the disc they have to pay to access.

People always have the right to complain, regardless of the circumstances. You have the right to not listen to them.

[broodwars]

And besides, video games aren't commodities. If you are a fan of a specific game you can't take your business elsewhere, because no other company is going to offer that exact same game.

 

Actually, yes they totally are.  And I would argue that there's so much competition in the industry for most genres, that unless your interests are just extremely niche you can probably find one or more other similar products to substitute for the one you're giving up.  You might have to go as far as the Indie scene to find them, but they're there.

Webster's Dictionary

Back in my old AnimeOnDVD.com days, site director Chris Beveridge had a great line in response to all the people on his site constantly complaining about various facets of the industry, and I think it's equally applicable here (I'll substitute "video games" for "anime"):

"[Video Games are] not a right. [They are] a privilege, a consumer product, art, work for hire, a luxury, a hobby, entertainment."