Exactly What They Do. . How EA sees a game: Originallife Extra bonus Ballgame experience How gamers see a game: Crippled gel me Rest of game. BRING IT ON RED THUMBS!!!
x
Click to expand

Exactly What They Do

How EA sees a game:
Originallife Extra bonus
Ballgame experience
How gamers see a game:
Crippled gel me Rest of game
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1258
Views: 47037
Favorited: 59
Submitted: 05/03/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to qubot Subscribe to videogames submit to reddit

Comments(181):

[ 181 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#13 - darthacerbus (05/03/2013) [-]
For $15 I can get Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon...or 4 maps.
For $15 I can get 5 of the best Star Wars games of all time...or 4 maps.
For $30 I can get the full expansion for Civ 5...or 8 maps.


EA YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD
0
#146 to #13 - cralix **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50 to #13 - nuclearnacho (05/03/2013) [-]
y'know, I would mostly agree with the idea that "map" dlc is bad and not worth it. But i really think the Battlefield DLC was worth it. At least the ones that added weapons. New maps in battlefield bring a new way to play to play the game. Although maybe $15 is a little too much.
#39 to #13 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
4 maps for what?
User avatar #49 to #39 - darthacerbus (05/03/2013) [-]
BF3
#34 - nexu (05/03/2013) [-]
I named my company EA in game dev tycoon. I think I'm doing something wrong
#9 - eddymolly ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
Corrected
#105 to #9 - minecraftmemes (05/03/2013) [-]
it honestly took me about 5 minutes to understand this, i thought it was the same until i saw u switched the order of game and pre-order dlc
#18 - mondprinzessin (05/03/2013) [-]
Hey guys? Want a good resolution to your favorite game series??    
   
That'll be $10!!
Hey guys? Want a good resolution to your favorite game series??

That'll be $10!!
User avatar #93 to #18 - mrnecro (05/03/2013) [-]
Good?! It was catastrophically world destroyingly bad!
For earth anyway
though it was better than was much more clear as to what happened
Isaac almost pulled a Commander Shepard
#104 - garykn (05/03/2013) [-]
Sense we're all bitching about **** anyways...
+3
#119 to #104 - sandwitchman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1 - KINGOFTHESTARS (05/03/2013) [-]
BRING IT ON RED THUMBS!!!
#164 to #1 - anon (05/04/2013) [-]
Sorry about not getting the red thumbs you wanted...
#143 to #1 - telamatoes (05/03/2013) [-]
I guess this is our way of saying **** you.
#2 to #1 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
not bad it thought you were pretty funny
#98 - fukyeahraptorr (05/03/2013) [-]
mfw tards whine about ea's games yet stil buys them
#99 to #98 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
the thing is, most people genuinely don't care, that's why they still buy them
#112 to #99 - fukyeahraptorr (05/03/2013) [-]
yeah but im not talking about the people who dont give a 			****		 but rather the ones who bashes ea yet they still buy their games...
yeah but im not talking about the people who dont give a **** but rather the ones who bashes ea yet they still buy their games...
#163 to #112 - radlee (05/04/2013) [-]
If we don't buy the games for any reason then EA takes it as no one wants that game even if it's their marketing or business practices.
User avatar #114 to #98 - logicstrike (05/03/2013) [-]
the problem is EA are a publisher that buy's cherished developers and their IP's. EA will kill the studios and stop making the IP's. EA will live completely of EA sports (because the people who buy EA sports games generally don't follow the ins and outs of game publishing)
User avatar #128 to #98 - thechosentroll (05/03/2013) [-]
No one said EA publishes bad games. They just market them in the most assholish ways possible.
User avatar #129 to #128 - thechosentroll (05/03/2013) [-]
Come to think of it, I doubt people would give half a **** about EAs' tricks if the games weren't good.
User avatar #3 - keiishiyama (05/03/2013) [-]
I wouldn't have a huge problem with DLC if it weren't so expensive (proportional to the game, at least). You do realize you pay $15 for four Call of Duty maps every time there's a map pack, right?

At least EA keeps it somewhat bearable.
#10 to #3 - giggitygantz (05/03/2013) [-]
Yeah its ridiculous i can spend 15 dollars and download a whole game why the **** should i buy a map that will not change anything aside from its a new ******* map to shoot people on.
#17 - Zyklone (05/03/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Can we send this to EA?
User avatar #61 to #17 - lordhasta (05/03/2013) [-]
like they care
#28 to #17 - captainkrobin (05/03/2013) [-]
You need the envelope DLC.
#54 - NhuckCorris (05/03/2013) [-]
But then people buy Battlefield games in protest of CoD, lining the pockets of EA further.
#71 to #54 - scarfacetfs (05/03/2013) [-]
Hence why BF3 will be my last BF game until they radically overhaul it.   
   
Getting bored of all modern shooters in general I guess.
Hence why BF3 will be my last BF game until they radically overhaul it.

Getting bored of all modern shooters in general I guess.
User avatar #81 to #71 - dabombmanater (05/03/2013) [-]
I think its time they went back to some good ww2 games personally. We have the capabilities to make a simulator of Dday that would be one of the most fun things someone could play. Especially if it combined both AI and real players on both sides.
#84 to #81 - scarfacetfs (05/03/2013) [-]
Exactly. There are many modern game engines that could make a great, realistic and gritty world war two experience, but every developer is stuck in the modern day because that is where the money lies at the moment.   
   
Blame the consumers, after Call Of Duty 4 took off, it was only a matter of time before WW2 games began to be shelved in favour of games where you kill generic Middle-Eastern terrorists/Russians.
Exactly. There are many modern game engines that could make a great, realistic and gritty world war two experience, but every developer is stuck in the modern day because that is where the money lies at the moment.

Blame the consumers, after Call Of Duty 4 took off, it was only a matter of time before WW2 games began to be shelved in favour of games where you kill generic Middle-Eastern terrorists/Russians.
User avatar #115 to #84 - avengeralpha (05/03/2013) [-]
I know I mean why Russian it seems like Russians are behind every fictional war ever why cant we fight other countries like India, Thailand, heck even the EU or USA would make great antagonists with their huge resources and power.
User avatar #124 to #81 - jarofdirt (05/03/2013) [-]
NO. I'm sick and tired of D-Day, Guadalcanal and the french Bocage.

We need a game from the german side, with early-war battles and less-recognized ones. The polish blitz, the Ardennes offensive or even Kursk from the perspective of a Wermacht soldier would be rather refreshing, and give us a good insight into the german High Command and the disputes between hardcore SS nazis and regular troopers instead of portraying everyone as "hurr durr evil nahtzee bratwurst".
#136 to #124 - phantomeins (05/03/2013) [-]
Check out Red Orchestra 2, it sounds close to what you're looking for.

The main focus of the game is multiplayer, with a territory mode being the most popular game mode. It's all Russia vs Germany with no mention of the rest of the allies. There's a campaign, you start as Germany and unlock the Russian after, I didn't play much of it, the multiplayer was the best part of the game.
#125 - SaNcAlandariel (05/03/2013) [-]
With my "recent" purchases (Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 & Halo 4) I still have not bought any DLC for either and do not currently plan to. If the game is not worth the money spent without any DLC, then in my opinion it's probably not worth buying and buying DLC for anyway.
I'm a cheap bastard.
Inb4 nobody cares and red thumbs.
User avatar #127 to #125 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
that's how it should be
User avatar #131 to #127 - calawesome (05/03/2013) [-]
the only dlc i agree with is pre-order dlc....because don't company's get extra credit for pre-oreders and **** ?
User avatar #134 to #131 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
im not sure i just think they are there to influence pre order sales
User avatar #137 to #127 - SaNcAlandariel (05/03/2013) [-]
I can understand the "Online Passes" if you buy the game used, but I don't understand why it seems like every game has DLC released within three days of the games release, other than because the company knows that they will make more money this way. It's annoying from my standpoint but I guess it's good for them if they make money.
On an unrelated note, what ever happened to cheat codes? I miss those things.
User avatar #79 - mrhazzy ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
#40 - legayunicorn (05/03/2013) [-]
Well aren't you a clever little funnyjunker?    
You used something Funnyjunk hates and made a terrible joke. I guess this is why the site is funnyjunk. Because the majority think it's funny but it is really just junk. I mean, come on. That's the move of a thumbwhore. I mean almost any joke of EA will get frontpage. It sickens me such a simple joke like this could get the attention it's getting.    
So sickening, but not surprising. I have no reason to thumb you down, not like it will ever matter. You you sir, do not deserve my thumb that will gain you one extra step on your thumbwhoring process. I've started to dislike EA after I realized they won't reply to your crap (I messaged Bioware 4 times over a month) But I still hate these petty jokes that only a thumbwhore would use. Think about it, all of you who read this. Have you seen an EA joke that didn't get popular reviews? I think the worst could be -1 thumbs   
Oh well, I'll know I'll get red thumbs. Better to say it than let it fester inside of you. I despise your post qubot, read my words. I despise your post qubot and now I leave,
Well aren't you a clever little funnyjunker?
You used something Funnyjunk hates and made a terrible joke. I guess this is why the site is funnyjunk. Because the majority think it's funny but it is really just junk. I mean, come on. That's the move of a thumbwhore. I mean almost any joke of EA will get frontpage. It sickens me such a simple joke like this could get the attention it's getting.
So sickening, but not surprising. I have no reason to thumb you down, not like it will ever matter. You you sir, do not deserve my thumb that will gain you one extra step on your thumbwhoring process. I've started to dislike EA after I realized they won't reply to your crap (I messaged Bioware 4 times over a month) But I still hate these petty jokes that only a thumbwhore would use. Think about it, all of you who read this. Have you seen an EA joke that didn't get popular reviews? I think the worst could be -1 thumbs
Oh well, I'll know I'll get red thumbs. Better to say it than let it fester inside of you. I despise your post qubot, read my words. I despise your post qubot and now I leave,
#70 to #40 - threenippledcousin (05/03/2013) [-]
move to 9gag, i have it has hardly any faggots and thumbwhores
User avatar #56 to #40 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
i like it when people voice their opinion. i'm sorry but i'm not trying to be a "thumb whore" neither did i expect to get any green thumbs for this post. I took a issue that i have had and that many can relate to or understand and voiced my opinion through this website. you don't have to approve of how portray Electronic Arts, and i have no will upon changing your very own opinion on the production of sub par video games. i could really care less on the views of posts on the website whether it being actually "funny" or "junk" but that is just your personal prospective just like the saying" One mans trash is an other man's treasure" if you disprove or dislike anything on this website feel free to leave a red thumb and let others enjoy the post.
#66 to #56 - legayunicorn (05/03/2013) [-]
I knew you couldn't help but reply to my butthurt
#67 to #66 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
well played my friend.
well played my friend.
User avatar #42 to #40 - oodlesandoodles (05/03/2013) [-]
Hate to burst your bubble kid, but this is something MOST gamers hate not just about EA, but the video game industry as a whole.
#97 to #42 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
Hate to burst your bubble, but if most gamers hated it, then most gamers would stop supporting them, which they clearly haven't
User avatar #72 to #42 - clockworkmage (05/03/2013) [-]
Nevertheless, his point stands. This post is nothing more than a pointless circlejerk providing the masses with the exact same schlock that's been said a thousand times before, and is bringing nothing to discussion. It's worthless.
User avatar #62 to #42 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
everyone has their favorite and least favorite developers. but hating the whole gaming industry on the account of a mislead company is highly unorthodox.i don't have a burning hate for Electronic Arts because they have made many enjoyable games in the past and a few in the present such as; The Sims and SSX(2012)
I think everyone has lost sight on the fact that EA are the ones trying to get out of box but fell short because of development experience,time constraints and budgets. If you think about it EA tries to be different and still tries to compete against the completion. They also don't let their game service die out because they have faith in their developers and past fans. and to me thats more important then a poorly made game ten a money whoring company that produces the same thing with minor changes every six months
User avatar #63 to #62 - oodlesandoodles (05/03/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure you misread or misunderstood my comment
#64 to #63 - qubot (05/03/2013) [-]
now that you think about it think i did
now that you think about it think i did
#43 to #42 - legayunicorn (05/03/2013) [-]
How the crap could most gamers hate the whole game industry?
How the crap could most gamers hate the whole game industry?
User avatar #45 to #43 - trojandetected (05/03/2013) [-]
he is right nearly all games are like this now -.-
User avatar #44 to #43 - oodlesandoodles (05/03/2013) [-]
I didn't say they hate the game industry, I said they hate the DLC ********
User avatar #46 to #44 - legayunicorn (05/03/2013) [-]
Oh... That... Well I guess I didn't know that because I rarely buy DLCs.
Except I did hate what Bethesda Studios did with Skyrim and that dragon-riding DLC.
I mean who would pay that much for one DLC that really only holds one reason?
User avatar #47 to #46 - oodlesandoodles (05/03/2013) [-]
Well, firstly, there are several reasons to get the dragonborn DLC. The dragon riding ability is just the main draw. As for not buying DLC's, I can respect that, it's just not fair to the fans to purposely withhold content that was already finished from a game and then try to sell it for 15 or 20 bucks. Especially when said DLC only offers a few new areas to explore and a new gun
User avatar #48 to #47 - legayunicorn (05/03/2013) [-]
Yeah.
#51 to #43 - Willhelm (05/03/2013) [-]
Not the whole industry. One part of the industry as a whole. It's a huge buzzkill, no matter which company does it.
#171 - demjimmies (05/04/2013) [-]
Mass Effect storyline DLC costs more then the three games put together.   
   
			****		 you EA
Mass Effect storyline DLC costs more then the three games put together.

**** you EA
#172 to #171 - meowthenin (05/04/2013) [-]
But how much of it mattered to the storyline? Shadow Broker and Arrival. That's it. :/
User avatar #173 to #172 - demjimmies (05/04/2013) [-]
Omega, Citadel, Javik

Not only do all these three contribute war assets but..

Omega - Take care of Aria business, and find out what happened to Omega.

Citadel - Everyones backstory, and find out what happened to everyone after and before the reapers.

Javik - Biggest troll in the galaxy, also very essential if you bring him on Thessia
#175 to #173 - meowthenin (05/04/2013) [-]
Omega is a side story, like Bringing Down the Sky. Citadel was awesome but definitely not part of the main story. And Javik was useless. You miss nothing not having him.
User avatar #176 to #175 - demjimmies (05/04/2013) [-]
Yet half the DLC wasn't suppose to be cut from the game.

Javik was originally suppose to be in the game, but was made DLC for more money.

Tl;DR **** EA
#177 to #176 - meowthenin (05/04/2013) [-]
I never said that didn't happen. All but the two I mentioned were completely optional, though, and didn't detract from the game itself. Javik wasn't supposed to be a part of the game, he was always a DLC character, just developed while the game was and some assets are on the disc. While a dick move, doesn't mean it took from the game. You keep saying " **** EA" yet you obviously keep giving them your money, buying the games AND DLC. If you feel that way then vote with your wallet and don't buy or shut the **** up.
User avatar #187 to #172 - dragonwaz (05/12/2013) [-]
Answer? None of anything mattered in Mass Effect. Didn't you get to the color coded ending?
User avatar #5 - douthit (05/03/2013) [-]
I refuse to buy DLC. Never have, never will. Somebody's gotta take a stand.
#139 to #5 - blacknbluebrony (05/03/2013) [-]
I can understand that about games where they announce a DLC before the game is even released, but that seems rather ridiculous for games that actually have quality DLCs that are made later on. Like for Borderlands or Skyrim for example.
#157 to #5 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
What about Skullgirls? They are coming out with 5 new characters, and will be free.
#68 to #5 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
why do you think that will help anything

if no-one bought dlc

that doesn't mean companies will give you free dlc

it just means they will never add new content

how does this help anyone ever
User avatar #116 to #68 - samjamfan (05/03/2013) [-]
they will drop price, and if people still don't buy, then they will just have it be part of the game for free, because nobody will pay any extra money. this won't ever happen, but its a nice dream
#100 to #68 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
it just means the will change how they add contents
User avatar #103 to #5 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
No offence, but nobody gives a **** if one person never buys DLC.
User avatar #106 to #103 - samjamfan (05/03/2013) [-]
what if 90% don't? then we win
User avatar #110 to #106 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
That's not realistic.
So it won't happen.
User avatar #111 to #110 - samjamfan (05/03/2013) [-]
well we have to try
#118 to #111 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
No.   
Things are fine the way they are. No need to mess 			****		 up.
No.
Things are fine the way they are. No need to mess **** up.
User avatar #178 to #118 - samjamfan (05/04/2013) [-]
yes, keep feeding the money hungry businesses while they continue to ruin the capitalist premise of a free economy and dishing out ****** products
User avatar #182 to #178 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu ONLINE (05/04/2013) [-]
yes.
User avatar #183 to #110 - douthit (05/04/2013) [-]
A world without crime isn't realistic. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change it.
User avatar #184 to #183 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu ONLINE (05/04/2013) [-]
You can't compare those two.
DLC and crime are two completely different things
User avatar #60 to #5 - admiralen ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
well, ive seen you elsewhere, youre a retard, and if you ever play new vegas youre gonna miss out on more then 60% of the good stuff in the game, have fun being a dumbass gun nut
User avatar #65 to #60 - douthit (05/03/2013) [-]
I don't plan on playing New Vegas, so don't worry, you class act you.
User avatar #57 to #5 - westonbeast (05/03/2013) [-]
Good luck with the change when you're the only one doing it.
#21 to #5 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
Some DLC is good...
The problem with DLC discussions is that it's always full of idiots who either think all DLC is innately evil, or all DLC is perfectly acceptable.

In reality, some DLC is good ("expansion" DLC), but most is exploitative.
User avatar #31 to #5 - aldheim (05/03/2013) [-]
Some DLC deserves to be DLC, like Dishonored's Knife of Dunwall, which is an entirely separate campaign that just isn't big enough to be a full price game.
User avatar #32 to #5 - indecisivejew (05/03/2013) [-]
DLCs are not inherently bad, and there are a lot of fantastic expansions to games that took a lot of work for developers who genuinely wanted to make more content for their games. Rockstar and Bethesda are good examples of devs that do this.
User avatar #58 to #5 - voltkills ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
not all DLC is bad, skyrim DLC was well worth it, having spent 100's of hours playing, more content is welcomed, and the base game was more then enough to justify a little extra bonus.
User avatar #75 to #5 - sirfisticuffs (05/03/2013) [-]
Why? Most of it isn't to just try and maximise profit some of it is just there to improve on the game and increase it's lifetime without you having to pay.
User avatar #89 to #75 - douthit (05/03/2013) [-]
Knowing that millions of people will spend an additional 25% cost of the game means that developers have little incentive to provide a full game.
User avatar #179 to #89 - sirfisticuffs (05/04/2013) [-]
True
User avatar #7 to #5 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
God damn you're hardcore
#96 - istompchildren (05/03/2013) [-]
Battlefield 3 Premium was worth every cent. And guess what? I'm going to but Battlefield 4 Premium too. Why? Because Battlefield is an amazing FPS, and the DLCs add to the enjoyment. If you're pissed off about expensive DLC, go sit in a corner and smash your head with a hammer. I'm going to use Battlefield 3 as a reference here because it seems to be the only EA game that anyone knows about.

Back to Karkand: $15
Close Quarters: $15
Armored Kill: $15
Aftermath: $15
End Game: $15

Okay, that's $75, but Premium cuts it down to $50*.

Each DLC comes out roughly 3-4 months after the last.

So either you're facing a one-time payment of $50 (which honestly is a decent deal for all the content you recieve) or $75 spread out over the course of about a year and a half. Even if you can't pay the $50 for premium, saving up $15 over 3-4 months is not a hard thing to do. Sure, they could make it free because of all the people that don't like it, but that would mean all the people would be working on a game that's ~1 year old and it wouldn't have any benefit to the company.

*Yes, I realize they (EA) most likely intentionally released Premium after B2K came out so they could make more money, but who cares?
#101 to #96 - youxbarstard (05/03/2013) [-]
The thing is you're still saving money even if you buy premium after you buy btk.
And are you buying bf4 for pc?
#107 to #101 - istompchildren (05/03/2013) [-]
Exactly, there's really nothing to complain about.
And no, I was planning on getting a good computer but financial trouble and all.
I've already preordered it for Xbox though
#108 to #107 - youxbarstard (05/03/2013) [-]
Well that's a shame, would've meant another person to with/against.
And is it just or could they have done more with end game?
User avatar #120 to #96 - deathzor (05/03/2013) [-]
premium is usually on sale for $30 so that's a better bang for your buck, but it's still ******* retarded that you have to pay such prices for the DLC. I mean for ****** sake, the normal non-premium servers started disappearing at such a rate that had I NOT gotten premium, I would not be able to find a server to join.
#80 - doyoulikeapizza ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
**doyoulikeapizza rolled a random image posted in comment #1 at Photoshops masters **
User avatar #91 - roflnaut (05/03/2013) [-]
Not to be that one guy, but I feel like EA is trying to improve their reputation.
They once messed up when I called their help center, so as an apology, they gave me MoH: Warfighter.
It may not really be the best game, but at least they weren't like "tough luck" and just left me in the dust.
User avatar #74 - RyanTheLeet (05/03/2013) [-]
"EA" needs to be switched with "most gaming publishers today" and "gamers" need to be replaced with "ignorant casuals that just want themselves to feel like elitists."
User avatar #82 to #74 - noblexfenrir (05/03/2013) [-]
So you're saying someone is an ignorant elitist because they hate the idea of pre-order DLC?

I'm fine with DLC, it keeps older games fresh and alive, HOWEVER there should not be DLC right/before the game even is released. It means they have a finished portion of the game they haven't even released yet and instead of adding it to the game, whore it out for cash at the expense of the consumer. This is just bad business in the long term and only increases the populaces general dislike for them.

Most publishers don't have pre-order DLC.
User avatar #85 to #82 - RyanTheLeet (05/03/2013) [-]
And yet Ubisoft slips by another year with pre-order DLC for each Assassin's Creed game since Assassin's Creed II without the flames
User avatar #87 to #85 - noblexfenrir (05/03/2013) [-]
What kind of story expansion was in AC2? I'm not sure about 3 since I barely played it and didn't pay it much attention.

Even so, it's non-excusable no matter the publisher. If they don't get flack for some reason or another, it can't be helped but it doesn't make pre-order DLC (please know I'm talking about gameplay and story expansions, not extra characters/skins/weapons/etc.) any less wrong.
User avatar #77 to #74 - vilememory ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
Elaborate on your reasoning of this.
User avatar #83 to #77 - RyanTheLeet (05/03/2013) [-]
My reasoning for the first comment is self-evident. Game series such as Assassin's Creed, Saints Row, Call of Duty, and many others have had a pre-order bonus with quite a few of their current and past installments. This shows that pre-order DLC is not limited to EA.

The second comment comes from the fact that these pre-order DLC's are in fact just minor pieces of the game. Referring back to EA, games such as the ones in the Dead Space series can hardly be changed by the addition of a couple of guns and suits. Even in the extreme case of the From Ashes DLC for ME3, the same deal with Javik went for ME2's Kasumi and Zaeed DLC's. While they are excellent squadmates, I again must say the game is just as good (or if you think that way, bad) without them.

I can understand the hate that EA gets to a degree, but singling them out for a minor bonus that the majority of other companies do is taking it too far.
User avatar #92 to #83 - pukingrainbows (05/03/2013) [-]
Also, I think it's perfectly fair, and just good business, to offer something extra to people who take the time to secure a copy of the game early. It guarantees to the gamers that they not only get a copy of the game without worrying if it is sold out but also get some extra goodies thrown in, and the developers get preliminary sales estimates and can ensure they get some of the millions they put into the game back without having to wait until long after the game ships. It's just good business. Sometimes I don't think people understand how business works and just assumes companies can just do whatever at any time.
User avatar #94 to #74 - Blargosnarf (05/03/2013) [-]
one of the only reasons I disagree with your argument is because you used the word 'casuals' as an actual part of your argument.
User avatar #88 to #74 - dinkcool (05/03/2013) [-]
I honestly have to say that I agree with you. The only case of DLC that is required to make the game playable I have ever encountered is Broken Steel for Fallout 3 and you never hear anyone complain about that.

During the last 30 years videogame prices has not been affected by inflation at all wich means that the companies earn far less money when they sell their games than they did 30 years ago. The budgets for the games are also far higher wich means the companies have to compensate for this in some way. If DLC didint exist the prices of the games would require a big raise or the whole video game market would crash.
User avatar #109 to #88 - avengeralpha (05/03/2013) [-]
another thing contributing to their loss is used games because the company gets no money for used games so they miss out on even more sales so the price hiked to compensate between used games and piracy I am secretly hope that you have to be online when you first purchase a game.
User avatar #102 to #88 - EddFitzpatrick (05/03/2013) [-]
5 years ago, i was buying brand new games for £20 on my ps2
Now for my 360, the new games are £50
Please tell me more about how video game prices haven't changed.
#121 to #102 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
really? because games in the US only went up 10$, and that's only because of the format change from cd to hddvd
User avatar #123 to #121 - EddFitzpatrick (05/03/2013) [-]
yes, really! i bought grand theft auto san andreas for 21.99 the day it came out for ps2 and gta IV was 44.99!
#130 to #123 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
take that up with the distributors, not the devs
User avatar #181 to #130 - EddFitzpatrick (05/04/2013) [-]
GAME aren't responsible for it though! they dont set those prices, they make barely any money off new games, all the mmoney is in preowned for us!
User avatar #37 - bokkos (05/03/2013) [-]
Anyone remember The Frozen Throne? Full game dressed as an expansion pack; it was awesome.
#90 to #37 - gyssle (05/03/2013) [-]
Different times. Good games, but costs and complexity of development increases by the year. Game budgets aren't getting smaller or anything - it's the other way around -, it's just less bang for the buck with development.

Sucks, I know, but unless this industry find a way to pull its **** together, it's only going to get worse. :/
[ 181 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)