AlanC9 wrote...
Gatt9 wrote...
What changed was someone came up with microtransactions in the mid-2000's, not the technology, which had existed for a great many years.
Pretty much true. When Bioware invented paid DLCs with NWN Premium Modules (or did they? I can't recall if they were really first) we were all still on dial-up.
It's not the DLC's value that's being judged, it's your game's value. With DLC floods akin to what you're doing here, the perceived value of your video game itself drops. Abuse the customer too much, as you are now, we will stop buying your products.
At that point, none of your DLC will be sold, because it is 100% valueless if we do not see the product you put on the shelf as having value.
I don't quite follow this. If people are really that sensitive about value, then how do DLCs sell in the first place?
It also means that consumers use a fairly irrational value-determining function when evaluating games. I don't think that's necessarily a problem with the theory, but I don't understand how these hypothetical consumers are thinking. I'm not in a very good place to evaluate this subjectively, since I've never found any DLC to be worth purchasing but I don't give a damn that the DLCs exist either.
I guess I explained myself badly.
A consumer looks at a video game and decides whether or not he wants to purchase it, he determines if the potential entertainment he will get from purchasing it is of sufficient value for the money he spends.
No amount of DLC is going to encourage him to buy it, no one looks at a game on a shelf and thinks "Nah, there's no Day 1 DLC I can spend more money to get, no sale". The presense of DLC does not add value to the product for the consumer.
But what can, and judging from the responses here and elsewhere, do think "Nah, that game has Day 1 DLC, I'd be spending $60 for a partial game, and then I have to spend more when I get home to get the rest".
Day 1 DLC doesn't add value, but it does subtract it, because it telegraphs to the consumer that they're not buying the full product but paying the price of the full game.
To put it another way, if Bioware tried putting the game on the shelf at $90 or $100, sales would be harmed. But that's exactly what they're doing, making people pay $80 at the register for the full game (Collector's Edition) and then nailing them for another $10 for Day 1 DLC to get the full game.
Long term, the plan is going to do them irreperable harm. Especially since some number of people are going to find out at the register or on first launch of the game that they're required to pay another $10 for the full game they thought they were already getting.
At some point, some not insignificant number of consumers will see EA/Bioware products as having less value/dollar. Entirely because the consumers will learn that they're not spending $60-$80 for the game, they're going to be spending more.
Recent studies have shown, the majority of console gamers buy used or borrow. If people are already so concerned about spending $60 for the game, increasing the cost to them isn't going to entice them, it's going to drive them away.
DLC after Day 1 generally seems to be viewed as Expansion packs, especially when presented like LotSB where it has no bearing on the full game. Day 1 DLC, OTOH, is viewed as a portion of the full game because it's present as soon as the disc hits the drive. Doesn't matter what the defense is, average customers neither know about nor care about development cycles, and TBH educated consumers know you don't get to $870 worth of Day 1 DLC without having been planning that.
The value of the game is the game and the cost to be able to play the full game. The full game is whatever is present on the day of release.
Modifié par Gatt9, 18 février 2012 - 08:48 .
Retour en haut
