Deucetipher wrote...
Some good points, but it should be pointed out that mass effects 3 is a significant outlier in terms of hours of SP gaming. Most games at the same price point generally offer significantly less, often half of the hours of entertainment. If you have never bought a game that offers significantly less time, say the typical 15-20 hours, then I concede the point in your case, but the scenario described is unlikely to be generally applicable.
Certainly, though it depends on the genre. Shooters have much lower value than RPG, for instance. But ME3
is an RPG, so its value is relevant.
Further, I'm comparing
Mass Effect DLC to
Mass Effect itself, so I don't think that's an unfair comparison.
Deucetipher wrote...
Furthermore, if one considers the MP component (part of the 60 dollar price point), the dollar cost per hour approaches zero, at least theoretically, which makes the metric almost useless. For example, I have logged 400 hours of MP time, in addition to the SP playthrough. That means the game, for me, has a cost per hour played around 14 cents. Using this figure as a guiding point, I shouldn't buy anything in entertainment post WWII, unless it has a MP component that can be played exhaustively.
Well, the MP operates on a F2P model with its own revenue-source baked in, so it's a bit... odd. And as far as budgeting goes for ME itself, it's also considered a separate component.
That said, you're right that MP can be a fantastic value-adding component to a game. If it's interesting, anyway. While I, too, have enjoyed ME3's MP, I usually don't, so I can't factor that in for myself.
Anyway, yeah, if I factor MP into ME3's value, all the DLC are a terrible value. But I don't think MP's value justifies raising the price of any DLC to whatever abitrary price point EA and Bioware choose. I don't think DLC are immune to value considerations.
Retour en haut
