Meatbaggins wrote...
Metallica93 wrote...
A game with a short campaign and crappy multiplayer costs $60 new. Fallout 3 (hundreds of hours of single player) costs $60 new. Battlefield 3 (hundreds of hours of multiplayer) costs $60 new. You're honestly willing to spend $15 on 2 hours of gameplay when you sink over 100 in the base game for $60? Where is the logic?
If you're gonna compare them to games like Fallout with hundreds and hundreds of hours of content to show how they're overpriced, doesn't that mean by your logic, all of Bioware's games are overpriced, since they tend to be about 40-50 hours? IMO, the value of a game is in how much you enjoy it, not how many hours per dollar there are in it.
Weeeeeell, I think all games are overpriced (I'm slowly becoming a huge dissenter of the gaming industry)

Battlefield 3 was my first and only pre-order and I'm more than happy to go back to waiting a handful of months to make sure kinks are worked out (I rarely buy tech/software new) and I get a good deal. "Good things come to those who wait."
Personally, it comes down to getting rid of DLC altogether, putting that content in the base game (even if that lengthens the wait for consumers), and making a game actually worth $60 even if that means keeping the game at $60 a year plus after release. But NOPE!
That requires logic and a non-business perspective of things. Then you have companies like EA, voted "Worst U.S. Company" of 2011, who are in it for the dough. Sell an unfinished game, push DLC for $10 a pop, repeat the cycle -___-