DLC Price

[ToastMunchie]

Eh, people like to be mad I guess. I think the DLC is really cool and worth the price, but if you don't think you will get your money's worth out of it then don't get it. Sort of done hearing "But the DLC is the same price as the game!" with no regard to what the actual worth of it is without the comparison since that seems to be the only argument to continue being angry.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

I bought this game in April 2021, and through its development I've lost numerous saves, benefits, characters and pets due to incompatibility with new versions. The DLC price isn't too much for me to swing, but I can sure see why some longtimers might be a bit upset.

[ToastMunchie]

Originally posted by Floyd R. Turbo:

I bought this game in April 2021, and through its development I've lost numerous saves, benefits, characters and pets due to incompatibility with new versions. The DLC price isn't too much for me to swing, but I can sure see why some longtimers might be a bit upset.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the DLC?

[LanceEteryu]

Originally posted by ToastMunchie:

Imagine getting a hundred hours of content easily for $20, and then when the devs release a cool DLC that will add dozens of more hours of replayability for $20, suddenly the devs are employing "malicious pricing strategies."

What kind of value for your dollar are you expecting? This level of value goes above and beyond most AAA and indie games alike, your expectations are actually insane.

EDIT - I should say that I was disappointed with the first DLC, the zone was boring and the only redeeming factor was the new character. This DLC is a massive step in the right direction (especially after adding the feature where only one player needs the DLC to go to the new area.)

because for the amount of content the DLC provides compared to t he same price for the whole game, it's not worth it. You're buying the game again to get a single map, two characters, and some additional content. When DLC is the same price as the game, it should be an *expansion* of the game. This is just additional content that should only cost like... 10 dollars. Wolf wars should be more like 5 dollars.

You have to realize that it's really NOT that much new content. This is not as unreasonable an ask as you say it is.

[Crosaith]

Value. It's giving us less than 20% of the content of the base game, but costs more. Maybe I'd consider buying it if it was half the price of the base game.

As is, It's 1/3 of the price of BG3 & AC6. Rather use my gaming budget on them.

[ToastMunchie]

Originally posted by LanceEteryu:

Originally posted by ToastMunchie:

Imagine getting a hundred hours of content easily for $20, and then when the devs release a cool DLC that will add dozens of more hours of replayability for $20, suddenly the devs are employing "malicious pricing strategies."

What kind of value for your dollar are you expecting? This level of value goes above and beyond most AAA and indie games alike, your expectations are actually insane.

EDIT - I should say that I was disappointed with the first DLC, the zone was boring and the only redeeming factor was the new character. This DLC is a massive step in the right direction (especially after adding the feature where only one player needs the DLC to go to the new area.)

because for the amount of content the DLC provides compared to t he same price for the whole game, it's not worth it. You're buying the game again to get a single map, two characters, and some additional content. When DLC is the same price as the game, it should be an *expansion* of the game. This is just additional content that should only cost like... 10 dollars. Wolf wars should be more like 5 dollars.

You have to realize that it's really NOT that much new content. This is not as unreasonable an ask as you say it is.

Why does everyone compare the DLC price to the base game, but not ever talk about the hours of fun the base game gave them. I got a hundred hours out of the base game, and had a ton of fun. Would have played more, but my friends and I moved onto other games. I think $20 for 100 hours is WAY underpriced. So this DLC would be adequately priced if you enjoyed the base game.

[Caridor]

Gotta assume this is a troll thread.

"Is this worth the asking price?" has been a fundamental question that every customer has asked since the very first trade was made. It is not "entitled" for people to ask that question and conclude "No, it is not".

[FrozenMoonsoul]

Originally posted by ToastMunchie:

Why does everyone compare the DLC price to the base game, but not ever talk about the hours of fun the base game gave them. I got a hundred hours out of the base game, and had a ton of fun. Would have played more, but my friends and I moved onto other games. I think $20 for 100 hours is WAY underpriced. So this DLC would be adequately priced if you enjoyed the base game.

Because that's not how product value works. If you buy a chair from a company and it's more comfortable than you expected, do you also go and buy an armrest from the same company, more expensive than the chair itself, because of the chair's value?

Of course people are going to compare the DLC's price to the base game. They got perceived value X at factual price Y, and consequently, a DLC should have a reasonably similar ratio of X to Y.

Additionally, to the average Steam user, it usually already is a tough bullet to bite when a game's DLCs total a higher price than the base game... but having a single DLC be equal in price (apparently, in some regions actually more expensive) while offering but a fraction of the content is going to look awful to nearly everyone, whether average user or long-time owner of the base game.

If you want to assign a value to fun, then ask me this: am I going to get the same fun out of my money for this DLC? Unlikely. Is there an incentive for me to retroactively pay more for the fun I had? Maybe. But is there an incentive for me to pay for the entire thing again? No. No, there really isn't, unless you intend to tell me Paradox wants to sell me a partial memory purge so I can actually have that fun again.

[ToastMunchie]

Originally posted by Caridor:

Gotta assume this is a troll thread.

"Is this worth the asking price?" has been a fundamental question that every customer has asked since the very first trade was made. It is not "entitled" for people to ask that question and conclude "No, it is not".

But it is, is the thing. The classic $1 = 1 hour of fun equation works here, everyone is just getting outraged because of the cheap price of the main game.

[ToastMunchie]

Originally posted by FrozenMoonsoul:

Originally posted by ToastMunchie:

Why does everyone compare the DLC price to the base game, but not ever talk about the hours of fun the base game gave them. I got a hundred hours out of the base game, and had a ton of fun. Would have played more, but my friends and I moved onto other games. I think $20 for 100 hours is WAY underpriced. So this DLC would be adequately priced if you enjoyed the base game.

Because that's not how product value works. If you buy a chair from a company and it's more comfortable than you expected, do you also go and buy an armrest from the same company, more expensive than the chair itself, because of the chair's value?

Of course people are going to compare the DLC's price to the base game. They got perceived value X at factual price Y, and consequently, a DLC should have a reasonably similar ratio of X to Y.

Additionally, to the average Steam user, it usually already is a tough bullet to bite when a game's DLCs total a higher price than the base game... but having a single DLC be equal in price (apparently, in some regions actually more expensive) while offering but a fraction of the content is going to look awful to nearly everyone, whether average user or long-time owner of the base game.

If you want to assign a value to fun, then ask me this: am I going to get the same fun out of my money for this DLC? Unlikely. Is there an incentive for me to retroactively pay more for the fun I had? Maybe. But is there an incentive for me to pay for the entire thing again? No. No, there really isn't, unless you intend to tell me Paradox wants to sell me a partial memory purge so I can actually have that fun again.

If the armrest is the price of an armrest, then why the hell do I care if I got the chair for cheap?

[Deddy's Road to Insanity]

This guy really have the audacity to defend them xD
"dozens of more hours of replayability"????? two characters and one map??????????????? my brother in Christ are you gonna play this one map and two heroes for 200h hours on a loop like you did with the base game XD it costs the same so ig you have to right? it's so much content I can't stop playing

[Bonkers]

Let me break down the stats for you (All stats from the wiki):

Bosses:
Base Game - Around 18
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 3
DLC has 1/6th or 16.6% of the bosses of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Characters:
Base Game - 16
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 2
DLC has 1/8th or 12.5% of the characters of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Pets:
Base Game - 13
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 3
DLC has 3/13th or 23% of the pets of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Zones:
Base Game - 5
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 1
DLC has 1/5th or 20% of the zones of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Enemies:
Base Game - Can't find an accurate count, but it seems greater than 50, might be closer to 70
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 20, possibly a few more
DLC has (at best) 1/3rd (33%) or perhaps half (if we are being generous) of the base game. Same price as the base game.

Cards:
Base Game - 500+
Sands of Ulminin DLC - Advertising around 60
DLC has 12% of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Finally, items:
Base Game - Advertised as around 200
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 30
DLC has 15% of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

So, in summary:

Adding the percentages together and you end up with a DLC that has roughly 21.3% of the content of the base game (using the generous percentage for enemy count) for the exact same price. Now my math isn't great, but that's the figure I got.

21% of the original product for the same price as the original product.

Would you buy a second hamburger that is only 21% as big as your first hamburger if they were the exact same price?

Punish greedy developers. Period.

[ToastMunchie]

Originally posted by Bonkers:

Let me break down the stats for you (All stats from the wiki):

Bosses:
Base Game - Around 18
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 3
DLC has 1/6th or 16.6% of the bosses of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Characters:
Base Game - 16
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 2
DLC has 1/8th or 12.5% of the characters of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Pets:
Base Game - 13
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 3
DLC has 3/13th or 23% of the pets of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Zones:
Base Game - 5
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 1
DLC has 1/5th or 20% of the zones of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Enemies:
Base Game - Can't find an accurate count, but it seems greater than 50, might be closer to 70
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 20, possibly a few more
DLC has (at best) 1/3rd (33%) or perhaps half (if we are being generous) of the base game. Same price as the base game.

Cards:
Base Game - 500+
Sands of Ulminin DLC - Advertising around 60
DLC has 12% of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

Finally, items:
Base Game - Advertised as around 200
Sands of Ulminin DLC - 30
DLC has 15% of the base game. DLC is the same price as the base game.

So, in summary:

Adding the percentages together and you end up with a DLC that has roughly 21.3% of the content of the base game (using the generous percentage for enemy count) for the exact same price. Now my math isn't great, but that's the figure I got.

21% of the original product for the same price as the original product.

Would you buy a second hamburger that is only 21% as big as your first hamburger if they were the exact same price?

Punish greedy developers. Period.

Why. The ♥♥♥♥. Are we saying 100+hours for $20 is normal? Everyone here using the base game as any sort of normal metric for content to $ ratio is either completely dense or arguing in bad faith. Congratulations, you have successfully made the argument that the original game is at an amazing price point. That doesn't mean the DLC isn't worth the money either. The DLC is more expensive at an hour per dollar ratio than the base game, no one is arguing that. Jesus christ I can do math, I understand. That, however, doesn't mean it isn't worth the money.

[Baron von Tansley]

I think AtO is a relatively good game and it's not like the developers are the worst offenders, but bad microtransactions/DLC practices is an ongoing struggle and the least we can do is call it out when see it. Complacency with games being gutted and sold piecemeal is what causes Overwatch 2 and The Sims 4 costing literally over $1,000.

[Bonkers]

Good to know that you are rich and can afford to just throw away cash on bad deals. The rest of us will take our $20 and go buy a complete game that offers a much deeper experience and more hours of fun than the 21% of a game that you are getting.

We all enjoy the game. We all want it to succeed. But your generation seems to have the idea in your head that any criticism of a product or person is inherently evil and should never be said. That is ridiculous. Criticism exists to help things improve and better themselves.

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that everyone here wants Across the Obelisk to do well. We want new players to experience it. But by shooting themselves in the foot with bad business practices, the developer is hurting its fan base (you know, the people who are trying to support it) and hindering future purchases and expanding its product.

Want a good example of a real developer? Look at Deep Rock Galactic. Those developers provide free content updates and only charge for cosmetic DLC. The player base love them and actively support them by buying said DLC just because of how much loyalty they have garnered by not being greedy. That's good business. That's how you sustain a game.

Furthermore, you may have 100s of hours in this game, but I guarantee you that most of the players do not. Money is tight for people and it becomes an actual mathematical analysis of whether or not something is worth it. Right now, for $20, there are probably hundreds of other games that will be more fulfilling and offer more bang for the buck than the 21% of a game that these developers are offering in the DLC.

I've presented cold, hard facts. You've presented feelings and emotion and subjective experience. Which argument do you think holds more weight to impartial observers who are on the fence about whether to buy the game to begin with?

Just because we are fans of something does not mean we should slavishly defend it against all criticism. You can love something and also want better for it. Look at your own loved ones and family. I guarantee you don't agree with 100% of their choices. I guarantee we all have hard discussions or arguments with them, but it's only because we want to help them.

This is how things improve. Through analysis and criticism. At the end of the day, the developers are running a business and it has to be based on attracting and retaining the most players it can. They can do this by adopting a reasonable pricing model for their DLC that matches the actual amount of content being added to the game.

[The Renderer]

Your hours = price logic is deeply flawed. Roguelites often take hundreds of hours to "complete" (think Isaac) but those are very padded hours and cannot be compared to the same amount of hours in a game like (random example) Baldur's Gate 3.

Hence the perceived value of roguelites is a lot lower per hour, and rightfully so. A roguelite trying to sell for 40+ bucks will have a hard time. And so does selling a simple "add a little content"-DLC for the same price as a huge game changing DLC for something like Stellaris. It just doesn't work.

Ultimately devs can ask the price they want and people can pay it or not, it's not a necessity, no one is forced to play a game. So, true, there is no "wrong" price. But the irritation is absolutely understandable, so spare us the holier-than-thou faux "you are all so entitled" attitude.