Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The game is fun, but it does feel very much like a milking machine, as you put it.
Avalanche truly is not not doing anything unethical.
As far as bundles/season pass, i also would like that.
There is really no way to know an answer unless a Dev/Mod informs us, and I'm sure we would all be last to find out here. Kind of a bummer I understand but the game is well worth the money and I will continue to support them myself through buying DLC on sale when I can.
I mean it's not EA levels of unethical but it IS at least questionable.
Other games are probably more after a couple of dlc. Battletech and HOI4 are more expensive, each individual DLC three times more at least. Though less DLC year for each of those. I think Battletechs season pass was only for a couple of dlc releases, they are already on the next dlc which was not covered by the season pass.
Classic was developed over 10 years, with content coming out the entire time. The devs have indicated that they plan on doing the same with COTW, which is great because without new content, it can get stale after awhile. EW needs to pay bills too, and they are a business, so yes, they need to offer new products to bring in money (which is different than milking players, though I know many might argue against that).
That being said, I think the only way you are going to have a “definitive” edition is to wait another 8+ years or so until development ends. Why not enjoy what is available now and supplement it as you like with DLCs when you want?
I don't understand why people think everything else can change in price as years go on, but for some reason Game Devs are slaves that belong to Gamers, why else would people get this idea that games can ONLY cost 60$, unless Gamers had no respect for the Labor, work, time put into developing and publishing a game.
Gamers treat Developers like slaves, look at the game Destiny2, its F2P now and if you spend 2 seconds in there steam forum, the amount of salty entitled gamers there will make you sick if you're not a total scum sucker.
This is consumer insanity and there is No other industry that reflects this level of insanity.
As long as the model doesn't have a P2W system and the Marketing is not deceptive, most DLC based business models any Dev/Publisher picks is ethical. (so long as the content is up to par with the rest of there releases)
Inflation, Supply and Demand, among many other economic factors contribute to any industries reasoning in pricing an item, but this is not allowed to affect Game Dev studios or Publishers....
as a consumer, we have no right or entitlement to judge or accuse a dev of being unethical simply because there not following the pricing model that "tradition" put in place.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
@Hidden Gunman - no, it's not bs. Because some other business models are way worse doesn't mean we should be happy with this one.
@von Driesen - Yeah, as i already said, i don't know if i will like the game to the point of spending even half of your hours in it. Maybe not even 10%. And yes, there are worse cases, especially season passes that do not cover all future dlcs.
@Snail Rancher - Yes, developer needs to earn but there are better ways than spamming dlcs for a decade. Also thanks, if they indeed plan to keep this up for another years i know this is not a game for me, so this info is valuable. It almost feels like subscription. Yeah, i know the differences. As for second part of your post it's like what i said - it really bothers me when i do not have everything and i can't enjoy the game knowing i miss the newest DLC. Yes, it's stupid, but i am like this, nothing i can do about it. That's why buying this game now and then paying for all DLCs in the span of next 10 years is not a good business for me. Again, thank you for that info.
Im 30 years old, usually age and maturity gives you insight to why those things changed from all those years ago.
The world is a different place from even 12-15 years ago. The biggest issue I see is that EVERYONE is not paid enough for there work. Would you agree that the world is different, inflation has gone up, money is worth less than it was even 10-15 years ago? The rich are too rich and the poor too poor.
Do you think Game Devs are part of the elite class? You couldn't be more incorrect. Game Devs do more work for less money than any other software engineering position, and dont get me started on the pay for artists.
I imagine you want to be paid more for you work right? get a promotion for being a good, honest, on-time employee, or you want to charge more for your business you provide?
so why are game devs and publishers exempt from being able to feel this way about there products? if youre old, you should immediately be able to empathize and see the wisdom in what im saying.
and I paid for both DLC addons to witcher 3.
the amount of bugs in the game can be counted on 1 hand.
the amount of issues caused by updates, that is a bit rougher, but that will never reflect on the price/value of a product, and it shouldn't.
Instead Devs should feel obligated to finish their product in that sense for customers that have paid for the product willingly.
a reduction in prices will just make them quit fixing/updating the game in the long run because it is literally worth nothing to them at that point.
Developers are not slaves, they are companies that wants customer's money. Always. To achieve that, company must convince customers to buy their projects. Earlier the method was too sell the game to as many people as possible for a set amount of money. Now the more popular approach is to milk a customer with endless DLCs, microtransactions and battle passes. Basically whale hunting. The best examples obviously are Train/Flight Simulator or Dead or Alive games and this game also is heading into that direction. Customer do not have to agree to that. I don't know how you define "unethical", but it's certainly not customer friendly business because i am sure if at a release day everyone would know how long the game will be "coming out" and how much will it cost in total to have everything, not many would buy it. Customers are in dark here and dev abuse the fact a lot of people are like "well, i already have so much, it would be stupid to not buy the next DLC"... for the next 8 years.
Yes, it's right of the developer to choose business model like this, but it's customer right to not like it, criticize dev for it and just skipping their product.
your interpretation of business is so drastically incorrect, also You clearly ignored major points i was making. I deduce you must have a minimum wage job. i doubt youll grasp these concepts until you get a better position or make more money for the work you do.
when you have the opportunity to realize how much it costs to run a business maybe then you'll have the wisdom needed to judge this situation accurately.
until then you're just being flat out judgmental and un-wise.
"To achieve that, company must convince customers to buy their projects. Earlier the method was too sell the game to as many people as possible for a set amount of money. Now the more popular approach is to milk a customer with endless DLCs, microtransactions and battle passes." - this sentence doesn't even make sense.
Youre saying that a company must CONVINCE people to buy their projects. and the way they convinced people before was selling at 60$, and now they convince people by choosing new models..
People were NEVER convinced to buy a game because it was 60$. People buy games they want to play, ahah, commercials and marketting just show a PREVIEW of the game to entice people.
the pricing model a company chooses has NOTHING to do with advertising, it has to do with either keeping the company alive, or making as much money as possible.
If you genuinely think this Business model that Avalanche has chosen is making them rich, youre just wrong, and you don't understand business and how to run or make a business yourself.
Well, at this point i know you are not the person i am willing to continue a conversation with. I will not even bother to correct you. If you assume my income based on 2 posts in Steam discussion, i do not find you attractive as a debate partner.
I assume that because you speak like a person from that position in life. You want Game devs and publishers to follow rules that no other industry follows, and you wish to claim there is an ethical issue with it on any level.
your interpretation of business is so drastically incorrect, also You clearly ignored major points i was making. I deduce you must have a minimum wage job. i doubt youll grasp these concepts until you get a better position or make more money for the work you do.
when you have the opportunity to realize how much it costs to run a business maybe then you'll have the wisdom needed to judge this situation accurately.
until then you're just being flat out judgmental and un-wise.
"To achieve that, company must convince customers to buy their projects. Earlier the method was too sell the game to as many people as possible for a set amount of money. Now the more popular approach is to milk a customer with endless DLCs, micro-transactions and battle passes." - this sentence doesn't even make sense.
You're saying that a company must CONVINCE people to buy their projects. and the way they convinced people before was selling at 60$, and now they convince people by choosing new models.. No, you're just wrong about how the world works, how business works, how sales work.
People were NEVER convinced to buy a game because it was 60$. People buy the games they want, because those are the games they want to play; commercials and marketing show a preview of the game to entice people.
This new age of complaining about games with DLC's is a new issue due to entitlement issues of the lower class people in society, and because some Dev's have preyed upon the vulnerable by making mobile p2w games and those finally migrated to PC.
People who make money respect others hustle and intent to make money, especially if its over an entertainment product they know they might enjoy. the only people with an issue over fairly priced stuff is people that don't have enough money to buy that "extra" stuff because of bills/responsibilities/etc.I respect whatever income someone may have but i don't respect people being disrespectful to Devs/Publishers because of their inaccurate judgments.
The willingness of customers to pay 60$ was based on an economic understanding of peoples budgets in relation to consoles during the early 2000's. You don't even know the history of why games were sold for 60$ apparently.
the pricing model a company chooses has NOTHING to do with advertising, it has to do with either keeping the company alive, or making as much money as possible.
If you genuinely think this Business model that Avalanche has chosen is making them rich, youre just wrong, and you don't understand business and how to run or make a business yourself.