Season Pass for Single Player ??? Lunatics ...

[sSHh_[PT]]

What's the point pof a SEASON PASS for Single Player ??? there is no Multi-Player life-time to be extended !!! It's a way to RIP-OFF money from people.

Single Player is the type of stand-alone GAME, no need for Season Pass at all ....

[neat.]

I'd disagree with you. Look at games such as The Witcher 3, or any decently-lengthy single player game. It can be beneficial to have a season pass for them. Generally, I see more effort in developing additional content from solo games rather than multiplayer. Call of Duty will release maybe a few maps, whereas games like Dragon Age: Inquisistion will add entire new areas, lore, characters, and build a world. They both have their place.

[sSHh_[PT]]

They could turn the S.P into a part of a complete game and make the game little more expensive or just make a sequel ( second game, continuation of the first )

[J4MESOX4D]

Originally posted by Ay Yo, Augury!:

I'd disagree with you. Look at games such as The Witcher 3, or any decently-lengthy single player game. It can be beneficial to have a season pass for them. Generally, I see more effort in developing additional content from solo games rather than multiplayer. Call of Duty will release maybe a few maps, whereas games like Dragon Age: Inquisistion will add entire new areas, lore, characters, and build a world. They both have their place.

The Witcher 3 didn't have a season pass though - it' had two expansions bought standalone. I think the OP is talking more in-line with the likes of Sniper Ghost Warrior 3, Resident Evil 7, Batman Arkham Knight and Rise of the Tomb Raider - all had season passes for the single player component and all had terrible content which didn't reflect the cost the pass.

[neat.]

Originally posted by sSHh_PT:

They could turn the S.P into a part of a complete game and make the game little more expensive or just make a sequel ( second game, continuation of the first )

Yes, they could, but the gaming industry is going in the direction of paid dlc, microtransactions, and all sorts of other gimmicks. It's the sad reality of the matter.

Originally posted by J4MESOX4D:

Originally posted by Ay Yo, Augury!:

I'd disagree with you. Look at games such as The Witcher 3, or any decently-lengthy single player game. It can be beneficial to have a season pass for them. Generally, I see more effort in developing additional content from solo games rather than multiplayer. Call of Duty will release maybe a few maps, whereas games like Dragon Age: Inquisistion will add entire new areas, lore, characters, and build a world. They both have their place.

The Witcher 3 didn't have a season pass though - it' had two expansions bought standalone. I think the OP is talking more in-line with the likes of Sniper Ghost Warrior 3, Resident Evil 7, Batman Arkham Knight and Rise of the Tomb Raider - all had season passes for the single player component and all had terrible content which didn't reflect the cost the pass.

Very valid point on the DLC's being expansions with no season pass. That said it's becoming increasingly common for publishers and developers to push these sorts of things in a bid to earn more money. The industry itself has been sliding down this hill for a few years now, and at this point it's hitting a wide level. Having never played any of the titles you listed, I wouldn't be able to offer my .02 beyond the generalized statements about this trend just being the new thing.

If you're genuinely upset don't buy it, only way these folks listen is through their cash flow. I rarely purchase DLC, and in recent memory have not bought a season pass for any title unless I somehow acquired it in a bundle. It's gambling on the hope they'll deliver content worth the money.

[sSHh_[PT]]

What I mean any way, is that the Gaming Industry is getting worst and more expensive and we're letting it.

Games that used to be, both M.P and S.P maybe would have Season Pass, there was no in app purchase or very little of this, and Single Player games wer more rich than now. Today I see game makers caring more about great graphics rather then a great game-play.

Today, most games come only in single-player or multi-player, micro-transactions almost every where and with this Multi-Player games have a shorter life-time and many people invest quite some money with out countig micro-transactions.

I hope this brings some light for those who take look into this discussion.

[sSHh_[PT]]

If you're genuinely upset don't buy it, only way these folks listen is through their cash flow. I rarely purchase DLC, and in recent memory have not bought a season pass for any title unless I somehow acquired it in a bundle. It's gambling on the hope they'll deliver content worth the money. [/quote]

Right now I'm buying everything which I think the price is reasonable on external sites from Steam. I only miss the announcement of the purchased game on Steam.

[Washell]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-15

All these tactics are to deal with the rising costs of game development, without which we'd now be paying $120 per game. Be glad that instead of that, half that amount is optional, while still getting the core gameplay and story.

[J4MESOX4D]

Originally posted by sSHh_PT:

What I mean any way, is that the Gaming Industry is getting worst and more expensive and we're letting it

Base game prices are the same as what they were 10-15 years ago. In the mid 90's, PC games were even more expensive than what they were now. I remember paying £49.99 for FIFA 97 and now only paying £39.99 for FIFA 17. I also paid £50+ for many including Stonekeep, Actua Soccer and Myst.

You have to take into account the scaling development costs and general upkeep on games also. We are very fortunate that games are still within a reasonable entry price point. Some AAA developers have 500+ staff on their books on full time contracts whereas back in the old days; you'd rarely see a game have more than 50 full time staff who were contracted game-by-game. The burn rate is insane for some games and some studios may commit $50m+ before they even see a penny and they may never ever recover their outgoings on a product.

I can see why publishers and developers want to maximise their revenues not just to cover growing developement and licencing expenses but to ensure profitability and security. If a single player game has good quality additional content; you can buy it and support the devs/pubs further or the concept can backfire and people can just ignore any additional fluff such as some of the guff seen in Deus Ex Mankind Divided. If you think content is withheld or born out of greed; simply don't buy it as seen in many season passes. The only way greed can be put to bed is if people don't buy into it especially if the material is even advertised beforehand.

[sSHh_[PT]]

If I'm not wrong usually Game Devs. are usually sponsored if they're any good, Plus they probably get some discount on almost everything they need to get their job done.

[sSHh_[PT]]

On most parts of this world, chances for usual people are quite different from those which are offered if you're a part of some kind of commerce.

You can notice this on discounts, which usually are bigger if you have some kind of business and stuff that is not available or targeted for ordinary people.

[Washell]

Originally posted by sSHh_PT:

If I'm not wrong usually Game Devs. are usually sponsored if they're any good, Plus they probably get some discount on almost everything they need to get their job done.

You're wrong, horribly, horribly wrong. Developers are either fronting the money from the income of their last game, but more usually either directly owned or paid by a bigger publisher to do the work. There are no discounts for the software, commercial developers is where the engine and middleware sellers make their money. The things they do get in bulk discount (hardware, office supplies, etc) are only a small fraction of the cost of development. Most of it simply goes toward salaried employees and licensing.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Single player games have has Season Passes for a long time now. It provides an easy way to purchse the future content, if a user wishes to do so.

When I purchased Fallout 4 around release, I go the season pass with it. I found a good deal where I could get both for about the same as just getting the base game at full price.

People expect DLC these days and for games to have added content latter on, especialy if they love the game.

Originally posted by J4MESOX4D:

The Witcher 3 didn't have a season pass though - it' had two expansions bought standalone.

The Witcher 3 did have a "season pass". They just didn't call it a season pass.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/355880/The_Witcher_3_Wild_Hunt__Expansion_Pass/

If you check the date that pass was released and when the DLC was released, you can see the pass was available before the DLC was.

They call it an Expansion Pass, but it is a Season Pass as they both have the same function.

Originally posted by Washell:

You're wrong, horribly, horribly wrong. Developers are either fronting the money from the income of their last game, but more usually either directly owned or paid by a bigger publisher to do the work. There are no discounts for the software, commercial developers is where the engine and middleware sellers make their money. The things they do get in bulk discount (hardware, office supplies, etc) are only a small fraction of the cost of development. Most of it simply goes toward salaried employees and licensing.

Yep, and when a Developer uses a Publisher for their game, then the Publisher often gets the majority of the profits as well since they took all the risk. The developers may get a bonus when the game is finished, but that is it.

[Pscht]

Originally posted by Dead more like Garbage:

[Message Deleted]

Well, necroing a thread over five years later to post crap is VERY garbage.

[Katie]

This thread was quite old before the recent post, so we're locking it to prevent confusion.