Member
Positive noises for those who are waiting on news about the FH season pass etc. (link below)
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...rience-ubisoft
Senior Member
Junior Member
Member
i didn't state whether i believed it or not, only that it sounded positive, hardly "naive".ill believe it when ill see it, stop being naive.
My understanding is that the season pass and DLC content for Rainbow Six: Siege (as stated in the article, and other forum members over time) *might* be a model being followed, so perhaps a reason to be optimistic. However, as you say, I would wait and see what the facts are, as theres no need to put money down ahead of a release without knowing what you'll be getting.
I agree up to a point (Star Wars Battlefront may be a good example here of a title that was felt by many as lacking on release). If I can see the effort that has gone into whats on offer, then i'm fine with paying for extra content (you can add to a game that you enjoy sooner than waiting on a sequel), or better yet getting extra content for free post release. Developers can only do so much with the resource and time available prior to release, so adding to it "piece by piece" after release is fine by me, depending on whats on offer in the original release and in those additions. Witcher 3 often gets held up as an ideal example for delivery of DLC vs Expansions. And per above reply, i see citations for Rainbow Six in a similar vein. Its a difficult balance game developers have - Creativity verses Financial Reality.Really sad how we get games piece by piece ;b
Pls givee us the whole game!
Member
Multiplayer games with paid DLC has always been a bad idea. Because it's always true that only a portion of all gamers will buy your game in the first place, and only a portion of the people who bought your game will buy DLC, and that number decreases with every new DLC you release. So you're splitting the playerbase into smaller and smaller portions when you do paid DLC, and that kills the game.
You shouldn't ever split your playerbase. Because players are content in multiplayer games, so you want as many as possible in the same place.
Member
Fully agree. If there are paid for extensions to the single player campaign then (as i was said in earlier post) depending on the nature of the content, i'm fine with that. Id buy it if the original campaign is good enough and left me wanting more, etc. Though if it felt like they held back simply in order to milk the cow, then i might feel otherwise.Multiplayer games with paid DLC has always been a bad idea. Because it's always true that only a portion of all gamers will buy your game in the first place, and only a portion of the people who bought your game will buy DLC,
Generally speaking, if thats all a dev wants to charge people for, then great. Entirely optional non game changing stuff? great! Let those that want that pay for such things which may subsidise extra (free) maps. Better yet, give the community a map editor (a big ask that one, and i suspect not likely to happen). Given some decent gratis content over a period of time, some might even choose to show gratitude to a dev by buying some cosmetic item for a couple of quid every so often.. (again, it all depends on content right?).Cash shop full of cosmetics? Sign me up!
Junior Member
