I hate this as well, but technically you don't own anything on the disc. You don't even really own the disc according to the stupid end user legalese. You own a license to play what's on it.
I think this should cover DLC that was already made and included on the disc, but it doesn't.
I don't really mind a lot of DLC though, but that's only because I stopped buying it a while ago. I refuse to spend 25% of what I paid for the total game on 3 or 4 new maps. Paying $30 for weapon skins that do nothing but show that you bought some weapon skins is also a miss with me.
Star mentioned that games are more expensive to make now, but game companies are already making far more for each copy sold than ever before. With games beating out films in initial release sales figures it's difficult to back the logic when gaming titans like EA and Activision, who release yearly iterations of the same titles, and the people who charge for DLC on release day.
No matter how many gamers decide that they won't pay for day-1 DLC there will be millions of children who beg, plead, cry, scream, and make an *** out of themselves until their parents cave in and let them buy it.
This trend won't be going away anytime soon and, with more games becoming Digital Downloads, it's only going to get worse.
Their argument T4k is that we don't own the disc's content. It's also been said that Gears was ready to ship in April but MS held it back, giving Epic the chance to complete the DLC they then added to the disc. I don't like it at all, like Hitman I am a total Gears freak but not so much of a fan that I won't admit Epic have never really been the best at PR with their core players. In truth the people who've kept the franchise alive all these years are the exact people who make the game a nightmare for noobs and Epic have done all they can to cripple us and level the playing field.
It's a little like Trials putting training wheels on the bike so I could get a similar time to GSW.
And Anba, I'd happily have paid the price of a retail game for Trials HD as it's the best value for money game I've ever had. I imagine I'll feel the same way about Evo when it lands.
I'm kind of like Shifty, I'd care more about the DLC if I actually played Gears of War 3. Still on act 2 and no gold subscription![]()
I agree. I'll admit it seems far fetched for RL to sell it as a disc based game, but value for content is so high with Redlynx and they always charge what seems to be minuscule amounts. That probably helps them sell more copies which could put the profits from a $15 games over what they would make with a $60 game.Originally Posted by JoeRegular
Anyhow, keep on keeping on RL, you're the only devs I trust to not take the money and run.
I know we won't get any details here but I'm interested in the way the games get priced.
Does RL sell the game to MS and MS sets a price?
Does Anba sit locked away with a calculator working out man hours and Battery drink expenditure or does MS play it and say " we'll give you X amount "
I know MS plays a bigger part in all this than I ( possibly most of us ) understand.
In Oct OXM UK on p.109 there are pie charts showing where the money goes for dl and retail.. I can't do pictures so ill list what it says...
Retail boxed game..
20% retail
35% publisher
10% developer
20% manufacturing cost
15% distribution costs and wholesale commission
Digital, developer self publishing
30% distribution via online outlet
70% developer
That's what is says folks
So a $60 retail game = $6 for devsOriginally Posted by raistlin2076
$15 XBLA game = $10 for devs
$10 XBLA game = $7 for devs
![]()
![]()
![]()
It will be 1200 like every fully-fledged arcade game.![]()
Anyways, what do you expect when the head of a publisher says lines like this one
"The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." - Bobby Kotick, EA boss
Instead of "making videosgames" he could have also said "buying videogames"![]()
![]()