So people are forced to buy optional content?

Well, duh, Brad. You totally FORCED me to buy a WinCustomize subscription. I didn't have any choice in the matter. Same with Twilight.

Don't you remember the part where you held the gun to my head and made me input my Paypal information? Or did that slip your mind?

I take it you don't eat out much then.  One Long Island Ice Tea can cost $7 and it lasts (for me anyway) about 20 minutes and it's gone. 

But you'd be "pissed" if someone made a character that you might spend weeks, months or years enjoying because they charged a whopping $10 for? 

Video games aren't food, clothing, or shelter. You don't have to purchase them. The mere existence of stuff you aren't willing to pay for doesn't hurt you in the slightest.

Well yea but I don't do that to every user of course. We have goons for that...

 

So you lose respect for me because I object to people who try to bully companies into taking away options from customers?

That was, after all, the 1 sentence summary of the article.

You don't want to pay $10 for some extra content, that's your right. If it doesn't meet your needs, then don't buy it.  But that's not what happens. People will create such a public uproar that it causes companies to simply not release anything at all.

It is unfortunate that Oblivion started with the Horse Armor thing because I could see where people might have been willing to pay $10 for more content as long as the content was sufficient.

And my example of being willing to buy more content for TF2 or some other game is still valid - if *I* as a gamer want to buy something, why shouldn't I be able to simply because there are people who don't want to pay for it?

In the real world, if someone puts out some widget that I don't like, I don't buy it.  On the Internet, people not only don't buy it but take it on themselves to try to force the product off the market at the drop of a hat.

Your analogy is flawed.

No one is stopping you from TRYING to charge extra for providing additional paragraphs.  If people think those extra paragraphs are worth it, they'll buy it. Otherwise, they won't.

By contrast, to use your analogy, in the software world it is more like I write an article that I give away for free but then people scream that I also sell a book that expands on the topic covered by the article.

 

Now Brad, Did you wake up on the foot side or the pillow side of the bed today.

Man you seem angry-- oh well still-- gonna be laughing at this one for a while

"Seriously, could you wander off somewhere else."

The irony of all this, is that computer software is about the only place where people act as though they are entitled to everything for free. When is the last time any of you walked into Macy's, picked up an expensive designer watch, and expected to walk out with it for free? (Unless you really want to take a ride in that cool black and white car with the flashing lights in the top?) For the most part, people understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, it's just that for some reason, when they get on-line, some people don't think that this rule applies any longer.

Yes, in some case they are. Thats the point we were trying to make.

See my other post:

I think the addition of for-pay stuff is always a good idea in single-player, and under certain conditions, for multiplayer.

To me, in competitive multiplayer, balance is of utmost importance. The best example of where the line is for me is the difference between Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2. I bought BF1942 and both expansions, and enjoyed the game for years. I bought BF2 and only played until the first expansion.

The difference is that for the 1942 expansions when you played the expanded content, you only played with others who had that expanded content. In BF2 they allowed the expansion weapons to be used in the standard maps against people who didn't have access to those weapons. I considered that to be unfair, and immediately lost interest in the game. I won't buy any further games in the series, because I would expect them to eventually unbalance it again in this way.

Your TF2 example would be a case where I would only like it if I had the option to play on servers only with others who don't have the expanded content. If so, I'd almost certainly buy the bonus character. If not, you have games where not all tactical options are available to both sides. I would love to see them add pay-for content to TF2, but only if they allowed people to play the stock game on stock servers. Otherwise, we could easily get into the treadmill that collectible card games perpetrate. You can't keep up with your peers unless you keep spending...

For a strawman, let's say I bought an online chess-matchup game and enjoyed it. Then the developer introduced pay-for content that allowed the buyer to replace one bishop with a second queen, and then matched up those with the pay-for content with those who didn't buy it. I would leave that service permanently, and perhaps a bit grumpily. I wouldn't mind, however, if those with the bonus always played together.

Now it's their game, they're free to change whatever they think brings the most value to the most people, and at what price. It's not anything worth getting upset or flaming developers about, we're playing games not curing cancer here. If I don't like it, I just won't buy it.

Re-stating a flawed analogy does not make it any more valid. (Oh, and "a lot" is two words, Mister Writer-Man.) I find your arguments flawed, based as they are on fanboy moon-logic and some sort of bizarre entitlement, and you should be glad that the CEO and founder of a multi-million dollar business has bothered to respond to them as if they made any kind of sense.

(I was so trying to avoid trolling, but come on...)

If he was really a professional writer, which I doubt, then he'd know that everything but fanfic is done "to specs," just like software. If you're paid to complete a project, you complete it in the time and space alloted. It doesn't matter if it's a novel or a blurb in a technical white paper - it's done to specs in the professional world.

A better analogy would be: "Let's say I write a book, and later on write a magazine article or two discussing, revising, and updating the information in that book - a process that is not uncommon in research circles. Should these articles be released for free, such as on the publisher's or my own website, or is it proper to publish them in the appropriate journals, or even to charge people for an 'errata bundle'? In a similar vein, if my work is lengthy enough, should I also do an abridged, condensed summary volume, perhaps as a free download to those who need my conclusions for their own work but do not have the time and money to purchase and peruse the full volume?"

Then we got could compare, contrast, and debate, as that's not only a plausible scenario, it's one that professional writers really are struggling with.

But what do I know? I get paid to string words together in a meaningful and pleasant to read fashion.

Still the players would be right to critize the developers since that way they ruined the fun of a game the players have already payed for and thus forcing them to pay or stop playing. Now one who experiented such case can easily start ranting as soon as one sees anything similar.
Not that i say its right to rant about ObjectDock (i dont really know what it is anyway, but it does not matter). But stating that "for pay stuff does not hurt you" is simply wrong. It depends on the case.

Brad I would buy the 10 dollar module updates if they offer good value for money (I especially like the idea to upgrade diplomacy!). I think most Galciv buyers do not expect you guys to put in your valuable leisure time to keep expanding this great game. After all If you would keep on upgrading the game for free, Stardock will eventually go bust, unless you earn your money with other products of course.

Yes.

Let's assume that "content" is a reasonably measurable quantity. Let's assume that GalCiv 2's initial release has 100 "units" of content. Adding up all the patches and expansions, let's say that GC2 has 180 units of content.

So, GC2 costs $40 for the base game, with each expansion costing $30. It's clear that GC2 is a bargain; it's $40 for 100 units of content, thus giving a content-per-dollar (CPD) rating 2.5. The full GC2 package costs $100 in total. This is a comparatively poorer rating, at only 1.8. However, let's assume that each expansion offers 30 units of content, with the remaining 20 being freebies from patches. The CPD for an individual expansion is a mere 1.0; pretty small compared to the 2.5 for GC2. It is obvious that the expansions do not offer anywhere near the same content-per-dollar rating as the main game.

One more assumption: let's assume that each unit of content has a fixed cost from the developer associated with it. This is not necessarily the case, but let's assume that it is. So the initial release of GC2 cost 100 units of cost, and the full version is 180.

Because of this, it is obvious that the StarDock makes more money on the expansions than the main game. Just like with regular products in a store, the more you buy at one time, the lower the price is to the consumer, but also the lower the return on investment for each is for the maker. The content-per-dollar rating is, when inverted, the return on investment for the game developer.

Now, let's look at a hypothetical GC3. If StarDock pursues this strategy of selling smaller, incremental updates, there are two ways to do this. One of them is fairly reasonable (though antithetical to proper game design); the other is a price hike. Observe:

Let's assume that the hypothetical GC3 is shipped with 100 units of content. Let's assume it sells for $50, to deal with inflation and so forth. This means that the content-per-dollar rating is 2.0; less than GC2, but that's understood.

Now we get into the micro-expansions. Let's say each of these sells for $10, but provides 10 units of content. Well, the CPD rating for these is 1.0, which is the same as for GC2's expansions. No problems there. Maybe StarDock provides that extra 20 units of content for free, maybe they don't.

However, the big problem comes from when StarDock decides to game the system for a major price hike.

To do this, they maximize profits by charging as much as possible for content. Let's assume that this version of GC3 is shipped with only 60 units of content. A far cry from the 100 for GC2. Sold at $40, the CPD rating is a mere 1.5, less than the totality of GC2. Which means that the profit margin for the developer, costs per content, is very high. StarDock doesn't spend much to make a game that they sell for $40.

Then, we have micro-expansions that sell for $10, providing 10 units of content each. In order to reach the same level of content as even GC2's initial release, the gamer must pay $80. The CPD for this is 1.25. This is a de facto price hike; GC2's level of content went from $40 to $80; the price for the same level of content doubled.

It is this latter possibility that many of us fear. And the fear is compounded by this: it doesn't take many idiots to give you greater profits. Because the CPD halved between GC2 and this GC3, you only need half as many people to buy GC3 in order to break even. If you keep 2/3rds of your customers, you come out with a good 16% greater profits. Thus, the cycle is reinforced and next time, you'll try to shave the content even more. Eventually, enough people will stop buying it that you'll have to retreat back to some former level of content. But in so doing, you've increased your profits by maybe 20-30% at the expense of your consumers.

There's also the psychological effect of using smaller increments of cash to buy things. $40 is a "lot" of money, while $10 isn't. It's easier to make someone part with that $10, especially after their $40 expenditure.

Do your experiments with micro-expansions if you must. But be warned; we will be watchful for treachery.



If I think you're cheating people out of their money, why shouldn't I create a public uproar? If I think you're selling a half-finished game and bilking people out of their money for no more or better content than you were doing 3 years ago, if I think you're using underhanded practices to jack up prices just because you don't want to actually raise the price of your game, then yes, I'm going to create a public uproar.

It's part of the "invisible hand" of the market. You as a company do something to increase your profits; if it's unethical or a ridiculous money grab, we catch you at it and whack you in the head until you stop. Rinse, and repeat. Eventually, you'll find out what we're willing to accept and what we're not.



And therein lies the whole problem with your argument: you basically assume that people who don't want to pay for it will be unaffected by its existence.

TF2 is a multiplayer game. If you bought character X, and I didn't, we're no longer playing the same game. You're playing one where you get more options than me; it is no longer a level playing field. Can you imagine Chess, where you get to buy an extra Queen? If you could pay some money to replace a Rook with a Queen, then you have an advantage over people who don't.

You can't just shoehorn this kind of thing into any game without thinking of the ramifications. And no amount of "well, then don't buy it" will change the fact that in multiplayer games, what other people do or get does affect my playing experience. It basically amounts to me either buying the thing or stop playing the game.



Charging people to get a fixed version of the broken thing that they bought that you released in a broken state is not just unethical, but I'm fairly certain there are laws about that sort of thing. Making people buy errata, or in gaming terms patches, is despicable and unacceptable behavior.

Alfonse,

Your statement that users are forced to buy optional content packs seems to be entirely based on the assumption that those content packs hold fixes to bugs, or somehow complete an otherwise incomplete product.  That the existence of a content pack implies that part of the original game was somehow intentionally limited so we could sell the extra $10 download.

You also talk about how it's obvious we make more off of expansions than we do off of the main game.

You're making a ton of huge assumptions in your argument.  You're saying that users are FORCED to buy that extra content on the ASSUMPTION that we have or would intentionally cripple the core game to sell the packs later on.

By that argument, you could say that people are FORCED to buy expansion packs, or that we have intentionally crippled the original game so we could make expansions later on to sell.

*IF* a game is released where core features have been intentionally removed so they could be sold as optional content packs, then you have something of a case stating that a user must purchase them to complete the game (though even in this case they're not forced to.  There's no gun to their head).  But the existence of content packs does not mean that the core game is somehow incomplete as a result.  One does not necessarily imply the other. 

Saying that the existence of optional content means the main game is incomplete is like saying the ground it wet, therefore it must have rained.  Someone could have poured a bucket of water on the ground, or a pipe nearby might have burst, or someone might have spilled a drink. 

But at no point are you FORCED to purchase anything. 

Then don't buy it and play or use something else.

Again, I have to reiterate my disbelief that you're involved in any sort of modern creative labor. I have several different "office" and graphics programs installed on this machine because different companies require different formats for various projects. Whenever a new version of, say, Microsoft Office or Abode Creative Suite comes out I can expect to pay into the hundreds of dollars just to stay current on vital work components. THAT is what being forced into upgrades is about, not pasttimes like skinning your GUI or playing a video game.

(And someone go ahead and mention Gimp and/or OpenOffice.org so that I can have a good laugh.)

Not angry. Just busy so fewer fluff words between statements.

I'm not saying that such extra-content couldn't be abused. You shouldn't be giving other players an advantage.

But let's say it's an RPG. I don't think adding, say a "Barbarian" class to an existing RPG that didn't have that class would debalance the game.

I can be talked into agreeing that adding new characters to TF2 would be a bad idea, but I don't think it's universally a bad idea.

The game example I gave earlier was adding specific features to Galactic Civilizations II such as an expanded United Planets feature.

I'm not sure I'd pay for some UP expanded DLC unless it was really awesome and brought something truely new to the game. I *would* however pay for that "epic generator" idea you used to throw around a year or two ago though. Generally though, most DLC I have seen so far both when it comes to computers and consoles is far too low value for money for me to consider buying it. New phat lewt, general e-peen enhancers or "cool stuff" doesn't do it for me. I think it would have to be something really deepening the gameplay experience in a meaningful way.