I've thought about this before, and you're definitely right that games are technically cheaper when you factor in inflation. However, they sell to a much larger audience now, so it's not like the major studios are starving. Even so, I would probably be fine with it, if it weren't for the tendency to:
include microtransactions, rather than achievements
sell dlc that should have just been part of the game
Release the same uninspired crap every year (call of duty, sports ball 2023, etc.)
sell broken games
I'm guessing this one will be #4. Hoping to be wrong.
I definitely agree with you on 1, 3 and 4. Personally I haven’t even looked at Starfield because of the patient gamer thing, I’ll try it out in a few years or whenever it’s on sale / has enough buzz.
I do kind of defend a lot of dlc though. Some of it is predatory as fuck, but some of it just massively expands a game’s lifespan and you end up with massively more support/content in a post-dlc world than we ever got without it.
It just depends on if they’re selling Horse Armor, or if it’s a game that keeps getting major content patches for 10 years because it’s being supported by dlc. Both happen. Of course, given that “horse armor” is literally something Bethesda did…well…
I think this was the height of egregious DLC. They put it on the disk on release day.
I don't think anyone's arguing DLC is completely bad. DLC done properly is awesome, and I way prefer it to the tendency to re-release a game annually. However, it's absolutely been co-opted to gate off random bits of content behind a paywall. Any DLC released day one (or near to it) is literally just base game content that they thought they could get away with charging for.
I've thought about this before, and you're definitely right that games are technically cheaper when you factor in inflation. However, they sell to a much larger audience now, so it's not like the major studios are starving. Even so, I would probably be fine with it, if it weren't for the tendency to:
I'm guessing this one will be #4. Hoping to be wrong.
I definitely agree with you on 1, 3 and 4. Personally I haven’t even looked at Starfield because of the patient gamer thing, I’ll try it out in a few years or whenever it’s on sale / has enough buzz.
I do kind of defend a lot of dlc though. Some of it is predatory as fuck, but some of it just massively expands a game’s lifespan and you end up with massively more support/content in a post-dlc world than we ever got without it.
It just depends on if they’re selling Horse Armor, or if it’s a game that keeps getting major content patches for 10 years because it’s being supported by dlc. Both happen. Of course, given that “horse armor” is literally something Bethesda did…well…
I think this was the height of egregious DLC. They put it on the disk on release day.
https://www.eurogamer.net/capcom-defends-on-disc-dlc
I don't think anyone's arguing DLC is completely bad. DLC done properly is awesome, and I way prefer it to the tendency to re-release a game annually. However, it's absolutely been co-opted to gate off random bits of content behind a paywall. Any DLC released day one (or near to it) is literally just base game content that they thought they could get away with charging for.