The costs of being a gamer

[Solace]

What do you think of the costs of subscriptions, DLC, expansions, and other expenses of playing modern video games? Comments are open to any and all costs of being a gamer: console, pc, mmo, etc.

Here's some topics to get people started:

1. Are MMO subscription fees outdated?
2. Is it fair to charge beyond the initial purchase to unlock content already on the disk?
3. Is it fair to pay full retail cost for a digital copy of a game?
4. Are virtual console titles (like old NES games) over priced?
5. Should virtual content be locked to account instead of device?

Note that you don't have to answer all of these at once. They're just ideas to get people talking. Feel free to bring up other stuff as long as it's related to the topic.

[Tempester]

Paid DLC is fine as long as it's bonus or fanservice material, like extra clothes and weapons. The actual game must be complete and fairly satisfying on its own. Paying to download half of the game's story that was deliberately left out of the game is a big no-no.

I'm just talking out of my butt though, since all I play are VNs, Pokemon and indie games, which don't give me those issues very much.

[Keroko]

Hmmm, a wide range of topics with an equally wide range of opinions. Let's run down the list.

Are MMO subscriptions outdated?

In my opinion, yes they are. Subscription fees rose in the day where MMO's were a niche in a niche. Gaming was not as mainstream as it is today to begin with, and MMO's were a special corner even in that range. These days, gaming is a lot more mainstream, and the arrival of WoW brought MMO's from the niche into the mainstream gaming. With a bigger market comes competition, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

But that's also where a problem with the subscription system lies. Unless the gamer is wealthy, they really can't afford playing more than one or two MMO's at the same time. Competition becomes stifling as it becomes "either me or them" and gamers will ask you "why should I play your game instead of the one I'm playing now?" Compare this to other games where people will happily play several titles alongside one another.

Given that the stigma surrounding micro-transactions is slowly starting to lessen, it's a much better business plan to remove the fee and give gamers the option to play more MMO's alongside one another. Yes, it could mean they buy the game and then play for free, but the history of micro-transactions has taught us that the lure of the cash shop is difficult to resist, even if you only sell cosmetic or convenience items. It's also far more subtle than a standard fee, potentially even increasing your income by comparison.

This gives the gamer more games to play and you more potential customers. Everybody wins.

Is it fair to charge beyond the initial purchase to unlock content already on the disk?

Trick question. There are two ways to handle this: Either by giving the content free if the game is bought first hand, or charge regardless of this. The first is a way to encourage players to buy first hand, and a valid method of combating used game sales, the later is just charging extra.

I am a firm supporter of the "if I buy a game, I want the whole game I paid for." DLC is fine, as long as it was made after the game is released. It's a bit like paying full prize for half a pizza. Nobody wants that. However, many are willing to pay extra if you get some extra topping.

If it's done with things that were already finished on release, then the only way to validate this is to lower the price for the core game.

Which brings us to:

Is it fair to pay full retail cost for a digital copy of a game?

It... really isn't. Retail prices incorporate the costs of transport, storage and retail personnel. Digital downloads only have storage to worry about, and digital storage at that. A cut in prices on digital copies could very much lead to an increase in sales, potentially making more profit than those ten dollars they charge extra currently.

Are virtual console titles (like old NES games) over priced?

Hoo boy. There's a lot of ways to look at this. For example, how much did the game cost when it was first launched? Calculate inflation on top of that and you get some really fun numbers.

Though maybe these games are so old they became classics, validating their cost the same way an old painting might in price as it ages?

Or are we looking at the age and calculating from a "Older = cheaper" perspective? In this case the price should be really low.

The answer on this one is not so clear for me...

Should virtual content be locked to account instead of device?

Pick your poison. If it's locked to a device, the customer might lose it when the device goes kaput. If it's locked to an account, the customer might lose it when he loses his information, gets hacked or banned.

There's ups and downs to both here, both are quite feasible.

[Hiroi Sekai]

1. Are MMO subscription fees outdated?
I'm not much of an MMO gamer, so my opinion on here will be quite biased I fear, but I always wondered why people would pay monthly to play ONE game. That money (in my opinion) would be better spent getting a variety of new games. Okay, I pay for XBOX Live, but that gives access to every multiplayer game on the console and that's well worth it to me. Once again, it's just my opinion, so this one I can't answer completely.

2. Is it fair to charge beyond the initial purchase to unlock content already on the disk?
I suppose it's not unfair, but I really don't like how it sounds. It's the practice involved- why put something on a disk that we pay for, and then lock it off? Not only does it feel like you're keeping something from us, it gives off the feeling that content has been ripped from parts of the full game and then locked off for paid DLC. That may or may not be the case, but that's how it feels.

3. Is it fair to pay full retail cost for a digital copy of a game?
Depends on if you're one of the people that like seeing the box/disk on your shelf. I'm actually one of those people, in a much less extreme sense. I love good artwork on a disk and I'm too old-fashioned not to go through the manual just for fun. An advantage that a digital copy is that you can always have it; while a disk can scratch and even break, a digital copy is free from stuff like that. Then again, there's technical issues involved for that as well, so it depends on your viewpoint.

4. Are virtual console titles (like old NES games) over priced?
I sure think so. As one who still owns and loves (even prefers) retro games, I'm not a fan of playing games on a newer controller and interface. Battletoads doesn't feel the same unless I'm holding a rectangular box with two bright red buttons on it with a small oval button that makes a funky beat come out. So for that price, I can probably actually find the original game for a similar price, and I'd much prefer to play it on my actual original consoles. Now if you don't have access to stuff like this, this IS a nice way to get around that, and the price is decent for that. Of course, I'd still opt for just finding the original console used somewhere for cheap, but y'know.

5. Should virtual content be locked to account instead of device?
I think I would prefer an account, since your chances of getting hacked/banned can be reduced if you're cautious and don't act without thinking. Especially considering how unreliable consoles are nowadays, I'd much rather have it linked to my account with sticks around no matter what. I've got some personal experience, actually. My XBOX 360 red ringed (like EVERYONE's had), and since all of my purchases were linked to my Gold account, I just got my replacement console and then downloaded them again.


I've actually got a few more concerns of the future of purchasing games. One is EA's recent practice of online passes where each copy of the game can only be locked to one account. This means no more borrowing games from a friend for multiplayer. On the business side, I know this is beneficial for them. As a gamer though, it's just another cost to those who thrived on buying used games. That leads into two, which is used games in general. If they truly do make it impossible to buy used games, Gamestop (and other places selling used games) will naturally pull all of them from their shelves. I'm concerned that in order to make up for the losses there, we might be seeing higher prices for retail games. I was already feeling uneasy when Mortal Kombat came out for $69.99, and if games get any more expensive than that, I don't think I'd be buying many at all. And people ask why pirating is so commonplace nowadays.

[Keroko]

Yes, the locking to accounts is an annoying practice, particularly when its done to games you bought retail. To take Skyrim as an example, I bought the game thinking I could just install and play it, and yet I still had to download it from steam.

I bought a game retail, and I had to download it.

What is the bloody point of that!?

[MeoTwister5]

I don't agree with the MMO microtransaction approach. Case in point is, well, the nature of the MMO market here in the Philippines and most of SEA. Cash shops are the norm, and the problem occurs when cash shops are stocked with items that give players an automatic edge over non-paying players. An MMO should essentially give every player an equal ooportunity, but the cash shop approach here gives an edge to players with the ability to fork over cash for teh uber-leet gearz.

There's a big divide between paying and non-paying gamers, making some of the local MMOs really unbalanced.

[Solace]

You guys don't have to discuss these as a list. They were just ideas to get the conversation going. And yes, the retail you still have to download is stupid. What's the point of the disc if you still have to download the game? I can understand downloading a update or patch since the game has to print before the code is finished sometimes, but the entire game? One of the reasons to buy the disc is to save you all that download time!

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Originally Posted by Keroko

Yes, the locking to accounts is an annoying practice, particularly when its done to games you bought retail. To take Skyrim as an example, I bought the game thinking I could just install and play it, and yet I still had to download it from steam.

I bought a game retail, and I had to download it.

What is the bloody point of that!?

Bum disk? I purchased retail too, and it installed fine for me.

[Merilyn Mensola]

Mmmm....i just make my personal opinion..

for me, there is no problem to make and buy dlc, but the problem is that the many manufacturers of games, have begun offering dlc before the game to be released..instead of ensuring that the game has no bugs on day-one
for me, this is stupid..i have read many comments of people who complain about this...and for me,they're right,seems "mockery"

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I don't agree with the MMO microtransaction approach. Case in point is, well, the nature of the MMO market here in the Philippines and most of SEA. Cash shops are the norm, and the problem occurs when cash shops are stocked with items that give players an automatic edge over non-paying players. An MMO should essentially give every player an equal ooportunity, but the cash shop approach here gives an edge to players with the ability to fork over cash for teh uber-leet gearz.

There's a big divide between paying and non-paying gamers, making some of the local MMOs really unbalanced.

That's not every MMO though. Selling power in an MMO is always wrong, but there are MMO's that sell cosmetic or convenience items (dye colors, unique cosmetic sets of armor) which hardly gives an edge to players. Heck, even XP boosts don't really give power, they just enable someone to level faster but when they hit level cap they hit level cap, regardless of how much or little they paid for it.

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

Bum disk? I purchased retail too, and it installed fine for me.

For me, it just opened steam, and then used steams installer.

[creb]

Originally Posted by Solace

What do you think of the costs of subscriptions, DLC, expansions, and other expenses of playing modern video games? Comments are open to any and all costs of being a gamer: console, pc, mmo, etc.

Here's some topics to get people started:

1. Are MMO subscription fees outdated?

No. I haven't played a 'F2P' or Cash Shop MMO yet that I enjoyed. I've tried a few that would have been far better as subscription rather than Cash Shop. Now, there are a number of subscription based games who's quality doesn't really match having to pay $15/month, so this is a two-way street here.

As an aside, I find the arguments about 'Cosmetic' items and 'Power' to be incredibly disingenuous when it comes to trying to moralize one Cash Shop over another. The brutal truth is that one of the driving forces behind MMO gameplay isn't just increasing your stats, but bettering your look. Having more of something than other players. It's Barbie for adults. The arguments concerning cosmetics and power are based on a false assumption that the two are actually different things when it comes to MMOs. Imo, they aren't. Which is why I find EVERY cash shop model far more insidious than a subscription. Don't get me started on games that combine both.

Originally Posted by Solace

2. Is it fair to charge beyond the initial purchase to unlock content already on the disk?

This is a murky issue. It's easy to say 'absolutely not', but the 'when' of well...when content is made in relation to pricing a game is-as sad as it makes me to say this-a red herring to the actual issue of the relationship between content and price.

Ideally, a publisher/studio would make a complete game and then sell it the public. Realistically, we're not going back to those days again. If this issue truly bothers you, just pretend the release date is a few months later when the game inevitably is released with all its DLC etc unlocked.

All that said, I do think it's incredibly underhanded to do this. These companies would be far better served to remove that content from the game and then push it out as a download, regardless of whether they had already finished it prior to the game being released. Perception matters.

Originally Posted by Solace

3. Is it fair to pay full retail cost for a digital copy of a game?

I don't have an informed opinion on this. I want to assume that the costs of selling through a brick and mortar store, with the physical supply chain and propping up third party vendors and their own corresponding workforce is greater than setting up the infrastructure to support pushing out content digitally (including the workforce that supports that), but honestly, I am not even remotely privy to the accounting going on here, so I don't think this is as easy an issue as going, 'hell no'.

Originally Posted by Solace

4. Are virtual console titles (like old NES games) over priced?

Yes. A thousand million times yes. Especially as they were titles that had effectively stopped creating revenue. If I was in charge of pricing, I would see what the cost of distribution and licensing was per copy, and then mark it up 35%. That said, I'm open to the idea that their mark-up really is only around that much. I find it unlikely, but again, no real first hand experience with their accounting.

Originally Posted by Solace

5. Should virtual content be locked to account instead of device?

While I am not a supporter of locked content, period, if we're going to have it (and it seems to be so), then yes, it should be locked to account. Device lock is incredibly lame. I can see the bean counter's perspective here, but most businesses always have to balance driving profits with keeping their customers at a certain level of non-disgruntlement. I just don't think the extra perceived profits from locking to device, rather than account, are large enough to outweigh the customer angst over the issue.

As for the bigger issue out there that admittedly isn't quite reality yet, but looks to be for the next gen consoles, I think the industry attempting to put the kibosh on used game sales and game rentals is incredibly shortsighted on the level of the music industry initially refusing to bow to the internet. If I was Sony, EA, etc, I'd be putting a lot more effort into figuring out how to leverage used game sales-not throw a hissy fit because some other companies already figured it out.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by creb

As an aside, I find the arguments about 'Cosmetic' items and 'Power' to be incredibly disingenuous when it comes to trying to moralize one Cash Shop over another. The brutal truth is that one of the driving forces behind MMO gameplay isn't just increasing your stats, but bettering your look. Having more of something than other players. It's Barbie for adults. The arguments concerning cosmetics and power are based on a false assumption that the two are actually different things when it comes to MMOs. Imo, they aren't. Which is why I find EVERY cash shop model far more insidious than a subscription. Don't get me started on games that combine both.

There is a rather clear difference. Whether you wear a fancy hat isn't going to help you crush players in PvP. Yeah, people might get jealous at your fancy hat, but there is a huge difference between being jealous at someone's fancy hat, or not being able to play the game because the guy with the fancy hat has twice your HP pool and does twice the damage.

Yes, people will still want the fancy hat if it doesn't do anything besides looking fancy. If we didn't, there wouldn't be much of a point in a cash shop, would there? But as long as the people who don't want the fancy hat can still play the game with other people without being booted from groups or getting crushed in PvP, we can all get along fine.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Solace

1. Are MMO subscription fees outdated?
2. Is it fair to charge beyond the initial purchase to unlock content already on the disk?
3. Is it fair to pay full retail cost for a digital copy of a game?
4. Are virtual console titles (like old NES games) over priced?
5. Should virtual content be locked to account instead of device?

1. No. Most free to play MMOs don't last too long afterward, or they start forcing microtransactions just to stay afloat. I'd rather just keep the original model and not have to worry about everything dying in a year.
2. Hell no. If it's so large that you can't put it on the network to sell, then offer an option to buy a USB with the data, transfer that to the console, and then offer a cheaper unlock code for that.
3. Hell no again. Physically printing the media is an expensive side of sales. If they can cut out all those materials and overhead, why shouldn't the savings be adequately passed along?
4. Some yes, others no. They shouldn't necessarily have a flat fee, since the trash shouldn't cost the same as the gems. But knowing the industry, they'd take this the wrong way, keep the trash at the same price, and hike up the gems.
5. Why not an option?

Note that you don't have to answer all of these at once. They're just ideas to get people talking. Feel free to bring up other stuff as long as it's related to the topic.

Too bad, did it anyway~

[Paranoid Android]

1. Are MMO subscription fees outdated?
As a gamer, I do wish to pay less so I'm against subscription fees but, priority is that the server hosters aren't going bankrupt. If the developers will provide high quality administration, game updates, special events and etc. for subscription fee, I wouldn't mind. (Like less than $100 a year).

What is outright the worst is a company that makes money via cash shopping game breaking abilities/equipment/perks/pets/mounts etc, or a company that doesn't manage its servers at all. Just crank it out there and leave everything alone. Those games get hacked and ruined.

2. Is it fair to charge beyond the initial purchase to unlock content already on the disk?
While there's not much technical difference from this and selling expansion packs, the idea that I bought a disc but didn't get 100% is a bad mentally. I think 100% finished and independent games should be sold as a whole piece and expansions be separate disks offered later. A new game sold as several fragments is just terribly display of greed.

3. Is it fair to pay full retail cost for a digital copy of a game?
No.

5. Should virtual content be locked to account instead of device?
Yes, I mean the account goes with you. Hardware isn't very dependable.

--------------
For me when judging what's worth my money:
- Anything with less than 8 hours of gameplay and no multiplayer, does NOT deserve $60 price. That's bullshit.
- Patches to the game's game-breaking glitches should be free. I haven't played any that does this, but I recall reading people online complaining about sme games where they're charged extra for getting their game patched so it actually runs properly.
- Expansions, typical DLC's are too damn small and short. Expansions should never cost = to the original game unless it's standalone.
- Subscription fee: $10/month, no more. Unless it's offering full fledged expansions two times a year.
- One time payment MMORPG's price cap completely depends on the game (but it's hard to know how good it is without buying, so kind of contradicting D. I'd pay $200 for a modern mmorpg that can match Ragnarok Online like how it was back in it's time.

--

I don't know a single F2P cash-shop income-based MMO that doesn't have at least one game-breaking gear that adds temporary/permanent stats that a non-cash player cannot get. Can't remember if it was S4 League or Gunbound or what, but there's ridiculous shit like one piece of armor +100% HP +33% damage resist for spending $50.

Perfect World has gears that cost about $1000 real money that give you insanely powerful end-game gears that non-cash shoppers cannot come close to matching. About everything by Perfect World Entertainment is bullshit. They made like 7 mmorpgs in a few years, all with game broken cash shopping

The other thing about F2P mmorpg (Conquer Online, GunZ, S4, Rohan) is hackers. There's absolutely no security whatsoever. The developer doesn't care how the game turns out and the game community is filled with hackers or new players who haven't quit yet.

Console + PC games should have identical updates. Or else the one that doesn't receive updates should be cheaper. Most of the time the PC gets DLCs/expansions/updates/mods and the console version gets ignored.

[DragoonKain3]

1) I've always hated monthly subscription fees, mainly because of the principle that you're only getting your money's worth if you play a lot. And considering I've got anime + other games + other RL events, I simply don't have the time to make the subscription worth it.

2) As for disc dlc, I liked how Dragon Age did it. You want the dlc on disk? Buy it new.

3) If I had a choice between physical or digital at the same price, I'm going physical all the way. Heck, I only buy digital if it's something I know I will really love (like say, Mangagamers games) or is otherwise a pain in the butt to make work in your pc (like say, old games so I just buy it from gog.com).

4) I never bought anything virtual console, as I own virtually all the old games + console to play it with. Only thing I'm missing is FE:Sacred Stones, though I'd pay almost any reasonable price for that considering a physical copy is gonna cost you an arm and a leg over at ebay. But alas, only ambassadors get it (which if I knew I would've bought my 3ds early as it would've been cheaper than buying a copy outright)

5) I think the device thing is a terrible idea, but that's coming from a collector

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by GDB

1. No. Most free to play MMOs don't last too long afterward, or they start forcing microtransactions just to stay afloat. I'd rather just keep the original model and not have to worry about everything dying in a year.

The problem with those F2P MMO's wasn't that they went F2P, it was that they were crappy games to begin with. They went free to play because they failed to keep enough subscribers in the first place (a wondrous detail that often gets overlooked by the microtransaction detractors).

Most MMO's that weren't crap actually have reported an increase in their revenue when they went F2P. Lord of the RIngs Online for example noted that they earned triple of what they did before they went F2P.

So yeah, it's not the F2P model that ruined these games. In some cases, it actually saved the games.

[blaze0041]

Hmm, I'd definitely agree that buying a game digitally should be cheaper than at retail, for the following reasons:
- You can't trade in a digital copy (unless you are a PC gamer and happen to use Green Man Gaming).
- You can't really share a digital copy.
- Disc manufacture and printing costs are taken out of the equation.
- Bandwidth is cheaper than physical distribution (assumed).

That being said, some companies still don't seem to get the picture. For me, Steam is a godsend, what with the wide range of games available, frequent sales, backup features, strong community features and decent customer service. Since the publishers set the price of games per region (regional pricing) on Steam and other digital distribution services, they sometimes take full advantage of trying to suck our wallets dry (Valve, who run Steam, thankfully don't do this themselves).

Activision being one of the main culprits (e.g. MW3, 99.99USD for us Aussies, and 59.99USD for the Americans).
EA is another one. Alot of their games are pretty much Origin-exclusive thanks to that kerfuffle with Valve last year. In terms of pricing, they still very much decide to charge top dollar.
(Bizarrely enough, Alice Madness returns costs 49.99USD on Steam, in comparison to 79.99AUD on Origin)
Honourable mentions should also go to Rockstar Games, 2K and Bethesda.
http://www.steamprices.com/au/topripoffs

For those games that do require Steam or Origin, or some other service- I know a number of people here get around the regional pricing issue by importing a retail copy from the UK or the US, and registering the game to their account that way with very few issues (I've done this myself).

Speaking of digital distribution, GOG.com, run by CD Projekt RED of The Witcher fame, is one service I may be willing to throw my support behind once I find some oldie (or goodie) games to play. Especially since they are supporters of a fair and global sale price for everyone, as well as being DRM-free.
I'll still stick by Steam as my main platform though...

TL;DR…

Content shouldn't be locked per device.

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Paranoid Android]

Originally Posted by DragoonKain3

1) I've always hated monthly subscription fees, mainly because of the principle that you're only getting your money's worth if you play a lot. And considering I've got anime + other games + other RL events, I simply don't have the time to make the subscription worth it.

Are you sure you meant what you said?
Because if I wanted to play for a month, I pay a month of subscription. With one time payment games, I'm paying the full price regardless of how much I play. So it can be a completely shit game and I just payed the full price.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Keroko

The problem with those F2P MMO's wasn't that they went F2P, it was that they were crappy games to begin with. They went free to play because they failed to keep enough subscribers in the first place (a wondrous detail that often gets overlooked by the microtransaction detractors).

Most MMO's that weren't crap actually have reported an increase in their revenue when they went F2P. Lord of the RIngs Online for example noted that they earned triple of what they did before they went F2P.

So yeah, it's not the F2P model that ruined these games. In some cases, it actually saved the games.

Yes those games that die are usually crap to begin with. But cash-shopping with stat-boosting equipments and such only make the game even worse. While LotR Online was a good 'exception'. Having a high revenue doesn't make it a good game. A game that doesn't use micro transactions can have 10x more active players and be more favourited than a game with less players but more profit because all of those players are big spenders.

Team Fortress is one game that lost a lot of favoritism once it did become F2P. Every TF2 player on my steam friendlist complained and quit the game.

[Solace]

It depends on what you're getting with the cash shop. If it's something that gives your character a power boost, then I don't agree with it. You shouldn't be able to have a God Slaying Sword just because you have more Benjamins in real life than someone else. On the other hand, cosmetic items and bonus features that don't affect gameplay in terms of character power (like extra slots or new maps) is cool with me.

That isn't to say there isn't a market for people with more money than sense. If people want to play "C", I say go for it. Just not in the games I want to play.

[creb]

Originally Posted by Keroko

The problem with those F2P MMO's wasn't that they went F2P, it was that they were crappy games to begin with. They went free to play because they failed to keep enough subscribers in the first place (a wondrous detail that often gets overlooked by the microtransaction detractors).

Most MMO's that weren't crap actually have reported an increase in their revenue when they went F2P. Lord of the RIngs Online for example noted that they earned triple of what they did before they went F2P.

So yeah, it's not the F2P model that ruined these games. In some cases, it actually saved the games.

This argument is a red herring. And a classic one at that. It completely ignores that the entire reason they went F2P was because they were too crappy to keep subscriptions. When you're too crappy to make money with a subscription, it's hardly a feat to make more money via a cashshop and F2P business model, since making some money is better than making no money. Do I really have to explain why, then, comments about how they now make X times more money are so empty? So, sure, the F2P model 'saved' those games, but that in itself doesn't serve as a logical basis for the game actually being any good.

You also, like many others, want to believe there's a difference between 'pay to win' and cosmetic items. I already said why I don't, as I don't believe there's any real difference in the two concepts when it comes to what drives people to play MMOs. I find this argument popular simply because it gives one a 'moral' out for supporting some cash shops over others, thus perpetuating this stigma that we should all seem moderate, rather than extreme in our views (the roots of which, would make for a fascinating discussion in itself). I suppose we'll just have to disagree.