So I was sitting here the past week, trying to find arguments on what has become a repeating controversy the last years, namely DLC's in general. And how do we deal with those ? How does the perception around DLC deform as more people are taking a stance against them ?
That's a question which troubles me more and more these days, just because so many people are saying the same thing about day one dlc's or season passes or pre order bonus. It should all be free and should all be included for free, but why ? How does such a mainstream consensus between gamers come to existence ?
The more companies do for their games, make them more elastic, make them more long lasting, bring new stories, new maps, new content, new weapons new hats, the more people seem to hate it. But I notice a double standard that works against this idea as well. Companies like ubisoft and EA are called evil for doing microtransactions and dlc's; But on the other side there are working huge markets of cosmetic items (hats) being traded for lots of money just because they are labled oranged and are called "rare". How does that make any sense to have one part of the community holler against dlc's but the cosmetic market from valve does good business ?
So I'm a bit confused. Are we adopting a modern game market and are we taking pieces of art coming from software or third party developers seriously ? Or are we not ?
There's this perception that when a company is developing content alongside the main game (and that development continues after the game has been released), it's "supposed to be for free and included in the game". But where does this perception come from ? Why do gamers find it so hard to accept that pieces of art, and extra content should cost money ?
It's always preceived to be too much. $20 for bioshock infinite, too much, $20 for a watch dogs season pass with lots of new content which is equal to a mission expansion is considered "too much". $5 for a payday 2, way too much for a weapon pack.
But it's all stand alone and you don't need to buy it to play the game. If you're a fan you'll be more than willing to spend more money on it.. or are we ? What makes that we don't have problems paying for options for our cars, workbench or bathroom or extra alarm instalation for the house, but we don't accept it in games ?
I've written my bias about it elsewhere (like on youtube and on the watch dogs forum for those who're interested) but I left it out here just because I'm asking this question in a neutral sense.
It just seems to be a consensus of mass player attitude who seemingly don't want to pay for anything but the main game. And it's very hard to ask them to look in the mirror and ask themself if they would want to work for free.
It seems very hard for those people to objectify extra content as a valid piece of extra art, even if they got so much during a pre order, it stil lseems they need everything that comes after the release "for free".
It seems very hard to ask for players to look at a game as a work of art which companies want to be compensated for because they need to feed their employees as well. How come that it's suddenly this thought that is omited because it's "entertainment software" ?
I sure know about all the DRM problems there have been, and some game companies didn't actually deliver on the promise of a game, but I see that lots of people find it all too easy to expand these cases to all games and think all companies are bad because they bring dlc which is more succesful than others.
So it's a whole lot of questions I have but it all comes down to a fundamental question. Do we have respect for this industry as a gamer ?