Worst business practices in games?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

What do you hate the most that are included or is required in games?

#2 Edited by Jacanuk (5545 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

What do you hate the most that are included or is required in games?

I hate the bad DLC the most and microtransactions.

I remember when you bought a game and it was the whole game and what came after you knew was extra content.

#3 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

I hate modes/maps/DLC taken out of the game and Season Pass before the game is out

#4 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

Day One DLC. Because in that case no one can say it was extra material not ready in time for the launch, it is just stuff blatantly left out of the final game (well mostly it's just on the disc behind an unlock key, which is all you really buy) and resold to you for extra profit.

#5 Posted by Jacanuk (5545 posts) -

Not to forget season passes.

You just know when a company does that there is things in the game being drawn out or not included so they can sell it later.

#6 Posted by wiouds (5462 posts) -

I would say listening too much to their "fans".

#7 Posted by drekula2 (2968 posts) -

DLC's and micro-transactions in-and-of themselves are NOT BAD.

So long as you get value for your money!

Paying $10 for a map pack is okay. Paying $3 for a one-time usage powerup (aka Plants vs Zombies 2) is horrible.

#8 Posted by BranKetra (49556 posts) -

On-disc content locked by a paywall is one of the most anti-consumer practices I have ever faced. Always-online DRM for single player or local multiplayer gaming is just as bad.

#9 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

I don't mind DLC done well. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Fallout 3 did DLC extremely well. Street Fighter X Tekken however, did not. And they are a prime example of taking a good concept and doing bad with it. Epic Games and their Gears of War: Judgment model as well. Shipping a $60 game with about half as much content as the last one and nickel n diming you every step of the way. At least in Gears of War 3 most of it was cosmetic. And there were a decent amount of maps on the outset. But Judgement felt anemic with the options on offer with the shipped game.

Season Passes are another decent idea in theory, but things have gone off the rails. 4 DLC packs for the price of 3! Oh, but only one of them is actually worth owning? Well bugger me rotten.

I don't mind microtransactions or DLC or even Season Passes when they are done well. Well I'm done with Season Passes, but the theory was sound. I won't even buy Forza's season pass on principal and I know I'll probably end up getting all of it eventually. I just don't want to support the season pass model. I'll pay more piecemeal rather than support it and end up with a crappy old station wagon and a bunch of ancient hatchbacks that I'd be embarrassed to drive in real life, let alone a racing game.

This is what happens when trust breaks down. Gamers don't trust publishers to treat them fairly because they haven't in the past. Publishers don't trust gamers because they might pirate something and eat into potential profits. The problem is I just don't see a way past it.

#10 Edited by XenoLair (4755 posts) -

DLC is bad and all but I really hate it when they advertise DLC as being a feature of the game. Seriously? The game will allow me to spend extra money on stuff that should already be in the game? Well don't I feel privileged.

The kind of DLC that doesn't allow you to complete certain aspects of the game. Ex: you can't get all gold medals in Dirt 3 because each track set has one track that is DLC and you have to ace that one too to get a gold medal. Pisses me off so much.

#11 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

#12 Posted by wiouds (5462 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

What is a pay wall?

I would like to have $60 for the entire game and extra on the side for the increase in cost of making games.

#13 Edited by drekula2 (2968 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

On-disc content locked by a paywall is one of the most anti-consumer practices I have ever faced. Always-online DRM for single player or local multiplayer gaming is just as bad.

so if it were the same DLC, but offered online instead, it would be no objection?

on disc or off disc is no different. it's still the same thing.

#14 Posted by Jacanuk (5545 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

What is a pay wall?

I would like to have $60 for the entire game and extra on the side for the increase in cost of making games.

A paywall is something that surrounds content until you open it by paying.

#15 Posted by wiouds (5462 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

What is a pay wall?

I would like to have $60 for the entire game and extra on the side for the increase in cost of making games.

A paywall is something that surrounds content until you open it by paying.

Where does it start? Does it include extra things you do not need? I not believe that every tiny thing that goes with the game must with the game at the start.

#16 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

@Randolph said:

Day One DLC. Because in that case no one can say it was extra material not ready in time for the launch, it is just stuff blatantly left out of the final game (well mostly it's just on the disc behind an unlock key, which is all you really buy) and resold to you for extra profit.

Yeah and on disc DLC is despicable

#17 Edited by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@Jacanuk said:

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

What is a pay wall?

I would like to have $60 for the entire game and extra on the side for the increase in cost of making games.

A paywall is something that surrounds content until you open it by paying.

Where does it start? Does it include extra things you do not need? I not believe that every tiny thing that goes with the game must with the game at the start.

Street Fighter X Tekken arbitrarily locking 12 characters away instantly comes to mind. Notice I said "Unnecessary paywalls" and the shit Capcom's been employing recently is about as unnecessary as it gets. There have been plenty of great games that didn't require you to cough up extra cash for no reason.

Also, I really don't think it's fair to force gamers to cough up extra money for relatively the same content just because developers don't know how to properly manage their budget. Video games aren't a charity service; if you can't make a product that'll get you your money back, that's your problem, not ours.

#18 Posted by Jacanuk (5545 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@Jacanuk said:

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

What is a pay wall?

I would like to have $60 for the entire game and extra on the side for the increase in cost of making games.

A paywall is something that surrounds content until you open it by paying.

Where does it start? Does it include extra things you do not need? I not believe that every tiny thing that goes with the game must with the game at the start.

It starts and the begining and ends at the end :)

But its not a actual wall, its a metaphorical description that are used about blocked content that requires you to pay before being able to access it.

If we take the xbox and playstation they have a paywall up so you need to pay a gold/+ subscription to gain access to mp and other features like twitch streaming, tv streaming and some downloadable content. and a ton of other features built into the console.

#19 Posted by BranKetra (49556 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@BranKetra said:

On-disc content locked by a paywall is one of the most anti-consumer practices I have ever faced. Always-online DRM for single player or local multiplayer gaming is just as bad.

so if it were the same DLC, but offered online instead, it would be no objection?

on disc or off disc is no different. it's still the same thing.

Yes, it would be different. The difference is as clear as it sounds: On-disc locked content is different than online DLC because it is literally on the disc. That is purchasing something, but not being able to fully use it until paying additional charges. I do not consider on-disc locked content to be extra. It is actually the complete game, but has been fragmented by a separate paywall.

#20 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

On-disc locked content that a person has to pay to unlock.

#21 Posted by wiouds (5462 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

@wiouds said:

@Jacanuk said:

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

Unnecessary paywalls in general. There's no other explanation for it than shameless cash-grabbing.

And on that note, online passes and similar features, i.e. throwing content behind a barrier in an attempt to curb piracy and used games. It only does more harm in the long-run than it fixes. I almost skipped out on Batman: Arkham City because of this.

What is a pay wall?

I would like to have $60 for the entire game and extra on the side for the increase in cost of making games.

A paywall is something that surrounds content until you open it by paying.

Where does it start? Does it include extra things you do not need? I not believe that every tiny thing that goes with the game must with the game at the start.

Street Fighter X Tekken arbitrarily locking 12 characters away instantly comes to mind. Notice I said "Unnecessary paywalls" and the shit Capcom's been employing recently is about as unnecessary as it gets. There have been plenty of great games that didn't require you to cough up extra cash for no reason.

Also, I really don't think it's fair to force gamers to cough up extra money for relatively the same content just because developers don't know how to properly manage their budget. Video games aren't a charity service; if you can't make a product that'll get you your money back, that's your problem, not ours.

Would you mind pick $60 and pick what extra you want or pay $80 get the game and all the extra?

#22 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

@wiouds: I'd rather pay $60 to get everything.

#23 Edited by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

@wiouds: I'd rather pay $60 to get everything.

Heck. Whatever happened to playing to unlock. For those that worry about 'replay' value. That was a core tenant of fighting games.

#24 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

@platinumking320 said:

@1PMrFister said:

@wiouds: I'd rather pay $60 to get everything.

Heck. Whatever happened to playing to unlock. For those that worry about 'replay' value. That was a core tenant of fighting games.

That time is dead. I don't really mind if stuff like that can be unlocked with microtransactions, but there are just so many things that microtransactions exploit and not a lot of games are fair in that regard

#25 Posted by anybodykilla15 (114 posts) -

I hate that when a game is way past its prime and there are other iterations in the series........

the digital version never decreases in value and the dlc is still overpriced,

im looking at you call of duty

#26 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

@anybodykilla15 said:

I hate that when a game is way past its prime and there are other iterations in the series........

the digital version never decreases in value and the dlc is still overpriced,

im looking at you call of duty

It's not just that game, and the publishers want us to go digital, no thanks

#27 Posted by touchscreenpad (220 posts) -

It's sad that those play-to-unlock times are gone.

#28 Posted by wiouds (5462 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

@wiouds: I'd rather pay $60 to get everything.

Too bad the cost of games have gone up for normal business reason and not poor budgets and by some reports the number o games sold have gone down. No the indies games can not take the place of AAA.

#29 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

DLC is the worst offender and I predicted it back when it all started. I was laughed at shot down by other gamers claiming DLC was such an awesome feature. Now we have game companies pimping DLC before a game even comes out as if to say "Yeah we got this other stuff for your 60 dollar game but we want you to pay 95 dollars to get the whole thing". Then looking further on you have full priced games with micro transactions in them which is a direct result of DLC.

Forced online connections for even single player games trying to shoe horn in online accounts for anything they can.

Online passes.

Releasing games that are buggy as shit and completely unfinished with the whole attitude of "Screw it. Charge them 60 bucks and we will patch it later"

Developers and publishers that withhold content, or have timed content releases for specific platforms. Call of duty for example has timed DLC releases for xbox first and playstation later on. That is activision telling its customers "hey we all know that you bought our games and you play them, but unless you bought this specific console version then you have to wait awhile" which is a dick move because all they are doing is telling their customers that some of them don't matter based specifically on which system they prefer, despite the fact they are still buying their game.

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

@wiouds: I'd rather pay $60 to get everything.

Too bad the cost of games have gone up for normal business reason and not poor budgets and by some reports the number o games sold have gone down. No the indies games can not take the place of AAA.

That's the game developers and publishers fault. I don't think spending 200 million to make resident evil 6 a normal business reason.

And if game developers and publishers made better games then sales wouldn't go down. If you spend 100 million making a game, then make a generic and mediocre game youre only going to sell 4 or 5 million copies at full price. Tomb raider is a good example, it took a lot to make and they spent a ton of money marketing it and then complained when no one bought it because it wasn't very good. Game companies can make major bank on even expensive games if they oh I don't know........made better games.

#30 Posted by murekkep (683 posts) -

Overpriced ingame items like the ones in Plants vs Zombies 2.

#31 Posted by wiouds (5462 posts) -

@Gargus said:

@wiouds said:

@1PMrFister said:

@wiouds: I'd rather pay $60 to get everything.

Too bad the cost of games have gone up for normal business reason and not poor budgets and by some reports the number o games sold have gone down. No the indies games can not take the place of AAA.

That's the game developers and publishers fault. I don't think spending 200 million to make resident evil 6 a normal business reason.

And if game developers and publishers made better games then sales wouldn't go down. If you spend 100 million making a game, then make a generic and mediocre game youre only going to sell 4 or 5 million copies at full price. Tomb raider is a good example, it took a lot to make and they spent a ton of money marketing it and then complained when no one bought it because it wasn't very good. Game companies can make major bank on even expensive games if they oh I don't know........made better games.

The problem with that is that the gamers expect high things and unlike Indie games they, they give no tolerance for what the AAA games does. So they must pay that amount of money to the give the gamers what they expect. Or you would want them to go the indie way of reskinning older games with cutie but simple art style?

I would rather pay $60 to get the full game and pick what extras I want than pay $80 and get all the worthless junk that I do not want.

I believe that the pay $60 and get the full game while being able to buy side items is the best they came up with for them and the us. We get the full game at $60 and they can still make more than the $60 with the content made to be sold on the side.

#32 Posted by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride: Uggh some precedent we're setting. " And the trophy goes to...the player with the most excess income." " Is he skilled?" " Does it matter? He/She can BUY their skill."

If Pay 2 Win becomes a new common term, I think one might as well just play the stock market or do digital gambling. It still makes me wonder how the idea of a full game has suddenly become a relic. Even when such a thing is still fun and profitable.

#33 Edited by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

@platinumking320 said:

@The_Last_Ride:

Uggh some precedent we're setting. " And the trophy goes to...the player with the most excess income." " Is he skilled?" " Does it matter? He/She can BUY their skill."

If Pay 2 Win becomes a new common term, I think one might as well just play the stock market or do digital gambling. It still makes me wonder how the idea of a full game has suddenly become a relic. Even when such a thing is still fun and profitable.

That is true, the reason behind that is the goals they set for those games. Unrealistic goals and spend money on things they shouldn't have to. Look at Tomb Raider, sold around 5 million copies, still wasn't profitable. But they spent 100 million advertising it

#34 Edited by iHarlequin (1928 posts) -

Micro-transactions in games that aren't free. I remember when I first saw Diablo 3 I was a bit confused: how had a game managed to get the WORST things of both types of games (F2P and pay-to-play) and mesh them together? Not only did you have to buy the game, but odds had it that, unless you farmed for much more time than in D2, you'd have to spend money on the auction house to get items. Then, of course, I saw that Blizzard got 15% from each money transaction in the AH, and everything made sense.

I'm just glad we got the absolute OPPOSITE of Diablo 3 on Path of Exile, which manages to get the best of both worlds: you don't have to shell out extra cash to stay competitive and it's free. It's developers like Grinding Gear Games (its business model) and ProjektCDRed (no DRM) that make me believe that there are some intelligent developers amongst a sea of preaching idiots (although I guess that characteristic pertains more to publishers than developers), who talk of piracy and used games as if they were the coming of the anti-christ. My moron detector goes off the charts when I see some imbecile saying that because X copies of their game were pirated, X copies of their game were not sold.

A more direct answer would be: pay-to-win models and the hybridization of micro-transactions inside of payed games.

#35 Posted by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@platinumking320 said:

@The_Last_Ride:

Uggh some precedent we're setting. " And the trophy goes to...the player with the most excess income." " Is he skilled?" " Does it matter? He/She can BUY their skill."

If Pay 2 Win becomes a new common term, I think one might as well just play the stock market or do digital gambling. It still makes me wonder how the idea of a full game has suddenly become a relic. Even when such a thing is still fun and profitable.

That is true, the reason behind that is the goals they set for those games. Unrealistic goals and spend money on things they shouldn't have to. Look at Tomb Raider, sold around 5 million copies, still wasn't profitable. But they spent 100 million advertising it

Such a shame. We had an earlier thread and I remember saying something to the effect of 'all the, replay perks and in game incentives, or whether it was just plain solid as a game, were essentially the 'advertisement' of a game. Now the marketing is completely external and not critically focused on the time that the game is in our possession ' the real 'sales pitch' time. and then they complain when games are traded back.

Not selling games like one sells Hollywood movies, and corporate published music. If only that boulder could be broken, these companies would invest wisely. Take Two advertises all over the place, and Valve has their broken promises but at least they understand (to some degree) you're supposed to publish full games. For that I hope they stay in business far into this gen.

#36 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74204 posts) -

@platinumking320 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@platinumking320 said:

@The_Last_Ride:

Uggh some precedent we're setting. " And the trophy goes to...the player with the most excess income." " Is he skilled?" " Does it matter? He/She can BUY their skill."

If Pay 2 Win becomes a new common term, I think one might as well just play the stock market or do digital gambling. It still makes me wonder how the idea of a full game has suddenly become a relic. Even when such a thing is still fun and profitable.

That is true, the reason behind that is the goals they set for those games. Unrealistic goals and spend money on things they shouldn't have to. Look at Tomb Raider, sold around 5 million copies, still wasn't profitable. But they spent 100 million advertising it

Such a shame. We had an earlier thread and I remember saying something to the effect of 'all the, replay perks and in game incentives, or whether it was just plain solid as a game, were essentially the 'advertisement' of a game. Now the marketing is completely external and not critically focused on the time that the game is in our possession ' the real 'sales pitch' time. and then they complain when games are traded back.

Not selling games like one sells Hollywood movies, and corporate published music. If only that boulder could be broken, these companies would invest wisely. Take Two advertises all over the place, and Valve has their broken promises but at least they understand (to some degree) you're supposed to publish full games. For that I hope they stay in business far into this gen.

I agree. Seing FPS games and other games that have cheap DLC clearly taken out of the game just to get more money for DLC

#37 Posted by svaubel (2605 posts) -

6 hour games that value spectacle over substance.

The other half of said games behind sold to you as extra DLC.

Season Passes in any form. Online Passes in any form.

Fee required to play online.

Fee required to do anything with the box you bought other than single player gaming.

#38 Posted by ConorHat (141 posts) -

All DLC

All Microtransactions

All Subscription based games

All in-game advertising and product placements

All of EA games

#39 Posted by IIBlackknightII (403 posts) -


DLC Packs, Microtransctions, Subscription based games & Add-ons of games in PSN.

#40 Edited by Beagle050 (729 posts) -

Always online, server-run games like Sim City. I refuse to buy a game that will stop working in 2 years.

#41 Edited by touchscreenpad (220 posts) -

Well...most of what was said already. XD

#42 Posted by MirkoS77 (8143 posts) -

All that the Internet have enabled. I have to say that I much prefered gaming before the net existed. Everything mentioned above is enabled by it, and it has come close to ruining this industry.