Obsidian Survey Feedback: Questions 6 and 7

[ORCACommander]

Ok I take umbridge with these questions.

 

To me the price of the base game is irrelevant when considering season passes.

To me its about the pricing of the season pass VS the DLC covered under it.

A season pass should also only contain major dlc/expansion content. It should not cover cosmetic dlc or small content.

 

So for example. a Season pass is announced at a nice round $30.00. I expect said season pass to give me 4 pieces of DLC valued at $10 each. Why 4 and not 3? Because I am taking a risk. Any one or multiple of those DLC's could be bad from my perspective or not worth their dollars value. Further I am make this purchase under the assumption there will be no bundling later on. Its about trust. a season pass is me giving you money up front in trust of a quality product. I need a little carrot to go with that stick.

[Celeras]

Yeah the price should be based on content, not on the price of the base game.

[Guest]

I guess since I'm old enough to remember when people were outraged by horse armor, it surprises me to hear how casually people refer to "season passes". Someone please explain to me what a video game "season" is.

[Aargh]

I guess since I'm old enough to remember when people were outraged by horse armor, it surprises me to hear how casually people refer to "season passes". Someone please explain to me what a video game "season" is.

A season pass usually just means it includes all DLC made for that game*. Don't know why they call it a "season" pass though. Doesn't bother me either way because I'm not buying a season pass anyway. If the DLC is worth the price I'll gladly pay for it, but I'm not very eager to buy some DLC bundle before the any of DLC is actually released or in some cases before it's even announced what the DLC will be.

 

_{*there are some unscrupulous companies that sell a season pass and then make separate DLC which isn't included in the season pass, but I'm going to assume that's not going to be the case here.}

[Guest]

Yeah, I get the concept, I'm just not sure how it is that we're ok with it.

 

DLC went from something we were offended by to something we've come to expect lots and lots of.

[Aargh]

Yeah, I get the concept, I'm just not sure how it is that we're ok with it.

 

DLC went from something we were offended by to something we've come to expect lots and lots of.

Yeah I agree with that. With some games (Battle Brothers for a recent example) I've even seen fans get extremely upset when the devs said they weren't going to sell DLC after the game was completed. I also remember the Oblivion Horse Armor incident you mentioned before and how much it pissed people off. By now, something like horse armor seems completely innocent compared to some of the stuff I'm seeing out there and nobody seems to mind at all. People will learn to swallow anything if you push it hard enough.

[Guest]

Well...I remember reading something a dev said about DLC being a way to combat piracy and the used games market. Once I read that, my stance on the matter kinda softened. But I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

[Chilloutman]

Well...I remember reading something a dev said about DLC being a way to combat piracy and the used games market. Once I read that, my stance on the matter kinda softened. But I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

 

yeah sure, because you can't pirate DLC right? xD

[Lexx]

I guess it's more about the fact that DLCs are cheaper to make and folks who already bought the vanilla game are more likely to buy the DLC as well.

[evilcat]

Price should depend on content * quality.

There are telltale games, which are "short" but not many people complein about it, not many people buys them in the first place, but that is another story.

A lot of complains about dlc is that: a) quality of dlc is low or it is little content (horse armour, yay) b) it makes base game worse, since parts are cut off for dlc.