Mr Chonks wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
I found the Ultimate Edition of FH4 to be pretty generous in terms of the content it offered for the cost. I hate the sort of shit JC is talking about above as well, so I figured I'd avoid it by just buying the most expensive version of the game to start with.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
You’re the sort of person who is enabling the shitty practices you mostly complain about tbh
Is he though? The nagging adverts in the game are aimed at people who haven't already bought the extra content; people likely Hearthly are literally the only people not creating a case for the inclusion of that stuff because they can't be a target for it.
Don't get me wrong, what he did was really, really idiotic for every single other reason in the world, but I don't think he can be blamed for the game's advertising of stuff he's already paid for.
Amusingly, the loading screen adverts remain even if you buy the additional content.
Bamba wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
I found the Ultimate Edition of FH4 to be pretty generous in terms of the content it offered for the cost. I hate the sort of shit JC is talking about above as well, so I figured I'd avoid it by just buying the most expensive version of the game to start with.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
You’re the sort of person who is enabling the shitty practices you mostly complain about tbh
Is he though? The nagging adverts in the game are aimed at people who haven't already bought the extra content; people likely Hearthly are literally the only people not creating a case for the inclusion of that stuff because they can't be a target for it.
Don't get me wrong, what he did was really, really idiotic for every single other reason in the world, but I don't think he can be blamed for the game's advertising of stuff he's already paid for.
If people weren’t willing to pay £100 to make sure they had the full content, this wouldn’t happen. Because they do, publishers feel like they can strip out content and charge £50 for a barebones experience. I blame publishers and these idiots equally.
You're so charming.
Mr Chonks wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
I found the Ultimate Edition of FH4 to be pretty generous in terms of the content it offered for the cost. I hate the sort of shit JC is talking about above as well, so I figured I'd avoid it by just buying the most expensive version of the game to start with.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
You’re the sort of person who is enabling the shitty practices you mostly complain about tbh
Is he though? The nagging adverts in the game are aimed at people who haven't already bought the extra content; people likely Hearthly are literally the only people not creating a case for the inclusion of that stuff because they can't be a target for it.
Don't get me wrong, what he did was really, really idiotic for every single other reason in the world, but I don't think he can be blamed for the game's advertising of stuff he's already paid for.
If people weren’t willing to pay £100 to make sure they had the full content, this wouldn’t happen. Because they do, publishers feel like they can strip out content and charge £50 for a barebones experience. I blame publishers and these idiots equally.
Does that also apply to subscription-model racing games that still charge for additional content on top?
Zing!
Mr Chonks wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
I found the Ultimate Edition of FH4 to be pretty generous in terms of the content it offered for the cost. I hate the sort of shit JC is talking about above as well, so I figured I'd avoid it by just buying the most expensive version of the game to start with.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
You’re the sort of person who is enabling the shitty practices you mostly complain about tbh
Is he though? The nagging adverts in the game are aimed at people who haven't already bought the extra content; people likely Hearthly are literally the only people not creating a case for the inclusion of that stuff because they can't be a target for it.
Don't get me wrong, what he did was really, really idiotic for every single other reason in the world, but I don't think he can be blamed for the game's advertising of stuff he's already paid for.
If people weren’t willing to pay £100 to make sure they had the full content, this wouldn’t happen. Because they do, publishers feel like they can strip out content and charge £50 for a barebones experience. I blame publishers and these idiots equally.
Well, to my mind that depends on whether the content is 'proper' DLC (i.e. stuff that was worked on and released after the core game and so can reasonably demand a separate cost) or if it was actually cynically stripped out of the game just so it could be charged for. I don't know the game well enough to know what side this specific example comes down on?
devilman wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Mr Chonks wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
I found the Ultimate Edition of FH4 to be pretty generous in terms of the content it offered for the cost. I hate the sort of shit JC is talking about above as well, so I figured I'd avoid it by just buying the most expensive version of the game to start with.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
TBH I think I got good value for money out of the game overall, despite spending £90 or whatever it was on the Ultimate Edition.
You’re the sort of person who is enabling the shitty practices you mostly complain about tbh
Is he though? The nagging adverts in the game are aimed at people who haven't already bought the extra content; people likely Hearthly are literally the only people not creating a case for the inclusion of that stuff because they can't be a target for it.
Don't get me wrong, what he did was really, really idiotic for every single other reason in the world, but I don't think he can be blamed for the game's advertising of stuff he's already paid for.
If people weren’t willing to pay £100 to make sure they had the full content, this wouldn’t happen. Because they do, publishers feel like they can strip out content and charge £50 for a barebones experience. I blame publishers and these idiots equally.
Does that also apply to subscription-model racing games that still charge for additional content on top?
Not that I can afford it or have the spare time anymore, but a pricing model structure created for a hobbyist product produced by a small, independent team so that they can afford to pay their staff and continue to make great content feels quite a bit different than a rich, global publisher seemingly intent on squeezing out every last dime they can from their customers purely to line their shareholders’ pockets, and have little interest in whether the product is any good or not.
Hearthly wrote:
You're so charming.
Tell us more about your wife’s loose vagina
Mr Chonks wrote:
Not that I can afford it or have the spare time anymore, but a pricing model structure created for a hobbyist product produced by a small, independent team so that they can afford to pay their staff and continue to make great content feels quite a bit different than a rich, global publisher seemingly intent on squeezing out every last dime they can from their customers purely to line their shareholders’ pockets, and have little interest in whether the product is any good or not.
I do agree that game companies try to squeeze out every last penny from their users but, in this particular case, I don't agree that they have little interest in whether the product is good or not. Forza Horizon 3 is excellent and I'm pretty sure that some of the money made from the game goes back into staff wages.
TheVision wrote:
I'm pretty sure that some of the money made from the game goes back into staff wages.
I mean, that's true of every product every company sells surely? What else are they paying for stuff with? I'm not sure your sentence there really has any meaning.
Bamba wrote:
TheVision wrote:
I'm pretty sure that some of the money made from the game goes back into staff wages.
I mean, that's true of every product every company sells surely? What else are they paying for stuff with? I'm not sure your sentence there really has any meaning.
I was just mentioning it because of Lonewolves suggestion above that the smaller independent companies needing a pricing structure to pay their staff. Of course, you're correct in that every company does this, regardless of size so it must be a factor in any pricing decision.
My take on this is that Forza Horizon 4 and Borderlands 3 contain the good sort of DLC/extras, in ye olden dayes we just called them 'expansions' of course.
FH4 got a load of stuff added to it post-launch, including a whole new island (a bit like the Burnout Paradise DLC), extra game modes, story missions, shitloads of cars and so on.
With BL3 they're promising DLC expansions of the same type that BL2 got, and they were fantastic, full expansions that I got tens of hours of fun out of. The excellent Jim Sterling video I linked to the other day makes clear how much better BL3 simply FEELS to play because everything about it is there, and complete, and part of the game you buy.
These are emphatically *NOT* games that are sold at full price and then immediately try to sell you stuff that was blatantly just taken out of the game before launch to sell as extras, or really offensive horseshit like 'time savers' that literally charge you more money so you have to play less of a shit grindfest that was deliberately designed that way.
Neither game contains any sort of paid loot boxes, and Gearbox have retained the generous SHIFT KEY system from BL2, giving away codes for free, and a commitment never to sell the codes for money.
These are IMO the types of games that we as gamers should support, they are a million miles removed from the scummy shit practices that other games are vomiting out into the world, and I'm happy to spend top dollar on the premium versions of them.
And I still don't think £80-£100 is a ridiculous price point for a full game and all its expansions, supporting backend infrastructure, along with a load of extra content and goodies. SNES games cost £70 in 1993, and there is a thing called inflation.
FH4 got a load of stuff added to it post-launch, including a whole new island (a bit like the Burnout Paradise DLC), extra game modes, story missions, shitloads of cars and so on.
With BL3 they're promising DLC expansions of the same type that BL2 got, and they were fantastic, full expansions that I got tens of hours of fun out of. The excellent Jim Sterling video I linked to the other day makes clear how much better BL3 simply FEELS to play because everything about it is there, and complete, and part of the game you buy.
These are emphatically *NOT* games that are sold at full price and then immediately try to sell you stuff that was blatantly just taken out of the game before launch to sell as extras, or really offensive horseshit like 'time savers' that literally charge you more money so you have to play less of a shit grindfest that was deliberately designed that way.
Neither game contains any sort of paid loot boxes, and Gearbox have retained the generous SHIFT KEY system from BL2, giving away codes for free, and a commitment never to sell the codes for money.
These are IMO the types of games that we as gamers should support, they are a million miles removed from the scummy shit practices that other games are vomiting out into the world, and I'm happy to spend top dollar on the premium versions of them.
And I still don't think £80-£100 is a ridiculous price point for a full game and all its expansions, supporting backend infrastructure, along with a load of extra content and goodies. SNES games cost £70 in 1993, and there is a thing called inflation.
Play nicely, children.
Blizzard Mountain?
More like Blizzard Man, AMIRITE!?
Remember when Jake Peralta was Blizzard Man?
“Rap song, rap song ... do do doo doo do”
More like Blizzard Man, AMIRITE!?
Remember when Jake Peralta was Blizzard Man?
“Rap song, rap song ... do do doo doo do”
FWIW I don't mind spending £100 on a game I love.
Specifically for many years I only liked arcadey racing games. Then for a few years after I only liked Fallout games. I wouldn't play anything else, and after I'd gone over them with a fine tooth comb I would then have to wait. And that wait could be cold, long and lonely. I didn't want to settle for anything else, given I'd finally found "the one".
Fast forward to now and I've diversified a lot. I'm now the proud owner of two consoles and two rather nice gaming PCs. Well, three consoles but one and one gaming pc is at my mother's. Any way yeah, if something like a new Borderlands or Fallout game is coming it's usually a no brainer for me to buy the most expensive one. Mostly because I may not buy another full priced release game for two years or more.
I don't mind paying for more, bigger, better games. However what I do object to is being given a percentage of the game I've paid for, and then continually having the extra part that I may or may not want shoved in my face.
In Fallout 3 (aside from the fact it was broken and needed broken steel to fix it) it never mentioned the DLC. These were optional and no mention of them was made or noticed until you bought and installed them. Same with Borderlands 2. They didn't exist until you installed them. However with stuff like Forza it's all there and continually on show, you just can't use it until you finally cave and pay the £120 or whatever they want at launch.
I'm not a fan of unavoidable advertising. I'll usually avoid it right by abstinence. However when you've paid for a game and you are sat there in gaming mode (which I need to be in to focus) it's a major annoyance. Especially when you've "paid to get in" as it were, yet you don't get to see it all.
It's like going to the movies and paying £7 for a movie ticket and only seeing 2/3 of the screen. Their answer? "Oh, you should've paid £14 for the whole thing.
It's just douchey.
Specifically for many years I only liked arcadey racing games. Then for a few years after I only liked Fallout games. I wouldn't play anything else, and after I'd gone over them with a fine tooth comb I would then have to wait. And that wait could be cold, long and lonely. I didn't want to settle for anything else, given I'd finally found "the one".
Fast forward to now and I've diversified a lot. I'm now the proud owner of two consoles and two rather nice gaming PCs. Well, three consoles but one and one gaming pc is at my mother's. Any way yeah, if something like a new Borderlands or Fallout game is coming it's usually a no brainer for me to buy the most expensive one. Mostly because I may not buy another full priced release game for two years or more.
I don't mind paying for more, bigger, better games. However what I do object to is being given a percentage of the game I've paid for, and then continually having the extra part that I may or may not want shoved in my face.
In Fallout 3 (aside from the fact it was broken and needed broken steel to fix it) it never mentioned the DLC. These were optional and no mention of them was made or noticed until you bought and installed them. Same with Borderlands 2. They didn't exist until you installed them. However with stuff like Forza it's all there and continually on show, you just can't use it until you finally cave and pay the £120 or whatever they want at launch.
I'm not a fan of unavoidable advertising. I'll usually avoid it right by abstinence. However when you've paid for a game and you are sat there in gaming mode (which I need to be in to focus) it's a major annoyance. Especially when you've "paid to get in" as it were, yet you don't get to see it all.
It's like going to the movies and paying £7 for a movie ticket and only seeing 2/3 of the screen. Their answer? "Oh, you should've paid £14 for the whole thing.
It's just douchey.
Yucky.
For the TL:DW brigade.
Yucky.
For the TL:DW brigade.
Yucky.
I really find his voice incredibly irritating. Particularly the way he enunciates any word with an "ions" in it. "Microtransacksheeuns".
That's part of his thing though, like the way he says 'Triple Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Videogames'.
Anyway, I'm not sure that's really the most important aspect of the video.
Anyway, I'm not sure that's really the most important aspect of the video.
