Wow.
There are only a few things that can be more frustrating than shelling out $60 bucks for a game, only to be given an underdeveloped product.
Game Add-ons — more specifically, map packs and essential features to any game that you are required to pay for, are just great ways to piss off loyal fans.
When I purchase a game, I want to know that in two weeks, there isn’t going to be additional content available for the game. In fact, I’d like to extend that to beyond two weeks. Make it at least a month. Granted, this might make development one month longer, but I’d rather have the additional content.
Themes, avatar items – any “fluff” like that – I can understand being charged for. That’s extra; if you want it, go for it. It’s not required to play the game. Map packs, on the other hand, can be frustrating. I want to be able to play all the maps that everyone else is playing online without having to shell out more money than I already had to purchase the game.
Modern Warfare Map Pack
But that’s not how it seems to be. For example, let’s look at Resident Evil 5. Yes, I’m pulling out the big one already. Capcom just really made myself, and probably many other fans, pretty angry over this. They released Resident Evil 5, without multiplayer, and then had the audacity to charge for it when it was finally developed.
…Does this not piss anyone else off?!?
This is not just some add-on content, some extras that were added in, but what most people would definitely think as being a critical part of any game! People are missing what many consider as half of the game content! Granted, Resident Evil is known for its single player, but to develop a multiplayer, not finish it on time, and then charge for additional game functionality is just ridiculous.
-
Want multiplayer? Pay for it!
I wanted to give some inspirational ending that will charge all gamers into keeping from paying for the content, but lets be real, that will never happen. Hopefully developers will go back to the old way of giving us all the content we could ever want on the release of the game, and not look for more ways to drag the dollars out of us.
What do you guys think?
August 6th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
All valid points. However, the reason game companies do this is singular: the almighty dollar.
It’s the same concept as releasing “limited edition” or “collector” versions of a game at a premium price; they know people will pay the extra cash to get their hands on it. Is it ethical? Depends who you ask — the consumers might not like it, but they’re also endorsing these practices by giving in and paying for it.
Just like you said, the only way to stop it is a giant middle finger from consumers. Unfortunately though, this just won’t happen.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:42 am
That is BS…especialy on the 360 where you are already paying $60 a year for online play.
Overall, the state of console games has gone to hell. They are released a year before they are ready, then they are replaced by the next year’s title before the fixes are made…so the games never work the way they should, even after the last patch is released. If anything, RE5 owners are lucky that they released this as an add-on, and not as a new title that had to be purchased seperately for another $60.
It is easy to blame the developers for this, as it is clearly their fault, but let’s not forget why they do this: because they can! They know that they can release an unfinished title full of bugs and missing more than half of the game…and people will buy it anyway. Very few people read the reviews, and they buy games based on the hype and nothing else. Given this state, I also blame those who continue to buy these buggy softwares. There are many games that I would like, but I know they are not done yet, so I’ll wait untill they are mostly completed and also 1/3 the current price.