What's new

'Hopefully, if we’ve done our job right, we’ll have left our fans still wanting more' - and we're always ready to take their money!

mastermalone

Use only logic, please
Here’s a scenario:
I like McDonalds Chicken Nuggets, but dont like their hamburgers.

I bought 6 chicken nuggets for $4 and enjoyed them.
McDonald’s now offers 3 chicken nuggets and a hamburger for $4.
I will not eat the hamburger. I don’t care that it costs money for them to make the hamburger, as I don’t like it nor do I want to buy it. That is too much money for me to pay for half the amount of nuggets I want, regardless of it comes with something useless to me.
It has nothing to do with entitlement, it’s strictly business.
Maybe my complaint is different than the ones claiming theyve already spent so much, I simply just want to be able to buy the characters separately because the story mode to me is so damn pointless.
Sounds like you should just stick to the six piece.

In all seriousness, I'm 100% certain that these updates will be offered a la carte.

Peace.
 

Swindle

Philanthropist & Asshole
Can the "but people worked hard for this" guilt trip please stop? As if the $140 a day 1 fan would pay for all of this would go directly into the employees' pockets. Far far far far more work was put into the base game, from a value standpoint this DLC is not even close to worth it, and I'm not even comparing it to other games or their DLC models yet.
Yes. Far more work was put into the base game.
Games in the 80’s/90’s cost the consumer the same as they charge today. Even though the development and production costs have skyrocketed in the last twenty years, you’re still paying the same price for the base game that you would have paid in 1988.
These “AAA” titles cost as much to develop and market as a huge Hollywood movie, and aren’t going to generate the same consumer base that a movie is able to.
DLC costs are part of the mitigation.
Would you rather they charged you the $220-$240 the base game is actually worth, in order for WB to guarantee its profitability?
If it’s too much for you to spend, then don’t buy it or wait until it’s cheaper. We do this ALL THE TIME with all other luxury products we consume.
Be a fucking adult, make your financial decisions, and move on.
 

mastermalone

Use only logic, please
Can the "but people worked hard for this" guilt trip please stop? As if the $140 a day 1 fan would pay for all of this would go directly into the employees' pockets. Far far far far more work was put into the base game, from a value standpoint this DLC is not even close to worth it, and I'm not even comparing it to other games or their DLC models yet.
As a software engineer who gets paid for working on large, scalable e-commerce apps I can say that this is not entirely accurate. While the money does not directly go into the devs pockets, it does pay the company which gives the company the means to pay the developers. Paying the developers means they have incentive to stay with the company and continue to produce the product.

To say far, far more work was put into the base game is not always entirely accurate either. Yes, likely more work was done originally, but adding new code and assets to an existing codebase is not without its challenges. A number of issues can and will arise. That can mean months of refactoring, regression tests etc. So, I would not say, "far, far more". But you are not too far off.
 

chud_munson

Apprentice
As a software engineer who gets paid for working on large, scalable e-commerce apps I can say that this is not entirely accurate. While the money does not directly go into the devs pockets, it does pay the company which gives the company the means to pay the developers. Paying the developers means they have incentive to stay with the company and continue to produce the product.

To say far, far more work was put into the base game is not always entirely accurate either. Yes, likely more work was done originally, but adding new code and assets to an existing codebase is not without its challenges. A number of issues can and will arise. That can mean months of refactoring, regression tests etc. So, I would not say, "far, far more". But you are not too far off.
As a different software engineer who gets paid for building IaaS services for a company everyone's heard of, +1 to what you're saying, plus another bit. Adding more on top of what already exists also adds operational burden that doesn't go away when the content releases. There are engineers onhand whose entire job is to maintain uptime for the product. That includes stuff like infrastructure uptime (servers and networking), but also bug fixes. More content means more touchpoints where stuff can go wrong, and more interactions with existing code. I think people assume that building software is a one-and-done where people write code and then go home forever, but in many cases people's jobs get harder after a product releases.

I've said it in the past and I'll reiterate; today's games are closer to being services than products. This is one of the reasons you see stuff like DLC and free-to-play models being really popular. Developers have the liberty of actually doing patches and adding additional content to games people like, but you need to pay people (not just devs, you need to retain marketing, BI people, support engineers, etc.) to keep that train rolling. In SNES days, you release the game, and then all those people move on. Not because that was a better model, but because the technology at the time forced that model. If you don't like the shift that's happened, you also have the ability to not participate in it. Buy the base game, enjoy or don't enjoy it for what it is, and judge that based on your dollar-to-entertainment ratio.
 
The ignore button is an absolute godsend. I don't know what I'd do without it. You really can't help these people. They have very negative and distorted views of the world, and no matter how much you try and rationalize it to them they're never going to understand. Only they can fix themselves.

Truly amazing that you're viewed as a shill or "guilt tripping" people because you can afford $40 and are grateful to the people who make games like this. I'm more than happy to give NRS $40, and actually I'm going to give them $80 because I'm going to get the upgrade on both PS4 and PC to show them how much I love this game and how much I appreciate their hard work. I'm grateful to the team for everything they've done and the fan service. A lot of this really comes down to a lack of perspective. We're all lucky to even have video games to play during this rough time.

This is a free market. NRS/WB are free to put whatever price tag they want on the DLC because they created it and it's theirs to decide what they think it's worth. What something is worth is also subjective. You're free to buy it or not to buy it. And to be honest, with how much time it takes to make video games these days and the incredible production value behind them, games should probably cost a LOT more than they do. So yes, you ARE entitled if you think YOU get to decide what the expansion pack is worth. It's not yours to decide! And if it bothers you that people are calling you entitled, maybe it's time you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if maybe it's because you really are entitled.

And no, you don't deserve anything for buying the premium edition day one. It doesn't make you any more of a fan just because you bought the game early. As others have mentioned multiple times, your reward for paying full price upfront is you got to play the game for over a YEAR before the people who buy the aftermath kollection do, and you got to experience the excitement along with everyone else of it being fresh and new. THAT is what you got for paying full price up front. It's like this in literally every other industry, but for some reason you only hear people complain about it when it comes to videogames. Publishers HAVE to offer deals like the aftermath kollection with all the DLC for $60 otherwise they wouldn't maintain an influx of new customers. This is simply the way the world works, and to continually be upset by it instead of just accepting it is insanity. These people have been continually working on MK11 DLC since the game launched which is now 13 months and counting. They deserve to be paid for that work and effort. And if they decide it's free DLC, that's up to them and not us. And we should be grateful for the free content that they absolutely don't have to give us, namely the stages, stage fatalities and friendships.

I think the people who are truly the most disturbed are the ones that claim they "love MK" and do nothing but shit on the games. That's comparable to verbally abusing your wife or girlfriend and trying to convince her you do it because you love her. It's fucking batshit crazy is what it is. If you spend every day of your life posting on an MK fan site how much you hate the game, how boring it is and how overpriced the DLC is, no you do NOT love MK. That's irrational and illogical.

All the complainers need to take a step back and gain some fucking perspective. The world isn't all about you. Be thankful we're getting any DLC at all, we could be getting nothing. Be thankful some of it is free, they gave you the option so you can choose to take the free content and not pay for the rest. Smile, enjoy life more, not everything has to be this serious. And try out some kasual matches instead of complaining about how bad kombat league is if you hate it so much, goddamn.

And for the record, the time you spent complaining for hours upon hours about how overpriced it is, you could have easily done something productive and made the $40 it costs to pay for the upgrade with money left over to spare. Then NRS gets paid, you have the expansion, everybody wins. Perspective!
 

theotherguy

Kombatant
In all seriousness, I'm 100% certain that these updates will be offered a la carte.
Excepting maybe some skins, have they ever not?

They release the bundles with pre-order bonus first so they get all those casuals, those with FOMO, or those that just want to play it on release to pay up, then prices come down as demand falls and you also get a la carte options for those who are more picky about what they want.

People must have the memory of a goldfish, none of this is new. People are supposed to learn from history... maybe playing videogames does turn your brain to mush?
 

theotherguy

Kombatant
Games in the 80’s/90’s cost the consumer the same as they charge today. Even though the development and production costs have skyrocketed in the last twenty years, you’re still paying the same price for the base game that you would have paid in 1988.
I was just thinking the same. Games are the same price as they were for a long time, yet my pay rate is much higher than what it would have been 10yrs ago, let alone 20yrs. And yet paying 1.5 times for the base game and an expansion is still seen to be excessive? Taking that into account we should be paying double what we are.

What about games that get new releases every year? Forza alternates between Motorsport and Horizon, COD has a new release every year. Someone might be able to confirm, but are these not full priced titles every year? Aren't fans of these series getting shafted even more? At least with MK, even if you buy nothing else, your initial purchase has at least 2years game time in it, depending on your desire to play. Even if you buy all the DLC etc, at worst you'd be on the same level as those other games.
 

asddgd

Noob
So by that logic noone can be a fan of puddle of mudd unless they love that nirvana cover. You should be thankful they covered that song, they didnt have to, but they did it for US
 

Professor Oak

Are you a boy or girl?
Excepting maybe some skins, have they ever not?

They release the bundles with pre-order bonus first so they get all those casuals, those with FOMO, or those that just want to play it on release to pay up, then prices come down as demand falls and you also get a la carte options for those who are more picky about what they want.

People must have the memory of a goldfish, none of this is new. People are supposed to learn from history... maybe playing videogames does turn your brain to mush?
Literally this IS new. Theyve never done story DLC, the new characters are tied to the new story it seems, theres no "early-access," incentive that implies theyll be available later like usual. But okay. I really hope its a given, but to condescend and insult people seems like maybe youre just an asshole?

The ignore button is an absolute godsend. I don't know what I'd do without it. You really can't help these people.

"I think the people who are truly the most disturbed are the ones that claim they "love MK" and do nothing but shit on the games. That's comparable to verbally abusing your wife or girlfriend and trying to convince her you do it because you love her. It's fucking batshit crazy is what it is. If you spend every day of your life posting on an MK fan site how much you hate the game, how boring it is and how overpriced the DLC is, no you do NOT love MK. That's irrational and illogical.
First part, yeah, I feel Im about to use it a lot here in the next few days. Second part, A. Yikes. I can see what youre trying to say, but Yikes. Criticizing a game is not the same as or comparable to abusing a woman. B. Mk is a lot fucking bigger than Mortal Kombat 11. Hating Mk11 doesnt disqualify you from Loving MK. But again, the ones up and down shitting on the game indeed are irrational, I agree there.

The internet is full of such bad takes. I cant wait until people start caring about playing again. @STB Sgt Reed @Vslayer When we gonna start the KOTHs back up?
 

thlityoursloat

kick kick
Yes. Far more work was put into the base game.
Games in the 80’s/90’s cost the consumer the same as they charge today. Even though the development and production costs have skyrocketed in the last twenty years, you’re still paying the same price for the base game that you would have paid in 1988.
These “AAA” titles cost as much to develop and market as a huge Hollywood movie, and aren’t going to generate the same consumer base that a movie is able to.
DLC costs are part of the mitigation.
Would you rather they charged you the $220-$240 the base game is actually worth, in order for WB to guarantee its profitability?
If it’s too much for you to spend, then don’t buy it or wait until it’s cheaper. We do this ALL THE TIME with all other luxury products we consume.
Be a fucking adult, make your financial decisions, and move on.
DLC costs are in deed part of the mitigation, the other part is overpriced MTs, which this game has, which the game incentivizes you to buy by locking content behind a shitty RNG crypt and atrocious single player content.
I mean, are we seriously forgetting just how scummy the MTs were when the game first launched? or do people genuinely think that they toned it down out of the kindness of their hearts?
 

jcbowie

...more deadly than the dawn.
Yes. Far more work was put into the base game.
Games in the 80’s/90’s cost the consumer the same as they charge today. Even though the development and production costs have skyrocketed in the last twenty years, you’re still paying the same price for the base game that you would have paid in 1988.
These “AAA” titles cost as much to develop and market as a huge Hollywood movie, and aren’t going to generate the same consumer base that a movie is able to.
DLC costs are part of the mitigation.
Would you rather they charged you the $220-$240 the base game is actually worth, in order for WB to guarantee its profitability?
If it’s too much for you to spend, then don’t buy it or wait until it’s cheaper. We do this ALL THE TIME with all other luxury products we consume.
Be a fucking adult, make your financial decisions, and move on.
As a software engineer who gets paid for working on large, scalable e-commerce apps I can say that this is not entirely accurate. While the money does not directly go into the devs pockets, it does pay the company which gives the company the means to pay the developers. Paying the developers means they have incentive to stay with the company and continue to produce the product.

To say far, far more work was put into the base game is not always entirely accurate either. Yes, likely more work was done originally, but adding new code and assets to an existing codebase is not without its challenges. A number of issues can and will arise. That can mean months of refactoring, regression tests etc. So, I would not say, "far, far more". But you are not too far off.
Do these considerations still matter anyways when we look at the way NRS and WB treated the people who actually worked on developing the base game? Allegedly subjecting them to poor conditions and dangling long-term employment in front of them so that they'd meet unreasonable deadlines and then cutting them loose with no consequence? Not to me, they clearly cut corners with the development of this game. If I really felt like this was "giving the animators and essential staff members their hard earned pay" or something then I'd be more on board, but it clearly isn't so I'm not.

Also, can we stop pretending that video games necessarily HAVE to lose value over time in the same way that a car or some other physical property does? There's no degradation, there's no loss of half the value the moment you drive it off the lot. If the support for the game is okay or if the mechanics hold up down the line, and for multiplayer games on these bases it should retain a loyal userbase, then the value should be the same. Actually no, the value should be higher. Suggesting the new players are basically paying for some "outdated model" implies that what we were getting was top of the line initially, when in reality the dev cycle for games means that what new players are getting now is both a superior product AND a lower price. Does that really make sense? Pay higher price because you supported the product from the outset, and now you're slapped with additional fees because warier buyers waited? Why would it be crazy to give some kind of discount on this content to the people who paid exorbitant launch prices? How is it "entitlement" to suggest that it kinda makes sense to incentivize the day-1 dedicated userbase who paid more for a shoddier product?

People saying stuff like "you deserve it for buying early lol, this is the industry standard, stop being entitled" have an incomprehensible view of this industry and of getting value for what you pay for to me. Hoping that the devs and publishers of a franchise that you've loved for a long time might adhere to more ethical practices isn't "stupid," its normative and positive and ideally a push for better standards. And imo everyone now smugly saying "should have voted with your wallet idiot, I actually DON'T think it's realistic to hold companies to higher standards ever" isn't helping anyone.
 

theotherguy

Kombatant
Also, can we stop pretending that video games necessarily HAVE to lose value over time in the same way that a car or some other physical property does?
They don't... but in reality they do. That's the difference.

Pay higher price because you supported the product from the outset, and now you're slapped with additional fees because warier buyers waited? Why would it be crazy to give some kind of discount on this content to the people who paid exorbitant launch prices?
If they were exorbitant people wouldn't pay it. It's clearly at a level that there are buyers and no one forced them. RE; the discount, it may not be crazy, but it's not a thing yet. There's always been the option of waiting for a cheaper price, if people wanted to no one would buy games day1, everyone would wait 6-12months and be picking up bargains all the time. In the real world that doesn't happen. Businesses know this and their business models account for it.

Comments like this are basically saying there is no value in the time spent with the game between launch and the Ultimate edition X months later. That is absolute
bullshit. 12months game time is worth something and it just so happens it's equal to the price difference between launch and ultimate edition.

How is it "entitlement" to suggest that it kinda makes sense to incentivize the day-1 dedicated userbase who paid more for a shoddier product?
How is it not? The launch price is that because it's new and/or you're paying for a special edition with extras. That is what the "exorbitant" price is for. Not because you're a dedicated fan, not because you wanted to buy it day1, not because you're owed something 12months later.
 

jcbowie

...more deadly than the dawn.
They don't... but in reality they do. That's the difference.
But if they don't have to... then they don't have to, this perspective makes no sense. There's no reason that they do, so saying "well they do so no changing that" doesn't make any sense. Saying "they don't have to be so they shouldn't be" is everyone's point here.
If they were exorbitant people wouldn't pay it. It's clearly at a level that there are buyers and no one forced them. RE; the discount, it may not be crazy, but it's not a thing yet. There's always been the option of waiting for a cheaper price, if people wanted to no one would buy games day1, everyone would wait 6-12months and be picking up bargains all the time. In the real world that doesn't happen. Businesses know this and their business models account for it.
It's very obvious, based on the reaction to the reveal of this new price and the existence of threads like these, that the launch prices are exorbitant because people didn't understand that the value of what they were paying for initially was lower than they anticipated or otherwise believed that it should be. There is always the option of paying later, but it's definitely not wrong or crazy to expect actual real incentives to buy earlier editions which carry appropriate value. Businesses actively preying on enthusiasm for their product is bad, and saying "well they can" is a pretty poor justification for why they should and whether or not it's fair or right to do so, which is what people are saying.
Comments like this are basically saying there is no value in the time spent with the game between launch and the Ultimate edition X months later. That is absolute
bullshit. 12months game time is worth something and it just so happens it's equal to the price difference between launch and ultimate edition.
You have it absolutely backwards. What I'm suggesting is that there is value in that time, and that we paid higher price for less value at the outset. Obviously NRS and WB don't have to incentivize that, and it's not illegal for them to charge high prices for DLC like this, but no one's saying that lol. Again, clearly from the existence of threads like this the "getting it day 1 is the value you pay for" justification is wearing thin, and it's super reasonable to feel that way when the gaming industry has become much more exploitative.

Your comment suggests in fact that there is negative value in between the time the game is released and when the new edition comes out. If the development time was all so valuable, then why are new players paying a massively lower price with all the extra content as well as the development included? Obviously it's to incentivize sales, because no one would buy it if they charged full price at this point. But, if it's not worth paying that much now then doesn't it make sense that either the development time was worthless or otherwise that it's perhaps not unreasonable to suggest that we could be given perks for purchasing at launch when in theory the game was worth less...?
How is it not? The launch price is that because it's new and/or you're paying for a special edition with extras. That is what the "exorbitant" price is for. Not because you're a dedicated fan, not because you wanted to buy it day1, not because you're owed something 12months later.
It is baffling to me that some people will scoff at the suggestion of receiving a discount on something that you've essentially already paid for. The "extras" are clearly not in proportion to what people expected that they would be paying for, roughly $100 from a company who again clearly cut corners on development costs, and snarking "buyer beware" after the fact is silly and unproductive. Saying "this practice is hurting your dedicated day-1 userbase and perhaps you shouldn't basically incentivize people not to purchase your titles at launch just after you've rebooted this series so recently" makes complete sense, and there's absolutely no sound reason to say that people can't hold this perspective. The microtransactions existing in the same system with DLC is just icing on the cake, and being complacent with paying a high price for an incomplete product at launch as "standard practice" doesn't make sense at a certain point. Clearly, some people feel like this is that point.
 

theotherguy

Kombatant
and that we paid higher price for less value at the outset.
No, you paid the higher price for more time with the game. What is in the game at that point is irrelevant, because that was all that was in the game at the point.

By your logic MK11:A should cost 1.5x the initial cost because there's more in it. Valid point, but here's the kicker - people don't want to pay more for an old game. Doesn't matter how supported or up to date it is, it's perceived as being old. And therefore valued less. To counter that they offer it cheaper to entice more to buy it.

If the development time was all so valuable, then why are new players paying a massively lower price with all the extra content as well as the development included?
Because it's the way business works. You try and recoup costs back as quickly as possible if at all possible. They probably made a good chunk of the initial outlay of the game back in the first year when people were paying full price, after that the cheaper price is to entice more buyers and keep their cashflow going, and it's just extra profit on top.

Just because people think everything should be whatever they can afford, or they think they know what price things should be doesn't make it true. I'd like to pay 30k for a new Mercedes, doesn't mean it's a viable option.
 
I've played 200 hours of MK11 and spent one hundred bucks on it.

As it stands it's probably the best dollar-to-hour-of-enjoyment ratio I've spent on entertainment this year.

I'm not sweating forty bucks for something I'll easily play for 100+ more hours.

And as someone who has a gym membership, an internet provider, car insurance, and pays rent- I recognize new customers are always going to get more enticing deals than customers who have already bought in.
 

Scoot Magee

But I didn't want to dash
I always wait for the inevitable dlc sale. I think dlc in a lot of major releases are a ripoff, not just mk. The full game with story mode, 24 characters, stages and etc is 60. How are you going to justify 40 for what they offered in kp1 and the aftermath dlc? Not worth it imo unless you really need to lab the characters.

I cant blame them for charging what they charge. Everyone buys it, for the most part. There was a time where I wouldnt think twice about buying it but I'm not as loose as I once was.

I just dont think the value is there. If it's worth it to you, buy it and enjoy it.
 

jcbowie

...more deadly than the dawn.
No, you paid the higher price for more time with the game. What is in the game at that point is irrelevant, because that was all that was in the game at the point.

By your logic MK11:A should cost 1.5x the initial cost because there's more in it. Valid point, but here's the kicker - people don't want to pay more for an old game. Doesn't matter how supported or up to date it is, it's perceived as being old. And therefore valued less. To counter that they offer it cheaper to entice more to buy it.



Because it's the way business works. You try and recoup costs back as quickly as possible if at all possible. They probably made a good chunk of the initial outlay of the game back in the first year when people were paying full price, after that the cheaper price is to entice more buyers and keep their cashflow going, and it's just extra profit on top.

Just because people think everything should be whatever they can afford, or they think they know what price things should be doesn't make it true. I'd like to pay 30k for a new Mercedes, doesn't mean it's a viable option.
I literally address exactly the things you're saying in follow-ups to what you quoted man. I understand that the launch value is supposedly "the benefit of having more time with the game," but as evidenced by the mere existence of these threads that value is wearing thin. As for the extreme discounted price for new players, again obviously it's to sell units, but that doesn't make it unreasonable for people who buy their launch titles to ask for what they see as a fairer degree of "extra" value for the higher amount that they pay. It's also definitely not "thinking everything should be whatever they can afford," that completely mistakes what people are complaining about. It's about feeling like you paid for an intact product and then feeling like what's delivered is not intact, that it's had pieces deliberately left off so as to leave behind a functional but unsatisfying experience.

It's like buying a new car and driving it off the lot right after, but then finding out that the rearview mirrors weren't included because the manufacturer was still working on them. Don't worry though you can drive back to the lot and have them tacked on for a supplemental fee, and if you don't want to pay extra the engine still works so what are you complaining about.

Fundamentally, saying "this is how they can make the most money, by treating day-1 users with less value" is just a bad justification for why the people who consume their products should roll over and deal with it. Saying "vote with your wallet" is all well and good, but this implicit follow-up of "and because you vote with your wallet you can't vote with your mouth" is silly. Talking about how this pricing structure seemingly degrades the value of what some people paid for at launch makes total sense, and obviously the real solution is to be warier about buying their titles at launch in the future, but saying "this sucks" is still fair game.
 
MTs, which this game has, which the game incentivizes you to buy by locking content behind a shitty RNG crypt and atrocious single player content.
No it does not. There isn't a single thing that actually gives anyone incentive to buy crystals if they stop and look at how it's setup, and especially for anyone who plays the game a lot. Heck, there isn't even incentive to use them.
The game dumps crystals on you for simply playing and leveling your account, doing towers, even KL, etc.

Then the only place we can spend these crystals are a rotating store of random items that we have no control over, so we have to wait to see an item we want appear on said store before we can spend crystals to buy it.
Combine this with the fact that if you play the game a lot you already probably have most of the items for your favourite characters, because you play them all the time and get rewards for doing so. Chances are you will already have any items for your character(s) by the time that they actually do show up.

What's more, is if you really want a particular item it actually isn't difficult to target which part of the game is more likely to drop it and grind it out, which is also likely to net you more crystals for playing the game. Items that aren't obtainable yet will also never appear in the store, so it's not like the store is even convenient.

I haven't spent any money on crystals and I'm currently sitting on almost 12000 of them, and I've even spent a bunch on a couple Spawn bundles early on (that I really didn't need to grab this way since most of it can be obtained via his character towers).

Unless they start churning out a lot more skins that are crystal-only, such as the klassic Kitana/Jade/Skarlet ones, there will continue to be zero incentive to buy or use crystals.