Swindle
Philanthropist & Asshole
Master race, though.Correct. To the best of my knowledge, it's still not on the PC version and is the only skin on console not on PC.
Master race, though.Correct. To the best of my knowledge, it's still not on the PC version and is the only skin on console not on PC.
Sounds like you should just stick to the six piece.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.
Yes. Far more work was put into the base game.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.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 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.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.
Excepting maybe some skins, have they ever not?In all seriousness, I'm 100% certain that these updates will be offered a la carte.
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.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.
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?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?
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
They don't... but in reality they do. That's the difference.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?
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.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 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.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?
Very similar aged. I'm not bored with gaming, but absolutely more selective, and I also find less critical than when I was younger.40 year old fuck, here. However, I don't get bored with gaming, if anything, I love it more than ever. I do however, seriously consider investing on a much smaller number of IPs.
Platform elitism is just silly.Master race, though.
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.They don't... but in reality they do. That's the difference.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.and that we paid higher price for less value at the outset.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
cause fuck you thats whyWHY DON'T THEY JUST
GIVE IT TO US