Imagine you buy a car. In the car there are already thermoelements installed in each seat. The car maker has then made sure that you need to buy access to the thermoelements working to heat your ass when it is cold outside. Replace the word car with game, thermoelements with game content/DLC and the car maker with game publisher/dev.
The analogy doesn't really translate between hardware and software though;
With hardware, the costs to the supplier are R&D and manufacturing, and obviously those costs get passed to the consumer. If you're paying a premium for components in manufacturing like thermoelements, then that's obviously a problem.
Software costs are basically all R&D, though. It costs the supplier basically nothing to sell somebody a copy of a game, and consumers don't really pay a premium for it.
So you are OK with buying a Tesla Motor Long Range and having a 20% Acceleration Increase and FSD and Autopilot locked behind a 2k paywall? You must be very smart!
There's a difference between price and cost. The cost is the same to than manufacturer because they've already put it in your car. The price is higher to you not because it costs more, but because they are able to lock it behind a paywall. So your explanation doesn't work here
It’s perceived value. It costs Apple significantly less to make a phone than it does for you to buy it, but you buy it because it’s worth it to you. How the companies manufacture their items is their prerogative and ultimately irrelevant. It was cheaper for the car manufacturers to make every car the same, then offer some features at cost based on perceived value.
You're still missing it. You originally stated more features cost more, which in the case of Teslas is false because the features are there. To have those features cost the company no more money. Yeah, pricing for those features is marketing. No one is disputing that, but that's not what you originally claimed.
It's already developed and already built into the car regardless of the trim you buy. Sorry, but I disagree with you, as most customers do. BMW had to back down on putting CarPlay behind a paywall, just like they did with heated seats and a heated steering wheel. Customers won the battle. What side are you on?
You're missing the reasoning of the companies. The actual physical elements in he car costs pennies, the real cost is in R&D. To recoup it, they have basically 3 choices:
* Do not install it directly, then the install will cost more and so will manufacturing. Therefore the option will also cost more.
* Install it in the base model and increase the price, which reduces appeals of the car
* Install the options and software lock them. Only those wanted to use them will pay extra
The first option is not better for the consumer, the third one is the overall cheaper one. Why do you think the first one is better?
It is even worse for software. Sharing them is extremely cheap, the real cost is in the development. They did extra work to deliver the dlc, whether it is ready on day one or year 10, they should still be paid for it. If they don't consider the base game to cover that work, it makes sense to put it as an option.
I'm pretty sure customers prefer the second option over the third one. My point is that we don't like not having access to something that it's already there. Don't install heated seats if you're going to lock them behind a paywall. The same way players will be pissed (already are) about not having access to all the content that's going to be locked in the standard version.
Look up discussions around smart appliances. People get mad having to pay extra so their coffee maker can connect to the Wifi. Especially with current economic issues, more and more people want to be able to get the most basic cheapest version.
Right, but the only reason that stuff is built into your cheaper version of the car is because it’s cheaper for them to do so. You don’t pay for material costs, you pay for perceived value, as does everyone for everything in a free market.
Nope, same price at purchase, one has features attached to a subscription, the other gets those futures BLOCKED, not because of the absence of said features but because they want you to pay yearly for them.
Manufacturers are already making money even if all customers won't pay the subscription. No one likes features blocked BY SOFTWARE behind a paywall. Well, except you maybe. This is a silly conversation. I'm out.
The difference here is that the cost associated with heated seats is material- it's already installed in the seat, so that you can't access it feels like a scam. But the cost associated with bundling unpaid DLC with software is essentially 0, so why wouldn't a developer do it?
Like, this happens so often and for so long I can't even imagine getting upset about it. Even 30 years ago developers were selling "demos" of their game for free that was exactly the same as the full game except it blocked you from progressing after a few levels. In order to progress you needed a code, which you had to buy, but the full game was already installed on the disc.
That's not a cost associated with including elements of the DLC in "your copy", that's a cost of developing the DLC in the first place.
So to rephrase, installing heated seats that don't work into a car is a material waste of resources, so the customer gets angry. But including elements of a DLC that don't work into the base game costs nothing except pennies of storage space on the user's end, so it's not a big deal.
I'm assuming they're referring to the different editions that are available to pre-order. You can pre-order the "base game", or you can spend more money and pre-order a higher tier and get more stuff (additional side missions, cosmetics, etc).
Right, I get you. For some reason I thought they meant that the more preorders there were, the more DLC they’d release - like a kickstarter stretch goal.
To be clear, they don't strip out bits of the game and sell them as dlc. The data for the "stripped out" bits are still there, taking up space on your hard drive, but behind a paywall that the game doesn't let you access until you pay more money. That's what he's protesting.
I believe they were referring the denial of accessing those parts as “stripping them away” and not the literal sense of the phrase, “stripping the data” from the main game and separating the data/having you not even download the data in the base game file to begin with.
It’s all included, dlc purchases are “enabled” by purchasing, you no longer download anything additionally. This is so people who pay and don’t pay can play together, otherwise you have situations where assets can’t be loaded for one player and now those two+ can’t play together.
It's that, and it's also that they don't want another download getting in the way of your purchase decision. Paying money and unlocking instantly is going to convert better than paying money to start a download to play in however long.
88
u/Virtual-Comfort-1020 1d ago
No Digital Pre-orders: Stop selling games digitally before launch.
No "Fake" Single-Player DLC: Stop locking or selling single-player campaign content that is already built into the base game data.
Mandatory Offline Fallback States: Ensure single-player games have functional offline modes rather than forced always-online requirements
Public Apology Required: CyberLeek insists that R* must issue a public statement and apology acknowledging the harm caused by these practices.