KoA: Reckoning - House of Valor Free DLC and More

wolfgrimdark said:

I think consumption is a key word here. Unlike a physical item, a service you consume is treated differently by many. There is this feeling I get from posters that you should only have to pay for a service, that you have already consumed, if you liked it. Yet in consuming it you can't return it. Movies, songs, books, dinner out … as long as there wasn't a failure to provide adequate service you still need to pay up. Personally I believe the consumer needs to research and take some risk.

It is a tricky situation at times and hard to find a balance IMO. I want companies to succeed and to do so they need to sell games. I would rather see some royalties applied on games in much the same way they are to other forms of IP … although not sure how that would work. Like having GameStop pay a fee to the game company for each used sale.

The market won't go away so a solution will probably have to be found by the companies. People have had a taste if the "used game" prices and now consider it their right to have it seems.

Click to expand...

Usually I would through a fit over a comment like this but I wont you stated your comment clearly. Now you made your point but I will stick with they deserve no money on a used sale. They have no ownership on a used product.

The problem is game stop and I cant blame them. They made a market of buying cheap selling higher. The consumer got a demand filled and all I hear is jealousy from publishers and developers wanting a piece of that billion dollar pie.

I will never understand this whole used games are terrible and the publishers deserves a cut of it. Doesn't hold up.

skavenhorde said:

I bring this up because boardgames and PC games have a lot in common, but I'm seeing publishers try their best to get us to believe that PC games are different. They are just a service. No different than getting a massage or ordering roomservice. That's BS and they know it. If I want to sell that particular boardgame then I should be able to. That board and those pieces are mine to sell to someone else. If those pieces are not mine then I'd be in real trouble painting those Skaven I own.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with you selling your games. I have a problem with major corporations basing their business model on used games and I support game producers seeking modest ways to address that issue. To me, free DLC is a reasonable approach to the issue.

Why is it so different for video games then? Is it because they haven't figured out a way to make a ton of money off of them yet? Should we be punished because they can't have a major release followed up by renting, DVD sales and finally getting even more revenue from HBO or one of the other networks.

Click to expand...

Video games are inherently different. I'm not an expert on board games but I imagine they often don't cost much to develop. I see Monopoly is still selling here for $49.95 to $69.95 (!!), decades after release. Can you tell of video games that have that sort of ratio of development cost to market longevity? They are different.

"Punished"? In what way are you "punished"? You may hate the idea of companies trying to make money but it's essential for their survival and investment in the industry.

With all that said I do not resell my games ever. The reason being is that I want to replay them at a certain point in time. I did not "consume" the product when I first played it, no different than I don't "consume" Skaven when I play a game of Mordheim or finish painting them. They are still mine and haven't magically disappeared because I used them.

Click to expand...

Choose a different word - "experienced", "enjoyed", "played". No, they don't magically disappear but in my view (I was clear I was talking about my personal perspective, right?) many gamers act as if only the disk/box carries any value and not the entertainment from having played it. Is that not what you paid for in the first place?

So while I'm on the same side with concerns to the DLC, I don't get how you think that a game is consumed after you play it. I would have died from lead poisoning a long time ago if I consumed all the Skaven I have bought

Click to expand...

You're focusing too much on my choice of the word "consume". My point is - for me - I paid money to be entertained, I got entertained, my money is well spent. Done.

Dhruin said:

I don't have a problem with you selling your games. I have a problem with major corporations basing their business model on used games and I support game producers seeking modest ways to address that issue. To me, free DLC is a reasonable approach to the issue.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It seems perfectly acceptable to give us a bonus for pre-ordering or buying it new.

Video games are inherently different. I'm not an expert on board games but I imagine they often don't cost much to develop. I see Monopoly is still selling here for $49.95 to $69.95 (!!), decades after release. Can you tell of video games that have that sort of ratio of development cost to market longevity? They are different.

Click to expand...

This is where we disagree. It's irrelevant if Monopoly is still selling for 50 bucks. The concepts for both types of games are exactly the same. I bought the pieces to Monopoly. I bought the rules to that game. The same goes for PC games. I bought the art and rules to that game. Just because one is on a computer and the other isn't should not make any difference.

I do not see a difference from the consumers point of view. The industry needs to figure out new ways to get extra revenue like this kind of DLC.

I'm afraid the publishers are trying to make it seem that PC games are like going to a movie theater. You watch the show and then that's it when it's more like buying a boardgame, the DVD of the movie or a book. I own that particular game, DVD, boardgame or book (not the IP, of course) and can revisit it at any time I choose or resell it to someone else if I wish.

Choose a different word - "experienced", "enjoyed", "played". No, they don't magically disappear but in my view (I was clear I was talking about my personal perspective, right?) many gamers act as if only the disk/box carries any value and not the entertainment from having played it. Is that not what you paid for in the first place?

You're focusing too much on my choice of the word "consume". My point is - for me - I paid money to be entertained, I got entertained, my money is well spent. Done.

Click to expand...

I agreed with pretty much everything you said about the DLC and new ways for the companies to make a profit because this boom or bust model they have now just can't hold on forever.

The warning bells go off anytime someone starts saying PC games and consume Because of that I had comprehension failure and read too quickly. For the most part I agree with your assessment as well. If I'm entertained from the product then I'm happy, but I want to keep that happiness and revisit it any time I choose. If the industry had it's way they would make that impossible.

In any event, I agree with you about the DLC and new ways to make revenue. That needs to happen.

While I tend to agree Dhruin, you make some good points Skavenhorde.

Thing is, while I have a leaning towards having some issues with used games, I am still on the fence in many ways. I guess I am still seeing both sides. Yes some companies are just being greedy and want a slice of the pie. But some are also struggling to survive (seems like a lot of companies have gone under over the years) and there are many ways they are losing sales (pirating and used games being two big ones). My issue with used games is not really ebay or family sharing but more with what I have heard about GameStop and their ilk.

On the used gamer side I see similar areas. People purchase the rights to play a game and I can understand why they would like to be able to transfer those when they are done with what they paid for. On the other hand I also don't see why someone getting a used game has any right to complain about it not being just like buying a new game.

I think the companies need to experiment to stay in business and I have zero problem with them providing some incentive to buy new.

Really - if the game doesn't sell a lot right up front it seems to be a losing battle - as the game just ends up being recycled over and over with no money coming in to the publisher/developers.

Skavenhorde also raises the issue, are games a service? I never thought about it to much until recently. They seem to be a mix right now and not sure how I feel about the approach.

The only strong feeling I have is that I can see why companies are struggling to deal with some of the issues here.

Essentially, I don't really care about used games. I don't buy many games on sale or used - as I buy what I want to play - WHEN I want to play. Typically, that's immediately upon release, as I'm impatient.

I don't like the concept of DLC - because I feel it taints the "purity" of the game.

In that same way, I'd never buy a game without the expansion - if the expansion is there. I always want everything.

The problem with DLC - is that they're using it for a purpose OUTSIDE the game. To entice - or to profit. But the actual content is GAME content - and I don't think those two very different things mix well. I don't like that I could potentially buy a magic sword for an extra 2 dollars - because the effort required to produce it, is clearly almost nothing. I don't know how it will affect balance in the game - and I don't actually know if it changes the gameplay in any significant way.

So, they're asking me to play the designer. They're asking me to know if I want something even if I have no way of knowing whether I want it. I'd have to experience the ENTIRE game with ALL content before knowing what any kind of DLC is worth.

Furthermore, they have to balance the game so that it's fully playable and enjoyable without DLC. So, if you can get access to a powerful item as DLC - it will clearly affect balance in a detrimental way - at least for a while. So, it affects the core design and balance of the game.

It's just a tainted concept all-round - and I HATE that.

It's not about money and I don't really care about the opportunism. Well, I think it's tasteless in many cases - but ultimately - I can pay if I want to play.

But DLC is a very bad thing for the consumer for the reasons stated above - and more.

I see no rational argument against used games. Well, not unless we agree that everything we buy can't be resold.

I don't think getting rid of used games is a rational approach to "poor businesses" - or to handle the problem of not getting enough profit in return.

Instead, I'd stop putting games on sale so ridiculously soon - or I'd reconsider the entire pricing paradigm. I'm not at all convinced that the 40-60$ standard for all new games is the optimal one.

Instead of making the consumer suffer, then make a different deal with distributors. It should be possible.

Consumers think they're getting great deals by buying great games at 5$ - but the end result isn't exactly them playing more or having a better time. It's market exploitation and people are morons when they see cheap offers.

USAToday -> Interview w/ Curt Schilling - Reckoning 2 announced at the end.

Q: What's next?

The massively multiplayer online game is in the works, (and) we are working on Reckoning 2, doing a lot of groundwork. We believe the game and intellectual property will be incredibly successful.

Click to expand...

Awesome news!

In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess. However, they would do well to put the breaks on the sequel's development until some feedback is garnered on the first.

My feeling says that this game franchise will become a big seller. Maybe even overthrow Blizzard at one point in the future.