Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 1,022
- Location
- N.I
Next time, read the descripton of what you are buying. There is no urine taking, apart from this thread.
EA taking the urine?
- Thread starter red eye
- Start date
Wut? No they weren't.
1-2 were.
so it becomes the standard price to suit his argument regardless of the reality of the situation.
donkey king was 70? starfox was expensive as well I think?
They was no were near £40-£45 20 year ago
They were £30 tops for PC. Plus the DLC was free. All be it fan made the majority of it.
I think EA called it Premium just to make it confusing so people would buy it in error and not bother chasing a refund. Calling it Premium sounds like the normal game but with extras, its actually just a DLC Pack or Season Pass (another daft name) but EA wanted to be different and awkward. What exactly makes my DLC Pack or Season Pass premium EA?!?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2013
- Posts
- 9,929
- Location
- M28
They was no were near £40-£45 20 year ago
They were £30 tops for PC. Plus the DLC was free. All be it fan made the majority of it.
Did DLC exist 20 years ago? Thought it was just expansion packs
DLC over a sportster 14.4, no ta!
Over their lifetimes, which were quite long really. Gaming is overall much bigger now though. Games are selling more copies and costs aren't actually going up as much as is being made out.
A company choosing to plough a significant amount of money into a game doesn't mean costs are going up to the level of hundreds of millions. GTA 5 apparently had a budget of $265 million, but that doesn't mean much without context. We don't know the whole breakdown outside of roughly half being marketing too.
But that was Rockstar's choice, it doesn't mean that it had to cost that much, just that they could afford and justify that cost based on projections made.
They will have spent loads of money on getting specific people to lend their voices to characters, like Jonah Hill, and other things which they don't need to do to make a a great game, but they can afford to do.
They was no were near £40-£45 20 year ago
They were £30 tops for PC. Plus the DLC was free. All be it fan made the majority of it.
Check out this scan of a 1995 issue of PC Zone. The vast majority of reviewed games are £39.99. A few are less, a few are more.
http://www.pixsoriginadventures.co.uk/PCZone/PC Zone 24 (March 1995)/PC Zone 24 (March 1995).pdf
Star Wars: Dark Forces was originally £54.99!!
Last edited:
Don't also forget that sales for games are a lot higher than they used to be 20 years ago.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
- typing police at it's most pedantic.
It's not pedantic. Use correct English or don't post.
It's means it is or it has...
They was no were near £40-£45 20 year ago
They were £30 tops for PC. Plus the DLC was free. All be it fan made the majority of it.
I feel like loads of people just don't understand what the letters DLC actually stand for.
DLC was certainly not free 20 years ago, it didn't exist.
DLC is down loadable content. Anything that you have in Steam is DLC, as it's content that you download. However in the context it's mainly used in, it's any additional content for an existing base game.
Now, expansion packs come in the form of DLC as there isn't any reason why they would get their own retail hard copy release as the majority of customers are able to access the content via the Internet, just like the base game.
Expansion packs were never free 20 years ago, and they certainly weren't fan made (for the most part).
So in summary, there isn't anything wrong with DLC as DLC is a vague way to describe something. What is wrong is the way some publishers are using "DLC" as a means to try and rip people off.
The disclaimer is very obvious, however I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that "Battlefield Hardline Premium" was a "premium" out enhanced edition of Battlefield Hardline in isolation, as you said it really does look like that's been done to mislead.
Almost all this 'new' money in gaming is from mobile and other crap free to play microtransaction games. The production cost of AAA games has increased non stop. Volume has zero to do with it, producing the physical disks costs nothing.
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 2,634
lol you lot are so relentless, poor OP.
Thread title is probably why though.... but we all know how EA are
Thread title is probably why though.... but we all know how EA are
Volume as in quantity of sales. There are more people buying games now than ever. GTA 5 has sold about 50 million copies, more than likely it'll be over 50 million now. It was at 45 million in December, now post PC release where 2 million have been sold on Steam alone, but that vast majority being Rockstar Social Club versions.
Rockstar spent as much as they did because they were anticipating massive sales, and they made more than their development costs back on the first day it went on sale.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
Everyone in agreement that it was just OP being stupid?