It's amazing how quickly the gaming
industry changes over the years, it has now been thirteen years since
Quake 3 released, one of the first games to require a '3D Graphics
Accelerator', and about as long since video games have been played
competitively online. The advancement in these trends, however, is
nothing that I'm against – in fact I'm glad.
What I am against in the recent
gaming trends is the advancement of so-called 'DLC' which is,
essentially, just another way of scrubbing the money from the people
who have already paid copious amounts of money for your game, and
it's damaging the public relations of the company. DLC may be good
for business temporarily, but when people realise that the
developers/publishers are essentially selling a game that is
intrinsically unfinished, and you need to buy the remainder of the
content, the players are going to want to play the game that they
have already paid for in full – but they're going to be more
careful when buying games from the company in the future.
DLC is slowly creeping up in price too
– I could forgive the DLC if it were like Croteam's 'Legend of the
Beast' DLC for 'Serious Sam HD: The Second Encounter', which comes
with three new versus maps, a new survival map and three additional
missions for the cooperative campaign – all for £3.99 ($6), but
they're not. They're all from publishers who leave out the additional
content, then release it steadily, in packs of five for £15 ($25),
which is more than half of what I paid for the game (that's right
Call of Duty, I'm looking at you).
|
It says a lot when the additional content costs more than the game itself. |