Jump to content

 

Monte Carlo DLC delayed by one week.


oO Triple G Oo
 Share

Recommended Posts

What has overpriced and (clearly) pre-release produced DLC have to do with 'business models'?

It's good business for EA to charge for in game content that can be unlocked by playing... it's good business for Activision to charge 1200 msp instead of 800 for their COD map packs... but is it fair? Is it value for money?

 

Unless you're privy to EA's and Codemasters licensing agreements, it speculative at best to assume DLC prices are in anyway based on that cost.

 

I said 'if you don't like it don't buy it' isn't any kind of argument, because it's not. 'If you don't like the price, don't buy it' might be an argument, but it's not the same thing at all, is it, boy?

I'm not privy to them and neither are you, you don't know the details. But it's common sense that when you have the license for a brand of vehicles it's easier to get more of those cars. Also it should be common sense to you that Dirt has a smaller breadth of cars to work with simply because it is limited to rally-type cars.

 

I was never saying anything about good business being overcharging, that just proves that you don't understand. Use your brain for half a second dude, does it make sense to release DLC soon after release or wait? They waited with GRID and they didn't make much money, if any. It's smart to release DLC earlier, especially if it's content that you couldn't get in the game by the time it went Gold.

 

Tell you what, if the DLC tomorrow is a small 108kb download I'll eat all my words and admit you're right, because DLC that small means it's on the disc already. If it's 100's of mbs or even over a gig I won't be surprised if you respond with silence.

 

Also if you know anything about economics, value of the dollar in consumer products is pretty much in the hands of the consumer. If the consumers see the DLC tomorrow and buy it, they feel it's worth their money. CoD map packs are not worth it to me, I'll never buy them, but clearly there is value for the money for enough people. Just do us a favor and try and understand this mmmkay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not privy to them and neither are you, you don't know the details. But it's common sense that when you have the license for a brand of vehicles it's easier to get more of those cars. Also it should be common sense to you that Dirt has a smaller breadth of cars to work with simply because it is limited to rally-type cars.

 

I was never saying anything about good business being overcharging, that just proves that you don't understand. Use your brain for half a second dude, does it make sense to release DLC soon after release or wait? They waited with GRID and they didn't make much money, if any. It's smart to release DLC earlier, especially if it's content that you couldn't get in the game by the time it went Gold.

 

Tell you what, if the DLC tomorrow is a small 108kb download I'll eat all my words and admit you're right, because DLC that small means it's on the disc already. If it's 100's of mbs or even over a gig I won't be surprised if you respond with silence.

 

Also if you know anything about economics, value of the dollar in consumer products is pretty much in the hands of the consumer. If the consumers see the DLC tomorrow and buy it, they feel it's worth their money. CoD map packs are not worth it to me, I'll never buy them, but clearly there is value for the money for enough people. Just do us a favor and try and understand this mmmkay?

 

Monte Carlo: 250MB

Mini Gymkhana: 58MB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monte Carlo: 250MB

Mini Gymkhana: 58MB

And there you go, content didn't even ship with the disc which means it costs even more to put it on the XBL Marketplace. Ah well, I digress...and I'm downloading it now so it will be ready for when I get home from work later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not privy to them and neither are you, you don't know the details. But it's common sense that when you have the license for a brand of vehicles it's easier to get more of those cars. Also it should be common sense to you that Dirt has a smaller breadth of cars to work with simply because it is limited to rally-type cars.

 

So in your opinion charging more for less is common sense? Okay...

 

was never saying anything about good business being overcharging, that just proves that you don't understand. Use your brain for half a second dude, does it make sense to release DLC soon after release or wait? They waited with GRID and they didn't make much money, if any. It's smart to release DLC earlier, especially if it's content that you couldn't get in the game by the time it went Gold.

 

The reason the grid dlc failed was down to many factors... firstly, they waited 6 months before releasing any dlc; secondly, it was just a (...nother overpriced) car pack; and finally, plenty of people, myself included, stopped playing when online rankings were helpfully reset by Codemasters.

 

Tell you what, if the DLC tomorrow is a small 108kb download I'll eat all my words and admit you're right, because DLC that small means it's on the disc already. If it's 100's of mbs or even over a gig I won't be surprised if you respond with silence.

 

Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

 

 

if you know anything about economics, value of the dollar in consumer products is pretty much in the hands of the consumer. If the consumers see the DLC tomorrow and buy it, they feel it's worth their money. CoD map packs are not worth it to me, I'll never buy them, but clearly there is value for the money for enough people. Just do us a favor and try and understand this mmmkay?

 

You're so right Nate, the consumer dictates the pricing of consumer products... I feel blessed with good fortune every time I visit the pump, the supermarket and Xbox Live Marketplace. Dirt 3 is a very fine game, some consumers will see the dlc and feel, in spite of the price, it might add something, and buy it. This doesn't mean they're getting value for money or that they feel the pricing is right... it just means they want some new content for their game. Maybe if you were less one-eyed you might see there are more factors involved than just your opinion.

 

Btw, so that's 1260 msp for a few cars and some new tracks... seems like Codies are giving EA and Activision a run for their money, wtg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in your opinion charging more for less is common sense? Okay...

 

Wow apparently what I said went over your head...sad.

 

The reason the grid dlc failed was down to many factors... firstly, they waited 6 months before releasing any dlc; secondly, it was just a (...nother overpriced) car pack; and finally, plenty of people, myself included, stopped playing when online rankings were helpfully reset by Codemasters.
At least you can see that releasing DLC late is bad, which was my point...everything else you threw out there was just an attempt at personal justification.

 

 

 

Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
Actually read the thread, it's being talked about.

 

 

 

 

You're so right Nate, the consumer dictates the pricing of consumer products... I feel blessed with good fortune every time I visit the pump, the supermarket and Xbox Live Marketplace. Dirt 3 is a very fine game, some consumers will see the dlc and feel, in spite of the price, it might add something, and buy it. This doesn't mean they're getting value for money or that they feel the pricing is right... it just means they want some new content for their game. Maybe if you were less one-eyed you might see there are more factors involved than just your opinion.

 

Btw, so that's 1260 msp for a few cars and some new tracks... seems like Codies are giving EA and Activision a run for their money, wtg.

Again you are not understanding the principles, which is why I'm not taking you too seriously from an educational standpoint. I never said the consumer dictates the pricing of consumer products. The consumer determins the VALUE. In other words consumers determine if something has value for the price. Believe it or not, Gas is a necessary commodity so sadly...regardless of price, the consumers have no choice but to take value for money.

 

A game like Dirt 3 is not a necessary commodity so you have a lot more freedom and power as a consumer to buy or not buy.

 

Sheesh kid go back to high school economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea it was a little more than I was hoping too, but I can't pass this up haha

 

I will concede on this price point, it is quite shitty. I didn't even have enough money to buy it today, so instead I used that money to get a couple games from the GOG.com Interplay Summer sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow apparently what I said went over your head...sad.

 

Oh dear, but we are overestimating ourselves, aren't we?

"...you'll noticed a bunch of cars under the same license which is why the cost of the DLC isn't that high. In Dirt you want to use cars that are appropriate for the game, no point in throwing in sports cars (which are a dime a dozen) as they would be very out of place."

Of the 6 cars in the two Dirt3 packs... 2 are already in the game.

Of the 14 cars in the Shift legends pack... 1 (and that's 2 variations of the same car in the dlc)

I know, I know... I don't understand business plans and economics... please feel free to explain how more licensed tracks, cars and championships are why the cost of the EA dlc 'isn't that high'.

 

At least you can see that releasing DLC late is bad, which was my point...everything else you threw out there was just an attempt at personal justification.

 

3 months is verging on late, 6 months is stupid... and 8 cars for 800msp was a rip off then, and it still is now. I've never seen facts described as personal justification, but then again you do seem to be a one-eyed fanboy for whom logical fallacy seems like common sense.

 

 

Again you are not understanding the principles, which is why I'm not taking you too seriously from an educational standpoint. I never said the consumer dictates the pricing of consumer products. The consumer determins the VALUE. In other words consumers determine if something has value for the price. Believe it or not, Gas is a necessary commodity so sadly...regardless of price, the consumers have no choice but to take value for money.

 

Ah, principles... you appear incapable of forming a cogent sentence let alone any kind of valid argument. 'The consumer determines the value...' is the kind of oversimplified and generalised nonsense a five year old might come up with. Clearly you couldn't even manage high school economics. For your edification; value is how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions. So it's perfectly valid to compare Shift's much better vfm Legends pack (6 tracks and 14 cars for 800msp) with Dirt3's power and glory and Monte Carlo packs (6 cars 8 rally stages and mini gym for 1280msp).

 

A game like Dirt 3 is not a necessary commodity so you have a lot more freedom and power as a consumer to buy or not buy.

No-one is suggesting it is a 'necessary commodity' (gas isn't necessary either... ask a cyclist).

 

Is the dirt3 dlc over priced?... "Yea it was a little more than I was hoping" (from a fanboy). End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, but we are overestimating ourselves, aren't we?

"...you'll noticed a bunch of cars under the same license which is why the cost of the DLC isn't that high. In Dirt you want to use cars that are appropriate for the game, no point in throwing in sports cars (which are a dime a dozen) as they would be very out of place."

Of the 6 cars in the two Dirt3 packs... 2 are already in the game.

Of the 14 cars in the Shift legends pack... 1 (and that's 2 variations of the same car in the dlc)

I know, I know... I don't understand business plans and economics... please feel free to explain how more licensed tracks, cars and championships are why the cost of the EA dlc 'isn't that high'.

In the Shift 2 DLC there are about 3 cars per manufacturer's license, also they are older cars which as things age licenses are easier (and cheaper) to acquire. But I suppose regardless of this it all comes down to value (more on that in a bit).

 

 

 

3 months is verging on late, 6 months is stupid... and 8 cars for 800msp was a rip off then, and it still is now. I've never seen facts described as personal justification, but then again you do seem to be a one-eyed fanboy for whom logical fallacy seems like common sense.

8 cars for 800msp is just over $1/car, which is just fine for me. If you find it a ripoff I have no problem with that...it's just your opinion and you're entitled to it. I, however, have no problem buying these car packs as I love the game and can easily afford them anyways. If that is what makes you think I'm a fanboy you got issues.

 

 

 

 

Ah, principles... you appear incapable of forming a cogent sentence let alone any kind of valid argument. 'The consumer determines the value...' is the kind of oversimplified and generalised nonsense a five year old might come up with. Clearly you couldn't even manage high school economics.

Oh is it? So when you go to the store to buy a product you don't look at the product and decide whether or not it's worth it to you? You're telling me that you let other people tell you if something is worth it or not? That's what value is and apparently you can't decide on that for yourself.

 

For your edification; value is how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions. So it's perfectly valid to compare Shift's much better vfm Legends pack (6 tracks and 14 cars for 800msp) with Dirt3's power and glory and Monte Carlo packs (6 cars 8 rally stages and mini gym for 1280msp).

You're comparison is find and dandy but your definition of "Value" is way off.

 

You say that value is "how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions."

 

Let me help you:

 

val·ue (vhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oomacr.gif)n.1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.

3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.

4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).

5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.

6. Mathematics An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.

7. Music The relative duration of a tone or rest.

8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color.

 

9. Linguistics The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.

10. One of a series of specified values

 

It may just be me but I didn't see a single definition in there that mentions comparing prices to other products. It's the "worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor," or as I have been saying: the consumer determines the value. I've now spelled that out for you using the textbook definition of the word so there's no excuses.

 

I look at the DLC for Dirt 3 and it has value to me, it's worth my own hard earned money. I am determining whether or not that DLC has value to ME.

 

 

No-one is suggesting it is a 'necessary commodity' (gas isn't necessary either... ask a cyclist).
Ok terrible example. You know how many people have that option? Most people drive to work because biking is out of the question due to commute lengths. Gas is absolutely a necessary commodity but that is another discussion and you only brought that up to prove...well, I have no idea what thought was flying through your head there so nevermind.

 

Is the dirt3 dlc over priced?... "Yea it was a little more than I was hoping" (from a fanboy). End.

Yea it was more than I had hoped at first. I was hoping the tracks would be the same price as the car packs. Was it? No, obviously, but I bought it anyways and had a blast playing them last night and I have determined that the track pack was well worth the money I spent on it. Expectations and determining of value are not always the same, good effort on that one though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taki, you're being a dick. Nate, you're fueling troll-like behavior. So would the two of you mind shutting the fuck up and letting this thread die peacefully? Pretty please?

 

 

 

Happy to refrain from dickish behaviour forthwith... although I did think of it more as banter...

 

Btw, Nate, it shouldn't need pointing out, but I was talking about value as it pertains to economics (economic value), not the dictionary definition of the word value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind the price so much if we weren't getting shafted on the achievements, too.

 

That is MS fault.

 

I believe their new rules are 250g per 3 month period. Problem is I don't think their rules mention MS points per quarter so the best way to make money is put out lots of dlc with only a few cheevos while the game is still fresh.

 

Whether we like it or not enough of us will buy this dlc which maximises their revenue stream compared to spreading out high gs over a longer period as we will have moved on to other games.

 

It took them a while to realise that these days most game communities (online and offline) die off considerably within a few months.

 

Sure some games survive but most only last a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is MS fault.

 

I believe their new rules are 250g per 3 month period. Problem is I don't think their rules mention MS points per quarter so the best way to make money is put out lots of dlc with only a few cheevos while the game is still fresh.

 

Whether we like it or not enough of us will buy this dlc which maximises their revenue stream compared to spreading out high gs over a longer period as we will have moved on to other games.

 

It took them a while to realise that these days most game communities (online and offline) die off considerably within a few months.

 

Sure some games survive but most only last a few months.

Only games like CoD, Halo, Gears, etc can pull that off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
  • Create New...