2012-06-02, 04:23 PM
Like I said, it's always about building the bottom-line, and part of that is coming up with creative ways to better it.
You can pretend that trying to make a profit and greed are different things, but, fact is, they aren't. They're the same concept.
Again, nothing has changed.
Whether or not some of these tactics companies are using to increase their bottom line are respectable tends to be a subjective matter.
Using the list you gave for examples:
I definitely find on-disc content requiring a DLC unlock to be disgusting. I have no intentions of, in any way, supporting a game that employs these tactics.
Release day DLC is an entirely different matter, however. Unless it is truly a case of content being intentionally held back, it's okay by me. Because it could easily mean that the content was developed after the game was sent to print.
And, actually, Robert Kotick is pretty much the worst example you could have chosen. Is he guilty of helping turn certain series into annual releases?
Sure. But what's the problem with that? Madden has been doing that since 1990.
There's nothing shady about that.
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single Activision game that has on-disc DLC or exhibits holding-back of content. Unless I missed one, neither can this list.
If you wanted to give an example of an entity that is guilty of shoving forward all three of the issues you presented, you should have gone with EA or Capcom.
You probably just went with Kotick because he's popular to hate and he's the only one you've bothered to hear about.
Anyway, yes, the game industry (just like any other) continues to come up with "innovative" ways to take more of our money.
Yes, some of these methods are scummy.
But, at the end of the day, the only reason these executives get away with these things is because the consumers allow them to do so.
All the complaining in the world will make no difference as long as you and/or others continue to vote with your wallets.
You can pretend that trying to make a profit and greed are different things, but, fact is, they aren't. They're the same concept.
Again, nothing has changed.
Whether or not some of these tactics companies are using to increase their bottom line are respectable tends to be a subjective matter.
Using the list you gave for examples:
I definitely find on-disc content requiring a DLC unlock to be disgusting. I have no intentions of, in any way, supporting a game that employs these tactics.
Release day DLC is an entirely different matter, however. Unless it is truly a case of content being intentionally held back, it's okay by me. Because it could easily mean that the content was developed after the game was sent to print.
And, actually, Robert Kotick is pretty much the worst example you could have chosen. Is he guilty of helping turn certain series into annual releases?
Sure. But what's the problem with that? Madden has been doing that since 1990.
There's nothing shady about that.
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single Activision game that has on-disc DLC or exhibits holding-back of content. Unless I missed one, neither can this list.
If you wanted to give an example of an entity that is guilty of shoving forward all three of the issues you presented, you should have gone with EA or Capcom.
You probably just went with Kotick because he's popular to hate and he's the only one you've bothered to hear about.
Anyway, yes, the game industry (just like any other) continues to come up with "innovative" ways to take more of our money.
Yes, some of these methods are scummy.
But, at the end of the day, the only reason these executives get away with these things is because the consumers allow them to do so.
All the complaining in the world will make no difference as long as you and/or others continue to vote with your wallets.