Shiken said:
You are missing the point. If you spend more on DLC than you would have, you are still getting more bang for you buck in overall content, and still saving based on what you are playing. Example... If I play game A on gamepass for 15 bucks, I would feel more comfortable buying micro transactions or DLC packs for that same game due to the low cost of entry. Lets say my DLC costs add up to 80 bucks. Had I bought the game outright for say 60 bucks, I do not bother with DLC. In this case, the developer gets more money out of me than if I were to buy the game at full price. And I am still saving money because now I have 140 bucks worth of content, for only 80 dollars instead. This is a case where dev gets more money and consumer spends less money. Again it is a really simple concept. And before anyone says it, no the 15 bucks is not counted toward that cost for that one game. Because that 15 will also apply to any other gamepass game I play, plus 10 bucks for XBL Gold for a single month. |
Considering DLC price per play time is a travesty compared to base game, even worse talking about MTX, your argument is very flawed. Even more when you try to then use the full price of the game and DLC for that "saving". Please explain to me how I paying a full game 10 bucks for 60-100h of gameplay then buying a DLC for additional 10h for 20 bucks get judged the way you do.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







