That and everything in one package for a single price sounds a lot better consumer wise than say $60+45/60, games that are complete and launch DLC much later (actually created after the game's release) that ask for at least $20 seems fine but that doesn't happen very often with the rise of pre-ordering and season passes mostly going for higher prices.

Even though we get games like Evolve that will have people claiming "they are only side rgades, they don't matter at all to the game/story", it's still gouging to ask for another $60-135 and keep it outside of the core game, having it all in one complete package for $60 means more sales (especially if the game isn't straight up bad, we aren't to blame for that) and makes better sense than hgiher prices with few sales, it's why I don't get artists who take commissions but charge you $200 right off the bat or start bids starting points as high as $150, you're going to get less people interested in your art let alone your business and you'll only sell to a few rather than selling to more, getting more productive and making more money in general.

Trouble is we had Ubisoft take the bigger move by having a "micro" trans of their own by charging up to $100 in game, that's probably the boldest thing I've ever seen a company do, I know Evolve is a bigger culprit for the game being a husk in general but ubisoft are one of the big players that can and will set trends, Activision and EA have intro'd trends that others have followed like Season passes and "start kits" (I'm on the fence about how Skylanders work though), I'm afraid of what we'll see in the enxt 5 years though, I could probably see non micro trans being the norm somehow if we don't stand up to this.

The Witcher 3 won't review as high either mark my words. They want to speak out against milking people for DLC... oh they are gonna pay.  Their only hope is to play the Microsoft advertising deal card. That might help them out a bit.

They do care about your feelings. Except those feelings are conveyed through the wallet and when people buy the game/DLC in droves, it shows you're loving it.

Perhaps that's just a different way of putting it though.

No, it doesn't. I use those weapons and I didn't pay anything for them. Anyone can.

This sucks in so many levels.

It'l review decently towards PC centric places I;d imagine since the franchise started there, it's not like Sony has had something exclusive to them and PC with MS msising out in the past just like how the 2nd Witcher was only on PC/360 and it still reviewed well, Witcher doesn't exactly have DLC practices on the elvels of EA, Ubisoft, Activision and the guys behind Evolve, nowhere near world shattering.

I can't see Bloodborne being the only AAA game to score decent reviews this year though, which is why I originally mentioned a game non exclusive to Sony to who I replied to because I felt there's more than just one AAA exclusive this eyar that's to score well.

That's ridiculous. Not much more to say.

i've got nothing against dlc as long as the original game is worth the asking price. is there enough content in the original game to be worth $60? that's a question i don't see anyone asking/answering..

well no evolve for me ;) thanks THQ you just save me sixty dollars.