Are there any respectable, dependable devs/pubs?

[Shifty Geezer]

It's even worse when they change the single player experience IMO. It's not even balancing for multiplayer to make the game more fun, but just changing the rules. Still, I've a whole other thread on that subject.

 

[Axe]

OP what you describe is EA to the bone! They kick a game out of the door and FU all, we know you are going to buy it no matter what!
Yes today most games need updates / fixes weekly. Is VERY normal, back in time there was a game that was fitting in a floppy disk 1MB and there was bugs!! Imagine today with 15 GB average game size.
There are good developers / Publishers. Most obvious is Blizzard.
They publish there games with the minimum bugs, and they work right away to fix everything.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There's no real requirement there. Borderlands for example released expansions as downloads that required the existing (disc or downloaded) game. There are lots of examples.

The DLC for Borderlands is hardly comparable to the content added for ROS. I suppose all DLC would come somewhat close. Although that's pretty doubtful, as most of the DLC for Borderlands 2, for example, were pretty shoddy and short with a couple of notable exceptions (the Tiny Tina DLC was great, although still short).

For reference. The PC version of D3 was 8.3 GB installed. Reaper of Souls was an additional ~6.5 GB installed. That's far larger than all the DLC combined for any of the Borderlands games. That's something neither of the console holders would approve of being sold as DLC. Perhaps they could have gotten around that by releasing pieces of RoS in DLC "chunks" with each RoS area sold as a separate DLC. That could make it 5 DLC (4 Areas + Adventure mode) which could each be sold for ~8 USD each (42 USD total). Something like DLC 1 = the 3 Westmarch zones. DLC 2 = the Corvus and Path so fthe Damned zones. DLC 3 = Battlefields. DLC 4 = Pandemonium. DLC 5 = Adventure mode. Maybe make Adventure mode 6 USD so it'd be 40 USD total like the expansion. Either way it sounds like a royal PITA.

I think you're confusing RoS with the PS4 version. I'm talking about the PS3. I bought D3 for PS3 at full price. I was then asked to pay full price for RoS on PS3 that uses all the same assets as the first game. It's just another chapter, 20% more stuff, but you had to buy it to get ongoing support as Blizzard dropped the original version of the game.

In summary - buy a game at full price; have support for it dropped; have to to buy the same game again at full price to get the version that'll gain ongoing support. That's akin to buying Uncharted, then having to buy it again to get the version that has online patched so you can play other people. Or buying GTA IV, then having to buy the whole thing again at full price to get access to the DLC. Or buying Star Wars Battlefronts, and then having to buy the whole game again at full price to gain access to a new single player campaign and not be locked out of future online play.

The problem is that for RoS you need the base game to play it. For physical disk owners, are they going to have you insert the disk for D3 to verify you own that and then ask you to insert the disk for RoS to verify that you own that every time you play RoS? Without something like that, it's easy enough for a user to buy RoS (which by necessity has to include the base game) and then sell their copy of Diablo 3. How else to verify that the user actually owns Diablo 3 when you run RoS as RoS physical disk must be standalone for consoles.

That problem doesn't exist for digital editions as ownership is verified online and tied to your account. Considering how physical distribution with no online ownership verification is still dominant on consoles, they went with the console model of having expansions require the base game and thus be priced accordingly. That's a console problem. It's a problem that's been solved for ages on PC, and if Microsoft hadn't had to go back on things, would have been solved on XBO as well. Unfortunately not something that would have been solved for the previous generation or PS4.

You'll note that games that require online ownership verification follow the PC model pricing for expansions. FFXIV: Heavensward on PC/PS3/PS4, for example, was 40 USD as ownership must be verified online. If the console versions of Diablo 3 had required an online connection similar to the PC version with disk tied to user account then I'd be willing to bet it also would have had a 40 USD price for the expansion if the original was owned.

That is just the unfortunate reality for console owners right now as online ownership verification isn't required for the majority of games sold (physical copies). You get the benefit of being able to resell your game, but you lose out on the benefit of cheap expansions when the expansions require the base game to play.

Regards,
SB

 

[AlNom]

They could have just offered an upgrade as a digital-only option, basically functioning as a large DLC expansion. e.g. If you had either a physical or digital vanilla-D3 -> buy digital upgrade. Physical RoS SKU would have to be the whole thing.

Btw, RoS released @ $40 price point on PS360.

Not sure if the price came down for PC, but their digital upgrade is showing $20USD.

That's something neither of the console holders would approve of being sold as DLC.

Eh............

 

[dobwal]

The problem with the wait-and-see approach and buying cheaper is that the pubs need that higher prices of launch. If everyone waited until the game was fixed and cheaper, games literally couldn't be made as they are. Hence we ought to be looking at software being launched in excellent condition to justify investing early at full price.

Then pubs realizing that everyone is waiting for patches and enjoying cheaper prices because of it, would be forced to release higher quality products to encourage purchasing at full prices. Ultimately pubs are in services to the overall gaming userbase. They only do with what we allow them but not as individuals but as a whole.

Complaining about the state of launch games and yet consistently buying titles at release does nothing to discourage the situation. Can't really expect pubs to change their actions if you aren't actively changing your own.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's something neither of the console holders would approve of being sold as DLC. Perhaps they could have gotten around that by releasing pieces of RoS in DLC "chunks" with each RoS area sold as a separate DLC...

The problem is that for RoS you need the base game to play it. For physical disk owners, are they going to have you insert the disk for D3 to verify you own that and then ask you to insert the disk for RoS to verify that you own that every time you play RoS?

I'm confused. The 'chunks' you describe are all included in the original D3. The only difference between the PS3 version of D3 and PS3 version of RoS is the 5th Act and extra class and game tweaks. Everything else is identical. The two discs duplicate, I assume, vast quantities of data.

You have a point regards disc games, as the RoS disc would have to duplicate the original, but why not provide an upgrade price for DD versions? It's confirmed on your account that you own it.

As to file sizes, going by XB360 which doesn't bloat with video files and the like, RoS is a 7.28 GB download, ~ same size as original. Ergo it's not a huge lot extra, but an additional percentage like every other expansion. Epic file sizes on PC are possibly bloat and trash, which some D3 forum discussion suggests.

 

[Persistantthug]

Naughty Dog

 

[Pixel]

I'd say for the most part all the publishers are usually dependable and respectable.

Also consider consumers that have become increasingly fickle and unforgiving.

Take Daggerfall for example. Game was a cockroach fest and no bethesda game has been as buggy since. But back then people accepted the game as primitive and simple and buggy as it was, and played around those issues.
Games now days are much better in every sense from story to gameplay to graphics to audio etc etc, and we pay 20% more then back in 1996 for a game 2000% more expensive to produce.

 

[Persistantthug]

I'd say for the most part all the publishers are usually dependable and respectable.

Also consider consumers that have become increasingly fickle and unforgiving.

Take Daggerfall for example. Game was a cockroach fest and no bethesda game has been as buggy since. But back then people accepted the game as primitive and simple and buggy as it was, and played around those issues.
Games now days are much better in every sense from story to gameplay to graphics to audio etc etc, and we pay 20% more then back in 1996 for a game 2000% more expensive to produce.

I think that may be a bit disingenuous.....Almost as though you're saying gamers who want their game to work after buying it are acting entitled.

I don't care what product I buy....if it's a dang toaster, I expect it to work as it should and as advertised. That's not expecting too much.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Take Daggerfall for example. Game was a cockroach fest and no bethesda game has been as buggy since. But back then people accepted the game as primitive and simple and buggy as it was, and played around those issues.
Games now days are much better in every sense from story to gameplay to graphics to audio etc etc, and we pay 20% more then back in 1996 for a game 2000% more expensive to produce.

That's an exceptional example. Back in the days of Daggerfall, there were countless PC and console games that just worked*. The explanation is "they were simpler" but you can't claim games have gotten better. Even post patching we have broken games. If games have gotten better, the gaming industry wouldn't exist now because people would have bought broken games with no way to patch and fix them and just given up!

* And example of some that didn't, like Jet Set Willie needing a Poke to fix a bug.