• Serenus@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would you feel differently if no updates were released for the original game, and all development post release was bundled into a paid expansion? What if, after that, the game was only made available with expansion?

    IMO, that’s all this is, with the nice bonus that people who bought in early get the expansion for free.

    • Sentinian
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am a bit confused by what you mean. Are you saying something like Base game launches at 20 DLC brings it to current state with a 15 purchase

      Later down the line they merge and the game becomes 35?

      If that’s the case then yes, it’s pretty much the same concept and in fact I would actually see that as a bigger red flag.

      • Serenus@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Other way around - base launches at $20, dlc comes out at $5, game and dlc get bundled down the line in a $25 pack, discontinuing the separate purchases.

        • Sentinian
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, thinking about it this is actually fair and probably the only argument I’ve seen that clicks to me as I know of games that have done this and have been fine with it. I think the reasoning is why I dislike the move, less-so the price itself. Calling it inflation when you have so many other terms to describe it is strange and kinda off putting to me. But I guess I’ve been conditioned to this idea of a game going down not up in price from my time gaming. The ones that do go up include the dlc and such, which I suppose is no different in this case