The GTA4 episodes were actually worth it, this just sounds like Zombie fad BS.

As i've said time and time again, i am NOT against paying money for extra content, however i am against being ripped off. That is why I made the comparison to their previous attempts at DLC packs and why in the past I have used them as the shining beacon of hope in every discussion about this topic.

10 bucks may not be a "lot of money" but you have to look at what you're getting for that 10 bucks, each pack has a ton of "features" that are no more than adding stuff in thats already there, like being able to play as main characters in multiplayer, hardly a lot of work in that or a lot of extra playability. Also, the 4 (4 !!!!) packs together do not add up to even 1/100th of the content in the original game, yet cost 3/4 as much.

If you can justify funding this shit, then go ahead, but we've been on the downward slope for a while and it's a long way to the bottom, where activision will have a monthly fee to play COD online, will charge $10 per individual map that is usually just the same map they released for the previous COD and you will still justify it.
This is just rockstars attempt at having a bit of the pie, I had a bit of respect for them previously, no more.

If the single part is lenghty I will buy it for sure,I want more challenges and more events.

I'm not saying that I AM funding this "shit". I do know that there is probably more work to adding these things than you or I are aware. Every minute they spend on DLC is a minute they don't spend on something new or potentially profitable. RDR was a ton of game for 60 bucks. I won't buy the dlc, but I don't have to either. If it's not worth it to you then that's cool. It doesn't diminish your initial purchase. You are not being ripped off if you don't buy it. That would be subjective anyway as someone else might think it is worth the added content.

Perhaps we won't see a value like the GTA4 extensions because they weren't cost effective. What downward slope are we on anyway? A few years ago there was ZERO downloadable content for Console games, and they were hardly more content-rich.

You could argue PC style stuff, but the majority of THAT is made by enthusiast who make it as a hobby and have other jobs to pay the bills. Unless the games we get for the initial 60 are lackluster and lacking in features, this is a moot issue...

The downward slope we are on is charging $10 for 5 new maps, then charging $15 for 2 new maps and 3 old ones, and then talking about paying monthly. It's charging $5 for horse armour, it's thinking about releasing a game with 1 track and 1 car at full retail price and charging per car, it's ace combats 6 pages of "DLC" each of which consists of nothing more than skins for already existing planes with boosted stats that dick anyone else competing in multiplayer.
It is segregating the customer base into those that have and have not, by killing the multiplayer for those that have not bought multiplayer packs to those that have.

I didn't say you were funding it, i'm saying if you can justify funding it, where do you draw the line?

I agree RDR was a ton of game, but by them releasing multiplayer content packs it essentially kills the multiplayer component for those that dont buy it so you end up with far less. Surely the point of supporting the game after launch is to keep people interrested, prevent them from trading it in and devaluing the cost of owning the game?

The GTA4 expansions were cost effective, the only reason they are going to give us less for our money now is greed, pure uncontrolled greed that the majority of consumers seem more than willing to oblige.

I don't buy those DLC packs myself because it isn't worth it to me. As long as you can still play without the add-ons then you've lost nothing. The only time I've experienced this was with the first Gears of War, where you couldn't even PLAY the online portion without the DLC maps. THAT would be a rip-off. What you describe will happen with any evolving online experience. As long as it doesn't keep you from playing the content you bought originally, they can charge what they want- it's their work/ creation. Hell, if you're gonna pay for new shit, you might as well get some cool perks or something. Does it make you greedy for wanting their work for less then they feel they deserve? Like I said, it's subjective. "Pure, uncontrolled greed" lol. I doubt you would just give away your own work...

If people are willing to buy it, that means that is what it's worth. If it tanks, then the company will adjust because the value isn't there. Suppy and demand and all that. Value is ever-shifting. I wouldn't worry about the trend in the long run- it will figure itself out. Remember that all of this stuff is relatively new, and developers are trying to figure out where sweet-spot is.

Developers have already proven they don't care where the sweet spot is, and the consumer has proven they're more than willing to shell out over and over and over again for the same content or next to no new content. Thats why COD will be p2p before long, the consumer isn't wise enough (most are kids who will harp onto their parents) to say no, they will simply provide an easy continuous source of income for no additional work.

Also, multiplayer DLC DOES kill off the multiplayer, it fragments the player base, segregating those that don't buy the DLC. Gears was the extreme end where it stopped working entirely, but there are games where you become limited to who you are playing against until they dwindle to noone.

I don't think DLC will tank for a VERY long time, they aren't doing this at all quickly, they are slowly siphoning off content and cash so it is almost unnoticable. If they charged a FAIR price for their work then fine, 1200 points for ALL 4 packs together would be the right spot, maybe even then it's still a bit expensive for all the content you are getting. I just feel that all of the DLC lately has been hugely over priced, look at L4D2, the DLC on the 360 was 560 points or £4.80, i got the ENTIRE GAME AND THE DLC for £6.80 on the pc, the DLC alone was FREE on the pc. It is content that takes maybe 30 mins to complete, 1 short campaign and a weapon and on the console costs 1/4 of the price of the entire game new.

So they got my memo about zombie mode LOL

It wasent long time ago that I mentioned how a cool zombie horde mode would fit the western setting, especially for RDR, guess they are doing it.

Yep they stole your idea

Im still not sure about it yet,I have to know how is the lenght and the size of that single player stuff.

I certainly agree with you on basic principle. Eventually consumers will not buy the stuff and then they(the devs) will adapt. It's not such a big deal for me, as I don't have an interest in supporting that kind of thing. I don't think a monthly fee will work for COD unless there is a ton of stuff being offered- of course you can never underestimate the average person, lol.

To support my point though- If people choose to buy it, then they feel it has the value. I don't think it's worth it, so I don't buy/support it. You don't think it's worth it either( obviously) yet you are all worked up because you do want to play it, I guess? COD can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned if they go with a subscription style. I won't be playing it, so what difference does it make. I highly doubt it will last long as casuals usually won't go for a subscription, and "hardcores" won't put up with what they consider over-pricing. By the way, over-pricing is charging more than people are willing to pay, so if they pay it, it's not really over-priced. Really, why is gold so expensive- it's completely useless, it's value is based on rarity and peoples willingness to pay for it.

As far as paying 6.80 on the PC- not every copy sold for that little, and the devs would go out of business if it did...

"Shining" :P

100% agree.. This is what we end up with now that the gamesindustry has become so big it's ran by people in suits that don't really care about games or gamers, but only about how much money it can make them..

It's all going downhill.. On PC also, as games that come with with dedicated servers that you can host yourself, modtools and mapeditors so the community can make their own extra content (i.e. Counterstrike was born that way) are almost all gone.. The whole market is being consolized with closed systems and premium DLC.. It's all very sad really, but what can you do if so many people keep buying into it? Nothing really..

I think we're in for far harder times before people say enough is enough, especially with kids being at the forefront of the market when it comes to DLC. The parents don't see what theyre funding and the kids are too naieve to care, they just ask daddy for another £10 each week or so. Those of us who see whats coming will have to grin and bare it, games will have less and less content and cost more and more for entry, especially from corporate morons like kotick and activision who want all you cash to come to them to kill off any chance of you being able to afford a competitors game.

As for the gold thing, it is a very valuable commodity as it has many uses, it would be perfect for rust proofing and a great conductor if it were abundant. Games aren't quite so useful, but I do see what youre trying to get at by the comment. COD charging a subscription will work, it works for the likes of APB which has far far less content and isn't even a fraction as close to being an MMO as COD is (thats to say neither are remotely MMO like), it will turn a lot of ppl off, sure, but a lot of others will still pony up and they will still make more money. It's essentially gotten that way anyway, i mean map packs every couple of months that are nothing but reskins of maps you got for free when you bought the last COD game and a couple of new maps is the equivalent. They aren't having to work very hard (maps aren't THAT hard to knock out, it's a skill sure, but a dedicated guy could make one a week if he was being paid for it, a day if all he's doing is retexturing an old one) and yet they are charging $15 for them, which is $5 more than they used to charge.

Valve proved with their sales that charging a lower price can still make them a fuckton of money, it keeps people playing the game, and they make as much money from it on sale as they do when it's full price. There is THAT much of a difference in numbers buying it.

I just feel I finally have to draw a line in the sand when it comes to DLC, I never ponied up for mappacks and I won't be ponying up for these offerings from rockstar. Infact, it disgusts me so much, as I said, im gonna trade it in, just as I did with COD when they started releasing DLC.

EDIT: Meant to say, the defintion you gave of overpricing doesnt really work for DLC as the price is set in stone, there is no free market economics, there is no sale, there is no devaluation in time. You either pay full price or you do without.

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/red-dead-redemptio...

This is so awesome, shows off how truly beautiful this game world is. Jesus its astonishing how good of a job RS did.

Just finished the game! Finally, bad timing for 360 breaking in end May, and not let me finish RDR.

But i just beat it now, and wow wasn't expecting for sure what happened at the end. Loved the game!

Got 98.2% done, wonder what i'm missing to get 100% :/

Probably a few bountys and a costume.

You can check in RDR site or in the stats what you are missing.

:)

Yeah had some stuff not done. But just got 100% now. Good game, i wish they released episodes like for GTA4, instead DLC packs :(