How do you define the "whole game"?

[fade]

I don't think the correct question is 'what is a whole game.'

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Yeah, about that:

Need for Speed: Payback can’t avoid its own bankruptcy

--Patrick

Well, the Need for Speed games have also sucked pretty hard in the last few years, the last few titles all being uninspired and lame. Trying to jump on the gambling for minors bandwagon can't help.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

Can't you enjoy Mona Lisa's smile if her shoulders and torso are cut out? How is that not the "whole" then?

 

[Ravenpoe]

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

Oh, if you're just focusing on that single complaint instead of the whole issue (which I thought originally you were only using that as an analogy for the whole issue) then my answer would be that like most things in our social network driven modern lives, the majority of people just parrot what they hear without actually checking to see if it fits the argument they're making. The whole game dlc thing became a meme that people could copy-paste and doesn't actually fit every scenario.

 

[fade]

Can't you enjoy Mona Lisa's smile if her shoulders and torso are cut out? How is that not the "whole" then?

But my question, again, is, who gets to decide that those were supposed to be pieces of the Mona Lisa? It's my question every time I see that analogy.

 

[GasBandit]

But my question, again, is, who gets to decide that those were supposed to be pieces of the Mona Lisa? It's my question every time I see that analogy.

Obviously it's subjective, but the complaints of things being "cut out" of the whole stem from an established, noticeable pattern spanning decades. The type of content that would normally be included prior to the rise of the DLC business model being removed and offered as day-1 DLC. The exact nature of that content varies from game to game and genre to genre. But you're asking for objective quantification of a subjective (but broadly acknowledged) general trend, and that's not something you're going to get.

 

[PatrThom]

(broken out because SO MUCH happened in between)

it was not meant to say that $80 is an unfair price (in fact, it was a commentary on "whales" and the idea of bilking a few individuals for as much money as possible because they're vulnerable to such tactics, even if they may not realize they're being exploited.

The reason that gaming companies target the whales is because, well, that's where the money is. As the current real-life economy works to eliminate the middle class and push everyone into either "poor" or "rich," gaming companies are obviously not going to target poor people to make back their money, so they are going to design their money-making mechanics to appeal to rich people. However, it would seem insensitive to say, "Pay $200 to unlock every skin for every character," so instead they gate this content behind something like loot boxes, "...which can totally be unlocked with credits earnable in-game," except that earning it with in-game playtime might average out to literally more time than it's worth, depending on your wage.
...And that's the real thing, here. Everyone could spend the same amount of time working to unlock this "paid" content solely using in-game currency (which basically translates to $time) BUT because everybody's time outside the game varies in value, a person who gets paid 10x more for their IRL time is assumed to also be 10x more likely to cough up a microtransaction or two (or more), and so they are the ones who get courted once the IRL marketplace opens up.

I can't legitimately blame them for this, because a game is ostensibly made with the goal of making money, and so must cover itself with whatever honey the most currency will stick to, but unless the gameplay is literally "Cover yourself with honey and roll around in paper money simulator 2017," then I can and WILL blame them for money generation techniques that disrupt gameplay. If I see someone walking around with only 30 hours of playtime wearing a full set of items that would normally take 10-15hrs playtime each to acquire, I'm not going to think, "Wow they must be an awesome player," I'm going to think, "Guess who just got a new credit card!"

--Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

Well, ok. For one thing, focussing on a "handy shorthand" for a lot of different problems the gaming industry has at the moment and excluding anything else is pretty restrictive. If you really want just the answer to the question "who decides what is a full game?", your answer is simply "the designer". This doesn't mean anything, though. Tolkien could literally have written the LOTR and stopped and put "The End" when Frodo and Sam are on the slopes of Mount Doom and said "yeah, that's the end, it'spretty open, but it's an artistic choice". It would be a "full" story, but it wouldn't be complete.

One thing that can point to deliberate cutting of content and that irks me greatly is in-story, in-game pointers, possibly even mocking the player. "Oh no! We need to take Castle Cashcow! We'll lose thousands of soldiers! We might not be able to win! If only we had Elven Archers to help us whittle down the defenders! [click here to unlock Elven Archers for $5.99]."
Another way it's being "played" nowadays - but this doesn't completely line up with your question as asked - is deliberate gimping of the game. Setting aside whether or not it was as bad as some media let on, War for Mordor as presented (and I think some people here said it wasn't actually that bad but let me exaggerate for the argument) was pretty much 80% a game, then 30 hours of rinse-and-repeat the same generic procedurally generated missions until you had ground enough, then finally the end game. Or you could just buy your way past most of the grind. Making a certain part of the game deliberately tedious/annoying/un-fun but "possible" is a good way of being able to say you *can* finish it without paying, but pushing players towards paying extra.

 

[GasBandit]

I can't legitimately blame them for this, because a game is ostensibly made with the goal of making money,

That's the trick, isn't it?

There are devs who want to make games, and to do so, they have to make money.

And then there are devs who want to make money, and to do so, they have to make games.

 

[PatrThom]

That's the trick, isn't it?
There are devs who want to make games, and to do so, they have to make money.
And then there are devs who want to make money, and to do so, they have to make games.

That's one of my biggest complaints about artistry in general.
To be a successful artist, you ride the high generated by how much everyone likes your stuff and let it propel you to your next project...but that doesn't always pay the bills. So you trade "vision" for money, and the compromises begin.

--Patrick

 

[Mathias]

Obviously it's subjective, but the complaints of things being "cut out" of the whole stem from an established, noticeable pattern spanning decades. The type of content that would normally be included prior to the rise of the DLC business model being removed and offered as day-1 DLC. The exact nature of that content varies from game to game and genre to genre. But you're asking for objective quantification of a subjective (but broadly acknowledged) general trend, and that's not something you're going to get.

I mean if you want a specific example. Battlefield 3. EA was literally taking pre orders for a map pack of popular maps as DLC literally a month before the game launch. The maps already exist. They're ready to go. They should be packaged with ver. 1.0 of the product. Expansions used to be created AFTER a game's success. Like Gas is saying, games are developed and then systematically picked apart to sell components as DLC.

 

[fade]

That's not a satisfactory answer for me, though. The same is true again for the car. The parts for the S are there ready to go, too. They're deliberately not installed on the Sport unless you pay more.

 

[Mathias]

I'm pretty sure those maps were known community favorites from the previous games.

 

[strawman]

I mean if you want a specific example. Battlefield 3. EA was literally taking pre orders for a map pack of popular maps as DLC literally a month before the game launch. The maps already exist. They're ready to go. They should be packaged with ver. 1.0 of the product. Expansions used to be created AFTER a game's success. Like Gas is saying, games are developed and then systematically picked apart to sell components as DLC.

This is partly a production issue, though. It's cheaper to make extended content during the full production process than it is to make it later. Similar to making Lord of The Rings movies.

Since they filmed them all at once, why are we paying for three separate movies? Sure, there is post production that was done later, but there's a big advantage to doing all the pieces at once.

The basic story is incomplete without purchasing all the expansions.

What counts as the "whole movie"?

Why did they have several releases staged over several years on DVD and blu-ray, and why have collector's editions with statues?

Obviously anyone who wanted "the whole experience" was nickel and dimed to the tune of hundreds of dollars, and they made back their production costs and more just in the theaters.

The whole trilogy cost $230 million, and the first movie alone made nearly $1 billion. Altogether they had a revenue 10 times their cost. They could have given the expansions away for free and still made a bundle of money.

Instead they force fans to pay three times for the whole story, they force them to pay again if they want the special statues with the movies.

Then they figured out people will actually buy it all, so they produce one more movie, split it into three, and do it all over again with the Hobbit.

This, of course, damages the entire industry and the practice needs to stop.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I'm pretty sure those maps were known community favorites from the previous games.

There's also the Modern Warfare remaster, which took the maps that everyone remembered and wanted to play from years past and sold them as seperate DLC. Though, the remaster itself was bundled with another, more expensive game that you had to buy at the time whether you wanted to play it or not, if you wanted to play the remaster.

 

[Mathias]

This is partly a production issue, though. It's cheaper to make extended content during the full production process than it is to make it later. Similar to making Lord of The Rings movies.

Since they filmed them all at once, why are we paying for three separate movies? Sure, there is post production that was done later, but there's a big advantage to doing all the pieces at once.

The basic story is incomplete without purchasing all the expansions.

What counts as the "whole movie"?

Why did they have several releases staged over several years on DVD and blu-ray, and why have collector's editions with statues?

Obviously anyone who wanted "the whole experience" was nickel and dimed to the tune of hundreds of dollars, and they made back their production costs and more just in the theaters.

The whole trilogy cost $230 million, and the first movie alone made nearly $1 billion. Altogether they had a revenue 10 times their cost. They could have given the expansions away for free and still made a bundle of money.

Instead they force fans to pay three times for the whole story, they force them to pay again if they want the special statues with the movies.

Then they figured out people will actually buy it all, so they produce one more movie, split it into three, and do it all over again with the Hobbit.

This, of course, damages the entire industry and the practice needs to stop.

I don't get the need for sarcasm, but.... a movie is only so long. No one would release a 10 hour long movie. That's why.

This isn't even remotely the same issue as the maps are ready to go and should be bundled with the game on release because they're part of the overall ver 1.0 product; not a month later as a cash grab. A proper example of "appropriate" DLC would be additional weapons, classes, and extended maps and missions like a year later.

 

[strawman]

..."appropriate" DLC would be

1. additional weapons, classes, and extended maps and missions
2. like a year later.

Ok, so the whole thread is about these two points. What's the difference between appropriate DLC and a "whole game"?

I have a problem with #1 because I don't know what you mean by "additional". To me additional means "beyond the original game" which results in a circular definition. So the thread title is a question trying to understand what "additional" means.

Is the game unplayable without the DLC? Then it's not additional - it's essential. If the game is playable, but people are unhappy because their expectations weren't met, then it becomes a lot murkier, and that's what were trying to solidify.

What is the objective, measurable, widely agreed upon difference between additional and essential?

But #2 is interesting, could they move the release date of the DLC to November of next year and resolve the problem for you?

 

[figmentPez]

so they are going to design their money-making mechanics to appeal to rich people.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the problem is assuming that every whale that's hooked is someone who is rich enough to afford to what they've spent.

 

[figmentPez]

I'm not questioning why people don't like the new gaming models. I'm directly questioning a commonly repeated complaint I see. People keep making the argument that the new DLC delivers a game with parts missing from some nebulously defined whole. My question, then, is what is the "whole"? Can you play the game? Is it as promised by the devs at delivery?

If you want to complain the experience is different than you enjoy, well that's a different complaint. In that case, the "missing parts of an expected whole" is not a valid analogy, and the visual metaphors like the Mona Lisa missing parts of the painting aren't a proper representation of this complaint. In that case, people are complaining that the game experience sucks. Like the Need For Speed case.

What about when whats missing isn't so much cut out as it is locked behind pointless padding. The conceit of The Princess Bride is that it's the abridged version of some foreign language classic that has had tons of boring filler cut out. Imagine if, to read The Princess Bride, you had to read all the (nonexistent) chapters that were "cut" (not skim, actually spend time reading), unless you paid for the "abridged version DLC"? That's essentially what a lot of the microtransactions in gaming are doing these days. The have the good parts of the game, and then pad out the game with repetition... (Damn, I just realized you probably could make a lot of money by making a Wheel of Time abridged DLC that cuts out all the boring repetition in books 6 - 10...)

That's not a satisfactory answer for me, though. The same is true again for the car. The parts for the S are there ready to go, too. They're deliberately not installed on the Sport unless you pay more.

Okay, at what point would you consider a car not a full car? Obviously there is some point where you cut out a feature and it ceases to be a car. A/C is mostly standard these days, but it's still an optional extra, but what about a heater? If car companies suddenly made a heater an optional add-on, would you find that a reasonable thing to get upset about? What if they included tires, but ones that will only last you a year at best? What if seatbelts are extra, but you have to have them if you want to actually drive on public roads? A car is still a car without seatbelts, right? You technically don't need them if you just want to drive around on your own property.

So, yeah, some extras are suitable for the Deluxe version of a game, as some extras are suitable for the Sport version of a car. However, there are some pretty basic expectations that you'd go "hey, that's just being greedy" if you found out they weren't included in the base price.

 

[GasBandit]

But #2 is interesting, could they move the release date of the DLC to November of next year and resolve the problem for you?

It's not the release date, it's the development timeline. I tend to agree with Matthias here that any content developed in parallel with the main game that is ready for release at the same time (or before) the main game should be included in the base price of the main game. If you later want to go back and revisit the series with additional content, you create that additional content later so that, by nature of temporal causality, it cannot be considered to have been "removed" from the game.

 

[PatrThom]

the problem is assuming that every whale that's hooked is someone who is rich enough to afford to what they've spent.

The problem is that they don't care if the whale can afford to pay for it or not, just that they continue to pay.

--Patrick

 

[Far]

What? Is this a point we're trying to argue?

I don't think it's their responsibility to ensure anything about how people spend their own money. No one is forcing any ones hand here. These are video games.

Maybe I'm not understanding the statement but I don't see how they should be held accountable for any bodies lack of restraint toward luxury purchases. If you can't afford them don't buy them.

This is not a defense of loot boxes in general but rather the sentiment that, admittedly I may have misinterpreted, companies are responsible for whales, rich or not, buying things they can't afford.

 

[figmentPez]

What? Is this a point we're trying to argue?

I don't think it's their responsibility to ensure anything about how people spend their own money. No one is forcing any ones hand here. These are video games.

Maybe I'm not understanding the statement but I don't see how they should be held accountable for any bodies lack of restraint toward luxury purchases. If you can't afford them don't buy them.

This is not a defense of loot boxes in general but rather the sentiment that, admittedly I may have misinterpreted, companies are responsible for whales, rich or not, buying things they can't afford.

So you're fine with the morality of bars knowingly profiting off of alcoholism? Casinos knowingly profiting off of people with gambling addictions? Because even Casinos aren't okay with that being their public image, and have recently started making public efforts to at least make it look like they're trying to prevent problem gambling.

Regardless of the legality of such, I think it's morally wrong to knowingly exploit addictive behavior in others. It's one thing to say "I'm not responsible for every poor college student who buys a PS4 with money they should be spending on tuition" and another thing to say "We're going to intentionally target people with gambling addictions, because we know we can bleed them dry." If this were an unintentional side effect of the system, that would be a moral quandary, but it's often stated as an explicit goal for game publishers to get absolutely the most money out of a person as they possibly can.

 

[PatrThom]

it's often stated as an explicit goal for game publishers to get absolutely the most money out of a person as they possibly can.

Well, that is the way to make the most money as quickly as possible...if you're into open-pit mining.

--Patrick

 

[bhamv3]

I can tell what's a full game and what's a neutered experience when I see it (or play it). It's sort of like when I can tell the difference between a tastefully nude pic and pornography. There isn't necessarily a set of predefined criteria, instead I look at the end product and try to determine the creator's intent and subsequent actions.

And I'm an expert at pornography, so you can trust me on this one.

 

[Dei]

RE: Loot boxes

The fact that they aren't considered "gambling" means they aren't regulated, or age restricted. Are loot boxes something that should be subject to gambling regulation? I think that's a pretty important question.

 

[Ravenpoe]

RE: Loot boxes

The fact that they aren't considered "gambling" means they aren't regulated, or age restricted. Are loot boxes something that should be subject to gambling regulation? I think that's a pretty important question.

Don't worry, the ESRB has decided that they aren't gambling.

The same ESRB that is owned by Activision.

Who just filed a bunch of patents to make their gambling even more addictive and targeted.

 

[figmentPez]

To me, all assets and elements that would be expected to be part of the given main story arc should be included, along with any and all aspects that are advertised to sell the game. If the game's marketing can be argued to be saying "you can play Vader" then charging extra to play as Vader is bait and switch.

Let's talk about just how much of a bait and switch this is. This content that can supposedly be unlocked by playing the game is locked beyond an absurd amount of time. To unlock everything in the game would take, I'm told, 4,528 hours. A year and a half of playing 8 hours a day. You can talk all you want about "well, if it's a good game, then you shouldn'tneed to skip any of the gameplay". Yeah, okay, but how far do you stretch that? Super Mario Bros. is a great game, but would it still be a great game if you were required to play world 1 - 1 for 15 minutes before you could unlock world 1 - 2? What if you had to play for an hour before unlocking just the second level? Admittedly, this is hyperbole, but how much time is unacceptable for unlocking content?

This is a huge part of why SWBF2 is not a "whole game", because it's pretending that you can get all of it's content with $80 + time, when it's not really a reasonable path to unlock the content. Especially when you get locked out of earning more credits if you play too much Arcade mode. "More credits available in X hours."

 

[Ravenpoe]

Let's talk about just how much of a bait and switch this is. This content that can supposedly be unlocked by playing the game is locked beyond an absurd amount of time. To unlock everything in the game would take, I'm told, 4,528 hours. A year and a half of playing 8 hours a day. You can talk all you want about "well, if it's a good game, then you shouldn'tneed to skip any of the gameplay". Yeah, okay, but how far do you stretch that? Super Mario Bros. is a great game, but would it still be a great game if you were required to play world 1 - 1 for 15 minutes before you could unlock world 1 - 2? What if you had to play for an hour before unlocking just the second level? Admittedly, this is hyperbole, but how much time is unacceptable for unlocking content?

This is a huge part of why SWBF2 is not a "whole game", because it's pretending that you can get all of it's content with $80 + time, when it's not really a reasonable path to unlock the content. Especially when you get locked out of earning more credits if you play too much Arcade mode. "More credits available in X hours."

The problem with battlefront 2 is the problem that people have worried would happen when they started stuffing more and more microtransactions into games. It is a game designed to present a platform of purchase rather than a game designed around being played. It is an interactive store front first and a game second, and it affects every aspect of the game play.

 

[Dei]

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Don't worry, the ESRB has decided that they aren't gambling.

The same ESRB that is owned by Activision.

Who just filed a bunch of patents to make their gambling even more addictive and targeted.

Also, @Mathias' quote from earlier is so on point, it's not even funny:

"It's more about making packaged addictions now than an actual game."

I tweeted that to Jim Sterling. I think he'll appreciate it.

 

[figmentPez]

"The campaign doesn't even have an ending. That's coming later."

I think this is definitively not a whole game.

 

[Mathias]

"The campaign doesn't even have an ending. That's coming later."

I think this is definitively not a whole game.

LOL! Stay tuned kids. The ending to the game's gonna be 10 dollar DLC!

 

[figmentPez]

So, it had to be pay-to-win because cosmetic items would have caused problems with Star Wars canon....



Yeah......

 

[Null]

Mass Effect 3 has examples of both "good DLC" and "bullshit DLC".

Under "Bullshit DLC", I include "From Ashes" - that's day one, pre-installed DLC that you have to buy a code (or deluxe/collectors'/super edition of the game) to access. So much of the game was written including the assumption of having Javik the Prothean that it's more or less bullshit that it was cut out and put behind a paywall when it's already there in the game.

Under "good DLC", I include "Citadel" - it was essentially the writers and team having fun by making a really fanservice-filled adventure that adds to the game, but isn't necessary to consider it complete. It also adds a means to grind your credits so that you can fully upgrade all your weapons and what not, if you want.

The loot boxes for ME3MP... well, the best thing I can say is that they're easy enough to get just by playing multiplayer, so that buying them seems like a relatively poor choice. I'm mediocre, but playing 3 rounds on silver is generally enough for me to get a premium level loot pack. That's a little over an hour, depending.