EvaUnit02 on 23/8/2008 at 10:17
I don't really see the point of this thread. It's business as usual - in your words, "console owners getting nickelled and dimed to death." How is this particular news different from any other time?
The consoles manufacturers sell their hardware at loss and thus try to compensate via software licensing royalties.
addink on 23/8/2008 at 10:44
Valve could of course just have said No.
But instead they agreed to commercialize their free updates.
for the fans
They're not completely innocent here. They are one of the few companies that can actually make a difference in this scheme, instead they opted to agree.
june gloom on 23/8/2008 at 11:42
I seriously doubt Valve is making any money off this.
addink on 23/8/2008 at 11:58
The only true answer of a Valve fanboy :p
They sort of implied they'd use the money gained to guarantee quality, sure. It's still making money.
Anyway, that's not my point. As Valve makes plenty of money of their sales of their vanilla software, I'm sure so does Microsoft with their license fee of those exact same titles.
As it is in Microsoft's interest to NOT have the lesser versions of the games on their platform, they could be enticed into skipping the charge for the updates.
And Valve is one of the few companies that is in a position to force such a deal.
redrain85 on 23/8/2008 at 12:53
I don't quite understand it when console owners complain about having to pay for DLC.
Okay, maybe I do. Why did they buy a console? Well, the majority of time it simply came down to it being cheaper than buying a gaming PC. Fair enough.
But the reason they're so cheap, is because the hardware is sold at a loss. If you had to pay the true cost for the hardware, a console would be nowhere near as attractive an option compared to a PC, when it comes to saving money.
Now, the platform owner has to make the money back somehow. If the games were sold at razor-thin profit and the DLC always free, they'd never make any money. So no one should be expecting them to be giving everything away for free.
If you do, then you're just being a cheap-ass. And if you don't like it, then go back to playing games on the PC. The hardware might cost more, but no PC gamer wants to put up with that nickel-and-diming crap. So game publishers rarely try. Microsoft did try with Games for Windows Live, but they failed miserably.
june gloom on 23/8/2008 at 14:10
Quote Posted by addink
And Valve is one of the few companies that is in a position to force such a deal.
I really doubt it. Bungie was able to get it because they're Microsoft's bitch, and Microsoft looks after their own. But Valve is more independant than that; I have no doubt that getting a free-DLC deal would possibly involve Valve selling their soul in some way, and I just don't see that happening. This is Microsoft we're talking about, after all. Bungie's learned that the hard way- they complained last year that they've been basically forced to become Halocorp. with no room for new IPs.
The_Raven on 23/8/2008 at 14:17
Damn, dethy, lay off the animated gifs.
june gloom on 23/8/2008 at 14:20
That would make sense if I abused said animated gifs, but I can't recall posting anything more than the occasional jpeg (airplanes don't count) in the past 6 months.
SubJeff on 23/8/2008 at 15:06
Plus it's a quality gif.
So what if Valve charges. This is what console games want and love, that's why they got consoles. They want stuff that works at the click of a button and that they don't have to think about to get working. Fair enough I say, if that's your bag.
