Why Dont Sport (and other Annual) Games Do This?

[MadVillainy]

Reading an article about NBA2K10 I got pumped to buy the game. I added it to my list of games I want to buy from Sept-Dec. But then I realized I'm gonna have to buy a new NBA game next year for $60 again. I understand why they did this in previous generations due to there not being DLC, but now with DLC and everything...why don't annual games do this:
Create a new game with a non year specific title. Then release the updates through lesser priced DLC? Because usually with annual games you dont get that big of a gameplay changed or at least not one that garners paying another $60 for. Back in the day when rosters werent automatically updated I understand but now it kinds of ridiculous to pay $60 every year for little to no changes. And you have to buy the new game if you want to keep up with most of the ppl who play sports games on Live or PSN

In the case of Xbox. Creating a game like that would also kind of sucker people into having to buy Live because without Live you wouldnt be able to get the game.

The biggest arguement against it is probaly that the developers wouldnt make as much money. But think about it. People go to buy the new $60 game and then every year buy $20-$30 DLC. Except with the DLC you dont run out of stock anywhere so you have UNLIMITED amount of copies that people could buy

Do you think this is a good idea or not?

 

[SuperFerret]

You answered your own question. If it'll cost less to buy the DLC, then the game companies would make less money.

 

[MadVillainy]

Also in the case of RockBand/Guitar Hero games instead of releasing new games for special artist or near annually why not release them as DLC?
Like even if they release a Guitar Hero or Rock Band for Jimi Hendrix or Guns and Roses I wouldnt buy it because I see it as pointless to buy a new $60 game with same gameplay as the last one just a more selective choice of artists/songs

When they add a new instrument then maybe I can understand releasing a new game, but even then if developers can add whole new chapters to a story through DLC cant they add a new gameplay element (of course sell the hardware for the new instrument in the store)

 

[SuperFerret]

Also in the case of RockBand/Guitar Hero games instead of releasing new games for special artist or near annually why not release them as DLC?
Like even if they release a Guitar Hero or Rock Band for Jimi Hendrix or Guns and Roses I wouldnt buy it because I see it as pointless to buy a new $60 game with same gameplay as the last one just a more selective choice of artists/songs

When they add a new instrument then maybe I can understand releasing a new game, but even then if developers can add whole new chapters to a story through DLC cant they add a new gameplay element (of course sell the hardware for the new instrument in the store)

The Guitar Hero/Rock Band games use the DLC to string the fans along and get a steadier flow of money until the next game comes out.

 

[MadVillainy]

You answered your own question. If it'll cost less to buy the DLC, then the game companies would make less money.

but its kind of like Walmart how they sell things at lower prices because they know that with lower prices people will buy more
Its better to sell 200 of $30 DLC
then to sell 50 copies of a $60 game

THe amount of ppl who buy through DLC should balance it out

 

[SuperFerret]

The same people who would buy the DLC would buy the new games, those fans follow the game franchises. Plus new games attract the attention of new fans.

 

[Joker]

The Guitar Hero/Rock Band games use the DLC to string the fans along and get a steadier flow of money until the next game comes out.

Please, don't group Rock Band in with Guitar Hero's terrible practices. The only Rock Band side game they've ever done is Beatles, who, being the biggest band of the 20th century, probably deserve their own game. Even when Rock Band 2 came out, you could move all the RB1 songs over. And they have kept a steady stream with DLC, weekly, since week one of the Rock Band 1 launch.

Guitar Hero puts out a new game every three god damn months, hardly any DLC, and don't let you transfer songs between games.

So please, keep the good series away from the bad one in your generalizations.

 

[William_C]

heheh, ever vehement on Guitar Hero Joker.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Joker is right on the money tho.


With yearly sports titles, you have to remember that these companies are given approval to use their license, and in some cases only one company is allowed the license. IE the NFL with EA. All sports titles are, is a glorified add for their respective league. Even if EA wanted to take a yr off from Madden they wouldnt be able to. The NFL would not allow it. A full, retail game will ALWAYS get more hype, ad time than a DLC or downloadable game.

Id agree with you on sports games, for the most part being yearly roster updates, but with Madden 2010, there is a LOT more there that wasnt there in last yrs game. I mean all the changes they have made this yr is bringing me back to the franchise after a 5 year hiatus. On the flip side, you look at a title like NCAA Football 2010, and it should have been criminal to charge full price for that game.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Just wait a few months into the season when the game is marked down. I remember I bought MVP Baseball 2005 for Gamecube in Sept/Oct for $20.

 

[SuperFerret]

Forgive me Joker, I've never played the Guitar Hero games and (incorrectly) assumed that they were the Pepsi to Rock Band's Coca Cola.

 

[Joker]

Forgive me Joker, I've never played the Guitar Hero games and (incorrectly) assumed that they were the Pepsi to Rock Band's Coca Cola.

Nah, if Rock Band is Coca Cola, then Guitar Hero is that can of Canadian Tonic Water in the machine at the seedy hotel that no one ever buys. Except people do buy Guitar Hero. Because they're ******ed.

 

[SuperFerret]

Oh god, could you imagine if people actually bought that tonic water?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

but its kind of like Walmart how they sell things at lower prices because they know that with lower prices people will buy more
Its better to sell 200 of $30 DLC
then to sell 50 copies of a $60 game

THe amount of ppl who buy through DLC should balance it out

Wallmart keeps their prices low on things like DVDs just to get people in the store, not so they'll buy more DVDs, but so they'll buy bigger ticket items or accessories, which is where all those stores really make their money.

I think you're overestimating how many people are buying DLC, I'd bet most of the general audience have never bought anything over X-Box Live or PSN. Also another factor is parents buying these games for kids, they won't know how to buy their kids DLC stuff, plus their kid can't unwrap DLC on Christmas morning or their birthday.