Slashdot Mirror
Frustration With Oblivion Mod Costs on Xbox Live
Vizionary wrote to mention the player backlash swelling out of a recent addition to Xbox Live. Major Nelson's blog made the announcement that they'd finally added the (previously announced) barding for the player mount in Oblivion. The catch is that the simple modification costs 200 points, removing a lot of the appeal of the small mods the Elder Scrolls series has thrived on. From commenter 'SW 1540' on that site: "Unquestionably, some downloadable content should cost money/points. Having said that, the cost of that content should be directly proportional to the enhancement it provides to the original game. For example, I would expect to pay $20.00 for the soon to come Perfect Dark Zero maps or new cars for Project Gotham. On the other hand, I would expect any additional costumes for PDZ to be free. I imagine there is good arguments on both sides, but one can see that the potential is there to exploit an eager fan. "
I hate to say it, but I'm one of the tools that just egged them on yesterday by buying the download. I felt awful about it afterwards because:
A - It wasn't worth $2.50.
B - They really shouldn't be rewarded for charging for something that used to be free and probably should've been free considering the 360 owners already paid more than the PC people.
You may now "crucificate" me.
In an MMORPG, its against policy to sell in-game items to other players. In single player RPGs, its policy to sell in-game items to players. Now I'm confused.
"The only MMORPG I play is Guild Wars because I refuse to pay money for a game then be forced to pay a monthly fee to play it."
So basically, you pay $50 up front for the game and would rather pay for content as you go and as they add it regularly. I might be missing something, but I fail to see how this is different from a monthly fee?
Anyway, something as small as this should be a free enhancement. Now, if they added in new player armor, weapons, and other goodies along with it, then I could see it having a cost. What I saw on the blog probably took 3 to 4 hours of time to make, which probably costs the maker a couple of grand in labor, software, and hardware. Compare that to the possible thousands and thousands of dollars they would get from the download charge, and that's just plain greedy. I put this in the light that people have spent $60-$70 for the game already, not to mention the Live sub, and that's a hell of a lotta phat-lootz.
Those simple, powerful PCs that cost around $500, were compatible with ALL PC games, didn't need upgrading until the next complete system generation... Ya, me neither.
PCs and consoles aren't the same thing and aren't the same market. One simple, obvious difference would be price. The 360s are priced as cheap as their corrisponding graphics card for a PC. To get 360 level graphics, you need something on the order of a Radeon 1900XT. That's like $450 just for a graphics card, never mind the system needed to support it.
What it basically comes down to is the PC is a totally open environment. You set your hardware up as you like, you run the software you like, you mod it as you like, etc. That's how I like it and why I'll spend the money to play games on a PC (well that and I'd have a pwoerful PC regardless of games). However let's not pretend like it's always easy. Just last night I was fighting with an older game (KOTOR) to make it work well on my modern hardware which is way more than it needs.
Consoles are a more managed environment. The console maker supplies you with one, fixed system that you use and you don't tinker with it. All games work because they are certified and they know the platform they are writing for. There's no unexpected compatiblity problems with new hardware or software. They have a simple interface and do only one thing.
Well the whole pay-for X-box live service is really an extension of that model. Everything is centrally managed and controlled. It means you can't just go and run your own service but also means you don't have to rely on people who do. I can say form the Quake days there was a wide varity of servers out there. Some were top notch speed and stability wise (and usually hard to get a spot on) some played like they were being run on a 486 in some guy's bedroom... PRobably because they were being run on a 486 in some guy's bedroom.
I don't particularly think either PC or console gaming is superior, just different. I own a powerful PC anyhow, like PC games better, and value the ablity to hack around on my games so I do PC gaming. However I can see the appeal of the console system. Buy one, cheaper unit that will not be outdated for a number of years, then pay a service fee for someone to run the whole online aspect. It's simpler, and even after years of playing would add up to what the core of my current computer cost me.
Thanks Zonk! I'm glad this submission was accepted, but feel the original "tone" was lost in translation, so I'm posting it here just "for the record". Note: I was quite angry when I submitted it.
------------------
Micro$oft's marketing droids have fired the first salvo in the latest round of Digital Restrictions Management Warfare. Oblivion, by Bethesda, widely believed to be the strongest candidate for 2006 Game Of The Year, has begun providing downloadable content via XBOX Live. This could be great news, but at roughly $2.50 for downloadable Horse Armor a mere two weeks after the game shipped, we all know this was carved from the game to be sold separately. Bethesda is also to blame here, with other similarly priced content on the way. How long until "essential" game content is withheld from a game release, only to be downloaded in Pay-Per-Play chunks?
------------------
Please note that I'm definitely not against pay-per-play as a viable model, however, for these guys to charge $2.50 for what basically amounts to a few texture maps and a mesh is a big step over the edge onto a slippery slope that could (will?) lead to more egregious violations of player trust. And, before everyone says "if you don't like it, don't buy it"...believe me, I won't. However, it's important to understand that without public backlash over this, the folks behind these machinations will continue forward, "innovating" online gaming to the point where you won't be able to complete a $60 game you purchased until you've spent another $40 on pseudo-essential add-ons. (Not picking on you, Bethesda, we love you guys!!!)
Why did I mention Digital Restrictions Management? Glad you asked. If player contributed content were available via XBOX Live, the "power" of this type of marketing ploy would be diffused against other, more affordable (even free in some cases) mods. Why no player contributed content? Well, first you need Micro$oft's permission to provide anything via Live. And, well, we'll just leave the DRM issue right there...it's just beating a dead horse with armor.
But, I digress...
Thank You, Bethesda, for Oblivion! You've restored my faith in immersive, interactive storytelling! Please use your amazing success with this game to help protect the future of downloadable content. I suppose that one way to do that would be to ensure that the price of content is in-line with the value of the content. And, it would be really nice if it were also tied to the actual "cost" of the content...but, hey, we can always dream.
Sure you don't NEED to buy horse armor for $2.50, but watch what happens then with games like Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. It shipped with 10 multiplayer maps. Previous Ghost Recon games all came with at least twice as many. What do you want to bet that they have a bunch more maps sitting around that they could have put on the game disc, but are now waiting to sell online instead?
it is interesting that the time it would have taken to set up the system to take and process payments for downloading the mods for the PC probably cost more and took more time than producing the actual content...so if they released it for nothing it likely would have cost them less...
So much for the good old days where this kind of content was free. I would never even imagined I would have to pay for this sort of thing.
I can expect to pay something for a substantial mod that introduces a new storyline or something to that effect. But to be charged for something as simple as a new texture and maybe a new model is pathetic.
It's not like an MMO where we're playing on their servers. But here they are charging for an object that at best some employee threw together in an afternoon, at worst was originally created with the game but left out for the release. They apply a few stats to it and they're done.
If Bethesda are finding themselves in a situation where Oblivion isn't as profitable as they'd like because of what they've invested in it's development then they should be addressing the issue differently.
The first option is not to make the game so overwrought that they spend a fortune just creating the game. Focus on the gameplay. Don't get obsessed in the latest eye candy that doesn't add directly to gameplay and that even struggles to run on fairly recent video cards.
The second option is simply to charge a bit more for the game. That's not a pleasant option, but if the game is more expensive to produce then charge accordingly. Of course, then I wouldn't expect to have to pay for anything for these mods.
The problem is that the power is in the hands of the consumer. Unfortunately, too many consumers dont think. They're quick to defend these companies and readily pay for anything. The more these people happily accept this sort of the nonsense the more the rest of us are forced into these extortionist pricing models.
In a way I think MMOs have been a bad for the gaming industry. It's shown these companies that not only can they charge full price for a game, but convince people to pay a monthly fee to continue playing. And on top of that most of these games dont even provide significantly more content than a single player but instead are heavily padded with repetitive gameplay. Consumers seem to be more than willing to part with their money, so why not make things easy for them?
I think gamers from the older school of thinking will have a major negative reaction to this kind of thing. For me (even though i'm not "old", but i've been playing games long enough to remember freeware\shareware) paying for something like this is laughable. Perhaps to a newer generation of gamers it may be something worth considering - regardless of the value per dollar. For me, paying for content outside of a full-blown expansion pack for a game is ridiculous. Stuff like that should be free for download, But as I've said for others - maybe some of a newer breed - pay-for-content that is *worth* it may not be such a bad idea.
Don't confuse an argument for basic human decency with one for compulsory government interference. They're rarely even remotely related, and one generally solves problems far better than the other. People can make fluid judgements for themselves when you don't introduce all this moronic beuracracy into the situation.
It's the "don't be an asshole" principle, not the "be an asshole and we'll lock you away" principle. In the former, all adherants insure that there will be a reasonable disbersement to help alleviate strain appropriately. In the latter (and in your chosen path, in fact), the only thing that generally happens is exactly what you decry: disproportionate disbursement as the privileged few deprive others of necessities for their own comfort.
Unfortunately, by definition, all conservative economics does is create assholes who steal from the poor, and all liberal economics does is create assholes who steal from everybody. Which explains why all economists are assholes, I guess. If they weren't, they'd recognize that all situations don't fit specific molds, and then they wouldn't be economists, they'd be anarchists.
Besides, you're arguing for the government to continue to enforce a free market anyway from the assumption that protection of property rights is a moral issue. If you'd like to talk "morality", here's a moral argument for you: I reject the assertion that that merchant's property rights are more valued than an individual's right to life. In other words, if I steal that loaf of bread for my starving child, the merchant, unless he is now also deprived of his right to life as a result of that action, is what is affectionately referred to as "SOL". Not that theft should be excused so easily or taken lightly, but at least I accept that there's something significantly more complicated in this issue than simple property rights issues.
From now on, I buy only Intel.
I could care less if they want to charge for crappy mods -- as you suggest I just won't buy them. What does bother me is that paying customers have been begging for bugfixes -- many for basic gameplay issues -- with no response. The fact that Bethesda is more eager to work on some crappy mods at $2.50 a pop instead of even releasing an official statement about game issues isn't right.
Oh, and I agree that MS is really not directly to blame for the price of the mods, however I seriously doubt they would allow Bethesda to give away mods via XBOX live free of charge. If Bethesda has to charge for the XBOX version, it is understandable they would be hesitant to give away the same content for free to PC customers.