4 ms·

I do enjoy the game, but I can't agree with this insane pricing model. Just on principle I refuse to pay $60 for a game and $40 for DLC and then $20 for more DL

I do enjoy the game, but I can't agree with this insane pricing model. Just on principle I refuse to pay $60 for a game and $40 for DLC and then $20 for more DLC then $40 for an expansion and then $40 for DLC to the expansion. I'd play it if there was just a single cost that was reasonable. Until the game stops getting paid DLC and there is just a flat cost to play the rest of the games I am not going to get back into it. You vote for this kind of nonsense with your money and people keep buying it then this will never stop.

sbarre 8y ago
So how do you pay for all the additional content then? The sheer amount of art assets that have gone into these expansions can't be produced for free. Leaving aside arguments about the gameplay provided (some liked it, some didn't), there has to be a funding model for this. Maybe the model doesn't give you what you're looking for out of this game, and that's fair - you can just move on to a game you do enjoy. But for some of us, the additional zones, weapons, gear, raids, encounters, enemies, vehicles, quests, mechanics, maps and modes that come with the paid DLC are worth the money. I don't think it's "nonsense", I think it's fair value for the time I spend, and the enjoyment I get, out of the game.
- izzydata 8y ago
  The ratio of cost per amount of content seems very low to me in comparison to other large scale games. Maybe that is just what it takes to create a game as polished as this. If that is the case then it doesn't seem economical to develop. If you compare it to how much content is added to each major expansion of World of Warcraft and the cost per year of always being up to date then Destiny falls very short.
  - abrawill 8y ago
    Doesn't World of Warcraft have a subscription model? Are you considering those costs too?
    - WorldMaker 8y ago
      I think that's one of the arguments here. Destiny has a subscription model in all but name, and pretends they don't. They want to have their cake and eat it too as a business model. I feel like had they explicitly called it a subscription model I for one would have been happier with some of my spending on the games. Comparing each expansion release individually to the cost I paid for it isn't working in their favor, and only makes it harder for me to justify "the next expansion" if the perceived $/content is too low for the last couple. As opposed to the aggregate model I might use with a subscription service where maybe I didn't get all of that year's cost value in any single month, but cumulatively it was great. Anyway, part of the driver of the current business model was supposedly Activision's fault in trying to CoD-ify the franchise, so maybe Bungie can course correct here somehow. (I'm a bit doubtful, personally, but will be watching.)
      - jkchu 8y ago
        It's explicitly not a subscription because you can still play the game without purchasing the additional expansions. I have played Destiny 2 consistently since it was released for PC, but I play it almost exclusively for PvP (Crucible). I can continue to play PvP without purchasing the new expansions. The main difference is that I won't always be able to unlock some of the new guns (which is fine by me).
        WorldMaker 8y ago
        I'm not saying there aren't perceivable advantages to the current business model, just that it isn't a business model that seems to be working for me personally. I stopped playing both D1 and D2 at about the same point where an expansion came out that I wasn't interested in, and I couldn't ignore the paywall. Partly because yes more of the lore and PvE is paywalled than the PvP is.
  - hombre_fatal 8y ago
    World of Warcraft costs $180 per year (a required $15/month). It's also 14 years old, so you're playing all the onion layers of content added by expansions which were funded over the years by people paying a $60 initial purchase (the initial purchase was finally removed last year) and again on each expansion. Your comparison to WoW only seems to make the point that content is expensive and Destiny is much cheaper.
    - izzydata 8y ago
      That's True, it is probably more per year to play WoW, but it is also what feels like 10 times the content. It may not be as beautiful, but there is way more to do per dollar spent. Destiny feels like they are trying to take the content density of a single player campaign and turn it into an MMO.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      WoW has a staggering amount of content. Destiny does not. They're not even on the same playing field.
    - notSupplied 8y ago
      On top of the subscription, you also have to buy the WoW expansion for $40 to stay on the cutting edgr with the content. Essentially WoW is having their cake and eating it too. I feel bad for Destiny. They're asking $70-80 per year to stay caught up on content and people are complaining it is too expensive, yet WoW can ask for $220. The visual fidelity of their content is top tier, if not THE best, right next to God of War. That is incredibly expensive to produce and games at this level of visual fidelity are usually produced on a 4 to 5 year cycle, not actively maintained MMOs with seasonal content. So they command about 1/3 the annual price of WoW, yet they are expected to deliver the content quantity of an MMO with the visual fidelity of God of War. This is the world's most expensive content treadmill.
  - sbarre 8y ago
    How do you measure "content" in this evaluation? Asking for real, because I played WoW, and if I compare the detail, complexity and variety of the content in Destiny to what you get in WoW, factoring in the price difference, I am not sure I agree that it's less.. As someone who is satisfied with the value I get out of Destiny, I am genuinely curious to hear what you feel is missing for your personal enjoyment of the game.. What would they have to provide for you to feel that the cost is worth it?
kaonashi 8y ago
I'll buy a DLC 100 times before I buy a loot box.
- JeremyBanks 8y ago
  Don't worry, they'll sell you those too.
  - jkchu 8y ago
    As long as the loot boxes are for cosmetics and are not deceptive in any way, I have no issue with games including them.
baumandm 8y ago
The alternative model is what franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed do: spend $60 every year on a brand new game while the previous year's game is unsupported. And $60 is without any of the extras...you can pay $80 for a deluxe edition, buy some lootboxes, etc. Between the two, I actually prefer the continued development model. It also makes you feel like you can pick it up anytime and not be playing an obsolete game. Paradox is another example of a company doing this well. A lot of people complain about the total cost of buying Crusader Kings II or EU4 with all DLC today (~$300), but these games have been in continuous development for half a decade or more. All that effort has to be paid for somehow.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >The alternative model is what franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed do Another alternative model is a monthly fee, like many MMO's use. Remember when bungie said they wanted to deliver a first person MMO experience with an ever expanding world? Most people didn't take that to mean paid DLC for every new raid and sequels which wipe your character's progress.
  - notSupplied 8y ago
    I think most game companies are terrified of the monthly fee after the row of corpses of "WoW killers" that depended on a monthly subscription. Most believe that "WoW is the only thing in the world that can command a monthly fee and it'd be hubris to think your new game could do it."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sbarre 8y ago

So how do you pay for all the additional content then? The sheer amount of art assets that have gone into these expansions can't be produced for free. Leaving aside arguments about the gameplay provided (some liked it, some didn't), there has to be a funding model for this. Maybe the model doesn't give you what you're looking for out of this game, and that's fair - you can just move on to a game you do enjoy. But for some of us, the additional zones, weapons, gear, raids, encounters, enemies, vehicles, quests, mechanics, maps and modes that come with the paid DLC are worth the money. I don't think it's "nonsense", I think it's fair value for the time I spend, and the enjoyment I get, out of the game.

izzydata 8y ago
The ratio of cost per amount of content seems very low to me in comparison to other large scale games. Maybe that is just what it takes to create a game as polished as this. If that is the case then it doesn't seem economical to develop. If you compare it to how much content is added to each major expansion of World of Warcraft and the cost per year of always being up to date then Destiny falls very short.
- abrawill 8y ago
  Doesn't World of Warcraft have a subscription model? Are you considering those costs too?
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    I think that's one of the arguments here. Destiny has a subscription model in all but name, and pretends they don't. They want to have their cake and eat it too as a business model. I feel like had they explicitly called it a subscription model I for one would have been happier with some of my spending on the games. Comparing each expansion release individually to the cost I paid for it isn't working in their favor, and only makes it harder for me to justify "the next expansion" if the perceived $/content is too low for the last couple. As opposed to the aggregate model I might use with a subscription service where maybe I didn't get all of that year's cost value in any single month, but cumulatively it was great. Anyway, part of the driver of the current business model was supposedly Activision's fault in trying to CoD-ify the franchise, so maybe Bungie can course correct here somehow. (I'm a bit doubtful, personally, but will be watching.)
    - jkchu 8y ago
      It's explicitly not a subscription because you can still play the game without purchasing the additional expansions. I have played Destiny 2 consistently since it was released for PC, but I play it almost exclusively for PvP (Crucible). I can continue to play PvP without purchasing the new expansions. The main difference is that I won't always be able to unlock some of the new guns (which is fine by me).
      - WorldMaker 8y ago
        I'm not saying there aren't perceivable advantages to the current business model, just that it isn't a business model that seems to be working for me personally. I stopped playing both D1 and D2 at about the same point where an expansion came out that I wasn't interested in, and I couldn't ignore the paywall. Partly because yes more of the lore and PvE is paywalled than the PvP is.
- hombre_fatal 8y ago
  World of Warcraft costs $180 per year (a required $15/month). It's also 14 years old, so you're playing all the onion layers of content added by expansions which were funded over the years by people paying a $60 initial purchase (the initial purchase was finally removed last year) and again on each expansion. Your comparison to WoW only seems to make the point that content is expensive and Destiny is much cheaper.
  - izzydata 8y ago
    That's True, it is probably more per year to play WoW, but it is also what feels like 10 times the content. It may not be as beautiful, but there is way more to do per dollar spent. Destiny feels like they are trying to take the content density of a single player campaign and turn it into an MMO.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    WoW has a staggering amount of content. Destiny does not. They're not even on the same playing field.
  - notSupplied 8y ago
    On top of the subscription, you also have to buy the WoW expansion for $40 to stay on the cutting edgr with the content. Essentially WoW is having their cake and eating it too. I feel bad for Destiny. They're asking $70-80 per year to stay caught up on content and people are complaining it is too expensive, yet WoW can ask for $220. The visual fidelity of their content is top tier, if not THE best, right next to God of War. That is incredibly expensive to produce and games at this level of visual fidelity are usually produced on a 4 to 5 year cycle, not actively maintained MMOs with seasonal content. So they command about 1/3 the annual price of WoW, yet they are expected to deliver the content quantity of an MMO with the visual fidelity of God of War. This is the world's most expensive content treadmill.
- sbarre 8y ago
  How do you measure "content" in this evaluation? Asking for real, because I played WoW, and if I compare the detail, complexity and variety of the content in Destiny to what you get in WoW, factoring in the price difference, I am not sure I agree that it's less.. As someone who is satisfied with the value I get out of Destiny, I am genuinely curious to hear what you feel is missing for your personal enjoyment of the game.. What would they have to provide for you to feel that the cost is worth it?

kaonashi 8y ago

I'll buy a DLC 100 times before I buy a loot box.

JeremyBanks 8y ago
Don't worry, they'll sell you those too.
- jkchu 8y ago
  As long as the loot boxes are for cosmetics and are not deceptive in any way, I have no issue with games including them.

baumandm 8y ago

The alternative model is what franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed do: spend $60 every year on a brand new game while the previous year's game is unsupported. And $60 is without any of the extras...you can pay $80 for a deluxe edition, buy some lootboxes, etc. Between the two, I actually prefer the continued development model. It also makes you feel like you can pick it up anytime and not be playing an obsolete game. Paradox is another example of a company doing this well. A lot of people complain about the total cost of buying Crusader Kings II or EU4 with all DLC today (~$300), but these games have been in continuous development for half a decade or more. All that effort has to be paid for somehow.

EpicEng 8y ago
>The alternative model is what franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed do Another alternative model is a monthly fee, like many MMO's use. Remember when bungie said they wanted to deliver a first person MMO experience with an ever expanding world? Most people didn't take that to mean paid DLC for every new raid and sequels which wipe your character's progress.
- notSupplied 8y ago
  I think most game companies are terrified of the monthly fee after the row of corpses of "WoW killers" that depended on a monthly subscription. Most believe that "WoW is the only thing in the world that can command a monthly fee and it'd be hubris to think your new game could do it."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]