The other big thing people seem to miss is that this must be seen as a viable business model, since such a wide ranging decision to put in place the constant online requirement isn't a tech security decision, but one that would have to have been okay'ed by Ubi corporate.
They made an active decision to knowingly shed a very large minority of their customers because they thought they would be able to recoup their sunk costs and make a profit via another route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immacolata
DLC is indeed very lucrative - if it works. You tie in the gamer per product, no more 2nd hand trade-ins. You also get a game to generate income after its sell-by date has expired by "juicing" up with new content.
The business model will fail if people say "Bogus! I ain't paying for the game twice!". Some games you can see really bad "speculant" DLC, in other games it works better. Strategy games and multiplayer shooters can sell mappacks, just look at the phenomenal success of MW2 map pack (according to Activision at least).
I'd never buy an extra character or mission for a game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age once I completed it. Why would I bother? Same with Fallout 3. I just didn't see the point with it once I had completed the game.
|
I think it is pretty obvious that Ubi's strategy is to release deliberately crippled games content wise to sure up it's DLC sales.
I mean seriously, after a month of playing the game does anyone
really believe that they didn't model the war past 1943 or more than one type of submarine so they could ensure super-duper levels of accuracy and realism?
Everyone that bought SH5 paid $50us for a shareware game that they have to pay more to get the rest of it later.