Gamers hate DLC, plain and simple. At least that use to be the consensus. We alreadypaid $60; we deserve our game.
Over time arguments were made and having a system that adds content for the gamer and increases revenue for the developer could be a win-win situation.
You pay $60 for an amount of content worth $60, then it’s not that big of deal to drop more money once more content becomes available.
EA became the most hated company in America multiple times because of various reasons. The initial reboot of “Star Wars: Battlefront” had such little content and more of a $10-$15 value selling for $60.
You could buy a deluxe edition for $120 promising all future DLC, but that just wasn’t right. We can’t put a value on DLC that doesn’t exist. In the end, with all the DLC, many would argue “Battlefront” is still, at most, a $20-$30 value.
How does Rockstar fit into this?
A discussion thread on Reddit laid out its sources regarding “Grand Theft Auto Online’s” path toward being more “pay-to-win” through the years.
Rockstar has been MIA since the release of “Grand Theft Auto V,” but their next smash hit “Red Dead Redemption 2” is just around the corner.
Will the online portion of the game feel “pay-to-win”? Does it matter?
Like many in the comments I agree that “Grand Theft Auto V” surpassed its $60 value with its massive single-player campaign.
Actually, if it sucks, I probably won’t touch online mode (except playing online Texas Hold ‘Em sounds amazing if offered).
It’s hard to have faith in an industry that just can’t seem to find the balance of value with DLC. They make their money so logistically these methods work for publishers even at an imbalance.
Having the “balance-of-value” is merely and ethical feat. Most publishers don’t mind to throw it off a bit for a couple extra million.
In the case of the gaming giant Rockstar, it may be a couple extra billion.