DLC? Are You Kidding Me? CONTENT PATCHES!

[tomtalk24]

I won't even bother reading this.

But will quote and reply Probably did anyway, else whats the point of talking in the first place? Thats basic psychology
Counterpoint and correction still stands. But to dumb it down for you, ones built from start to end by computers (Audi), the other is hand crafted (game).

There is no such thing as a computer error, only human.

[kobayashimaru]

I won't even bother reading this.

But will quote and reply Probably did anyway, else whats the point of talking in the first place? Thats basic psychology
Counterpoint and correction still stands. But to dumb it down for you, ones built from start to end by computers (Audi), the other is hand crafted (game).

There is no such thing as a computer error, only human.

Haha, are you serious?! You really don't understand this! Nevermind.

[Alan Phipps]

Enough bickering thanks. Back on topic now please (and that does not include car comparisons!).

[kobayashimaru]

Aaaa just when I wanted to explain that we could consider pre-robot era, hand crafted cars or explain how cars are actually designed by humans using tools and then that design is copied many times by the robots to mass produce it, just like computer software is designed by humans using tools and then copied by computer many times to mass produce it.

Please don't ban me! I just needed to get that off my chest!

Oh well, back to the topic. Yes , I think some content should be released as freeLC, considering the initial and even current state of the game.

[Nafensoriel]

Enough bickering thanks. Back on topic now please (and that does not include car comparisons!).

I will only buy DLC if they give me 5 types of elevator car carriages! One car for every station is comparatively a bad art direction!
(sorry alan I had to)



@EmperorDragon
I won't disagree a direct comparison looks like crap. Trouble is its apples and oranges now with digital distribution and marketing. Seriously I have a line item budget I have to bloody approve for "social media outreach" now. I have to pay a kid to twitter all day and I don't even work in gaming anymore! All I can speak from is raw numbers and experience and I wouldn't be surprised if Egosoft went the 20-30 dollar range for their DLC and that's perfectly acceptable to me provided its basically 1 "complete" race addition to the universe including sectors. If they toss in a new mechanic like "decorate your own HQ office" it would be icing(yes I'm that sad). My only baulk point would be if they extended the total pricing for the game over 150 dollars. So if they want to make a DLC in 10 years they should do what Stardock is considering and amalgamate older DLC into a single package after their profit points have long passed.

[tomtalk24]

Enough bickering thanks. Back on topic now please (and that does not include car comparisons!).

Aaaa just when I wanted to explain that we could consider pre-robot era, hand crafted cars or explain how cars are actually designed by humans using tools and then that design is copied many times by the robots to mass produce it, just like computer software is designed by humans using tools and then copied by computer many times to mass produce it.

Please don't ban me! I just needed to get that off my chest!

Oh well, back to the topic. Yes , I think some content should be released as freeLC, considering the initial and even current state of the game.

I will only buy DLC if they give me 5 types of elevator car carriages! One car for every station is comparatively a bad art direction!
(sorry alan I had to)

Ugh

[tomtalk24]

And even modern cars these days needs around 5 years in development. Even if it's only a new generation like golf 5 to golf 6.
5 years, hundreds of millions Euro, and who knows how much manpower.....
Compare a game with a car and expect the same lvl of perfection would mean you had to pay hundreds-or even one digit more - of euro per copy......

I'm working in car industries, so I can always only laugh when someone uses a car as comparison...

Exactly!
And for £40, the amount of hours of enjoyment (or just gameplay to some) is great value, considering most AAA games for £60 will have around 20hrs of content and story to "enjoy". Replayability is also a very strong point for the X series, where I dont think I'll be playing Tomb Raider more than once when I get around to/fancy finishing that. Then again any sandbox has replay value. Still, ~130hrs in for £40... happy camper here

Ego also price their DLCs very well indeed. Small change again with regards to hours of game time. You can buy a pint in London that cost more than Egos X DLCs lol!

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The greatest problem facing developers today is entitled people wanting exponentially more but they somehow think they don't also have to pay for it. A 60 dollar game with two 30 dollar DLCs is comparable in price to a 20 dollar game in 1980 with two 10 dollar DLCs. By all rights, a triple-A game should cost around 100 dollars now. It doesn't because people can't understand how inflation works and whine whenever the cheapest form of electrically driven entertainment in the world gets 1 penny less cheap.

There's some things you did not consider:

A study done by a group of legal practitioners back in 2013 determined that, with all the third-party dependencies games of today require, lack of physical retail market, zero value retention after first use, lack of a healthy second-hand market and poor quality control, puts the fair average 2013 price of a AAA game at just 12 USD.

Sounds crazy compared to production cost, I know, but it's entirely the fault of developers and publishers. Games don't need all that dependencies and physical retail copies gives games a whole lot of value, digital copies in turn have greatly diminished value, many devs and publishers don't even allow you to resell games anymore! They devaluate their own products.

The value of a digital product is ultimately determined by the production costs and that is the stinger, proper quality control costs ALOT of money and time relative to the development cost due to the fact that the testing scope expands as a product evolves - the more content developers try to cram in for the same sale price the lower the overall quality is likely to be due to developers often skimping on testing due to both cost and time reasons (time is money - the longer the time to market the more things cost at the end). There are things that can be done to minimise the re-testing impact of evolving a product but that is really quite a bit off-topic.

Material cost considerations (in the modern software market - optical media is cheap on the whole) do not really factor into the value of the product, just the profit margins in essence (i.e. rate of return). A 30 USD/GBP game is still worth 30 USD/GBP whether it is delivered digitally or physically. Digital delivery systems carry overheads either in terms of third party distribution costs or overhead related to establishing and maintaining your own download/distribution facilities.

As for third party dependencies, such things do not devalue the sale price of the product - just the profit margins for the developer (the exact impact will depend on either level of royalties or the level of cost for the third party components used). Overall, whether the 30 USD/GBP product is 10 USD/GBP of the developer's IP (Intellectual Property) or 30 USD/GBP of the developer's IP it is still 30 USD/GBP to the end user. The cost to the customer does not magically get reduced because the developer is using third party components (which typically have a price tag attached to them).

As for the resell potential, that may slightly devalue a product BUT considering the overall increase in production costs and inflation the end effect is neutral at worst (from a consumer perspective) or at best a small mitigating factor against the rising costs.

In the case of X4, we are led to believe that the vast majority of the product is Egosoft's own IP - they developed their own engine for X-Rebirth/X4 and while I have no doubt there is other IP involved in the product such considerations are moot. What we had at release with the base content of X4 is fair value for money in the current markets and Egosoft are still delivering extra content/features effectively for free (c/f V2.0 and V3.0).

We can dance around the houses about all the details that makes the baseline X4 v1.0 a fair level of content for the sale price, but such matters are on the most part moot. I have noted an unrealistic increase in the level of expectations of end users and customers in general - it seems people increasingly expect more for less. The value of currency depreciates over time (especially when governments engage in quantitative easing measures to address short term financing issues) and the cost of natural resources increase as they become more scarce - unlike in the X-games critical raw resources do not magically replenish themselves indefinitely in the real-world.

As a result of this, the cost of end-products and producing said products should go up. To a certain degree some of these cost increases can get absorbed/mitigated by the manufacturers but there are limits to this - physical items can become cheaper to produce due to improvements in manufacturing methods or the use of cheaper materials but software items on the whole do not become cheaper to produce. A software product that took 1yr to develop 10yrs ago will cost more to produce now and due to increased technical complexity in both the software and the operating environment, a similar product now (using current standards) will either cost more in terms of third party IP, take longer to produce, or both - ergo will by necessity cost more.

TL;DR Balancing content against development costs and end price is not a simple matter and it is unreasonable for anyone to expect the same level of VFM now as they did 10-20yrs ago - especially where software is concerned.

[Graaf]

Values and pricing.

Sure Roger.
All nice and well but from my point of view it cost me an AAA-pricing but it wasn't worth it. I didn't enjoy playing. I find the game boring and the flight controls are just stupid and annoying. Not to mention being forced to do some stupid uninteresting timesink for no reason what so ever just because I don't have the option to turn it off.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Values and pricing.

Sure Roger.
All nice and well but from my point of view it cost me an AAA-pricing but it wasn't worth it. I didn't enjoy playing. I find the game boring and the flight controls are just stupid and annoying. Not to mention being forced to do some stupid uninteresting timesink for no reason what so ever just because I don't have the option to turn it off.

I could say the same about at least some (if not most) AAA games not being worth their price tags, in fact I find most AAA games worth less than X-games (inc. X4). Just because any given player does not like the format of a particular game though does not make said game bad, nor does it not make it unfair content for the price tag.

I am not 100% sure what time sink you are referring to but none of it in essence is forced on us. Building stations take time perhaps, but with the X-games there have always been the ability to mod the game to suit our individual tastes to at least some degree - I am sure the build time aspect (or any other perceived time sink) could be adjusted via a mod. The trading aspect is no more a time sink than previous X games without a jump drive but there is always potentially the option of addressing the lack of a jump drive via a mod too.

The flight controls are not that bad on balance, yes there are (or have been) bugs that make certain control setups unpleasant or impractical to use but overall I have seen worse. X3 after the adoption of the X-Box Game Pad is certainly no better than X4. This aspect is perhaps addressable but whether it will be or not is moot wrt the topic at hand.

[EmperorDragon]

The value of a digital product is ultimately determined by the production costs and that is the stinger, proper quality control costs ALOT of money and time relative to the development cost due to the fact that the testing scope expands as a product evolves - the more content developers try to cram in for the same sale price the lower the overall quality is likely to be due to developers often skimping on testing due to both cost and time reasons (time is money - the longer the time to market the more things cost at the end). There are things that can be done to minimise the re-testing impact of evolving a product but that is really quite a bit off-topic.

Material cost considerations (in the modern software market - optical media is cheap on the whole) do not really factor into the value of the product, just the profit margins in essence (i.e. rate of return). A 30 USD/GBP game is still worth 30 USD/GBP whether it is delivered digitally or physically. Digital delivery systems carry overheads either in terms of third party distribution costs or overhead related to establishing and maintaining your own download/distribution facilities.

As for third party dependencies, such things do not devalue the sale price of the product - just the profit margins for the developer (the exact impact will depend on either level of royalties or the level of cost for the third party components used). Overall, whether the 30 USD/GBP product is 10 USD/GBP of the developer's IP (Intellectual Property) or 30 USD/GBP of the developer's IP it is still 30 USD/GBP to the end user. The cost to the customer does not magically get reduced because the developer is using third party components (which typically have a price tag attached to them).

As for the resell potential, that may slightly devalue a product BUT considering the overall increase in production costs and inflation the end effect is neutral at worst (from a consumer perspective) or at best a small mitigating factor against the rising costs.

In the case of X4, we are led to believe that the vast majority of the product is Egosoft's own IP - they developed their own engine for X-Rebirth/X4 and while I have no doubt there is other IP involved in the product such considerations are moot. What we had at release with the base content of X4 is fair value for money in the current markets and Egosoft are still delivering extra content/features effectively for free (c/f V2.0 and V3.0).

We can dance around the houses about all the details that makes the baseline X4 v1.0 a fair level of content for the sale price, but such matters are on the most part moot. I have noted an unrealistic increase in the level of expectations of end users and customers in general - it seems people increasingly expect more for less. The value of currency depreciates over time (especially when governments engage in quantitative easing measures to address short term financing issues) and the cost of natural resources increase as they become more scarce - unlike in the X-games critical raw resources do not magically replenish themselves indefinitely in the real-world.

As a result of this, the cost of end-products and producing said products should go up. To a certain degree some of these cost increases can get absorbed/mitigated by the manufacturers but there are limits to this - physical items can become cheaper to produce due to improvements in manufacturing methods or the use of cheaper materials but software items on the whole do not become cheaper to produce. A software product that took 1yr to develop 10yrs ago will cost more to produce now and due to increased technical complexity in both the software and the operating environment, a similar product now (using current standards) will either cost more in terms of third party IP, take longer to produce, or both - ergo will by necessity cost more.

TL;DR Balancing content against development costs and end price is not a simple matter and it is unreasonable for anyone to expect the same level of VFM now as they did 10-20yrs ago - especially where software is concerned.

Production/distribution costs is far, far greater for a retail version than a digitally distributed one, why do you think Egosoft did not release a retail version? Because it would cost them too much, take too much more effort than just going digital, go ahead and ask them if you want to.

Simple fact is, in 2005 you bought a game from the mall when you went to do your grocery shopping, you got home, install it in a matter of minutes, maybe enter a CD key, and played it. No strings attached. It was always there no matter if your PC got stolen, went up in flames, gone nuclear... you just installed the game again and played it on whatever PC is nearby. If you grow tired of the game and there's no motivation for you to keep it in your library (yes, we actually had gaming library sections back in the day), you sold it off to a pawn shop or a friend for actual cash.

In 2015 and onwards, you first have to obtain a fast, uncapped internet connection, which can cost more per month to maintain than the game itself (prepaid internet costs even more per game and not per month). Then you have to register an account on a platform like Steam and log in, which exposes you to the minefield that is the internet. Now you actually buy the game but you have to download it, the download itself can take up to a day (even more) at affordable internet connection speeds. If you are past that, you cannot play yet, the game is first linked to your Steam account, sometimes you even have to "activate" it on another platform that requires another account registration and more internet data usage. Now you can play but, you have to take good care of your PC (and the internet connection you now require) because if the multitude of things that can go wrong with it causes your HDD to die or corrupts the data on it, you have to go through the whole download and activation hassle again. And because it is linked to your Steam account, you cannot sell it, it is practically worthless in monetary terms, sometimes you can trade it over Steam at least. And the real kicker is, you just don't enjoy games (at least not the AAA ones) as much as you did in 2005. I still play Rome Total War to this very day, there's a number of newer, more technically advanced ones but they just don't get under my skin, Rome still does.

The point is that developing and distributing a game used to be very expensive but, it made it easy to use by consumers independently without strings attached. These days development and distribution is cheaper and easier to get into but the consumer have to deal with additional costs, hassle and instant depreciation because of that. That has a significant impact on the product's value, maybe not for the priviledged but, definitely for the lower and middle-classes.

Now there is also a big upside to all this: Because development and distribution of games are much cheaper and easier to get into than before, many indies have sprung up who made truly amazing games with a tiny budget, completely blowing AAA titles out of the water. I myself rarely play AAA games anymore (except for ones like Rome!). Indie games may not look as flashy as their AAA counterparts but, there's just so much more innovation and bright ideas that keeps on drawing you back. And because I can deal with the additional costs and effort, my internet connection and Steam allow me to get hold of these great games.

This is also why I would continue to throw money at Egosoft and I will eventually buy all of the expansions as well, I love what X4 is shaping up to be and I would gladly rebuy it if it would happen to go retail one day, so that it could sit there right next to X3 in the "greatest games" section of my library. Yes, Egosoft cannot release stable games properly, yes they make mistakes and dodgy decisions sometimes, but I like their work, they always clean up after themselves (Rebirth turned out great IMO) and no one else ever even try to make a singleplayer game like this. Gaming has become an expensive hobby but, I will continue to support the devs that make that hobby fun for me.

[Shehriazad]

Production/distribution costs is far, far greater for a retail version than a digitally distributed one, why do you think Egosoft did not release a retail version? Because it would cost them too much, take too much more effort than just going digital, go ahead and ask them if you want to.

I'd like to see some hard proof of your statement...because Steam will take 30% of EVERY sold copy...even the ones' not sold on steam as long as they have an agreement and can be registered as a Steam game. The same goes for any DLC/MTX and Collectors edition upgrade.

Digital, in this case Steam, is chosen because it reaches a lot of people...not because it's a good deal in terms of money per unit. In their heads they just take that much of a cut because they say that you sell enough additional units if sold via steam to make up for the cut. Reality for X might be a bit different for new titles since "we" are very niche...but the OLD titles will still regularly sell, so not sure how it measures up.

I doubt that stores would take anywhere near that amount. And printing disks/cases can be like what...a few cents to 1€ per copy for normal cases?

I think most stores will only take cents/a small amount per sold unit.


If you are self published you can skip that step...but if you have a publisher you not only have to pay a 30% cut to steam...but even more to them.

Now tell me again how printing the games "yourself" and making deals with stores for a few cents per unit is more expensive than digital distribution???

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

…

TL;DR Balancing content against development costs and end price is not a simple matter and it is unreasonable for anyone to expect the same level of VFM now as they did 10-20yrs ago - especially where software is concerned.

Production/distribution costs is far, far greater for a retail version than a digitally distributed one, why do you think Egosoft did not release a retail version? Because it would cost them too much, take too much more effort than just going digital, go ahead and ask them if you want to.

Retail versions are in general an out of date concept due to the rise of digital distribution across the board. If Egosoft were to produce a shop retail version now then we would either be talking basically a physical media version that is tied to on-line DRM or a return to the bad old days of flaky physical media DRM with all the notional problems that go with it. Either way, it is moot where the topic at hand is concerned.

Simple fact is, in 2005 you bought a game from the mall when you went to do your grocery shopping, you got home, install it in a matter of minutes, maybe enter a CD key, and played it. No strings attached. It was always there no matter if your PC got stolen, went up in flames, gone nuclear... you just installed the game again and played it on whatever PC is nearby. If you grow tired of the game and there's no motivation for you to keep it in your library (yes, we actually had gaming library sections back in the day), you sold it off to a pawn shop or a friend for actual cash.

May be that is true for some people but I have NEVER resold a single game in my life (and do not know anyone that has either). I have some CD wallets and storage boxes with some older games. I still have an N64 with a few games boxed up that I do revisit on rare occassions when I am feeling nostalgic and the N-cube I did have I gave to one of my nieces years ago. The items I have kept I may rarely revisit but their monetary value is not worth the effort trying to resell them. Overall though, resale value has pretty much zero to do with the value of a product.

In 2015 and onwards, you first have to obtain a fast, uncapped internet connection, which can cost more per month to maintain than the game itself (prepaid internet costs even more per game and not per month). Then you have to register an account on a platform like Steam and log in, which exposes you to the minefield that is the internet. Now you actually buy the game but you have to download it, the download itself can take up to a day (even more) at affordable internet connection speeds. If you are past that, you cannot play yet, the game is first linked to your Steam account, sometimes you even have to "activate" it on another platform that requires another account registration and more internet data usage. Now you can play but, you have to take good care of your PC (and the internet connection you now require) because if the multitude of things that can go wrong with it causes your HDD to die or corrupts the data on it, you have to go through the whole download and activation hassle again. And because it is linked to your Steam account, you cannot sell it, it is practically worthless in monetary terms, sometimes you can trade it over Steam at least. And the real kicker is, you just don't enjoy games (at least not the AAA ones) as much as you did in 2005. I still play Rome Total War to this very day, there's a number of newer, more technically advanced ones but they just don't get under my skin, Rome still does.

Depending on where you are in the world, reliable and/or fast internet can be a challenge and some download systems are better/worse than others. In the UK, we do not have the best support for domestic internet facilities across the country BUT there are some fairly reasonably priced options and normally we can get reasonable internet speeds for not too much cost.

Steam on the whole is one of the most reliable download systems IME and while it may take quite some time to download some games, at least on some occassions there is the option to pre-load a game before it's official release date. Further more, the downloads can be archived on to external media and loaded on to other computers without having to download them again. The only restriction is that you can not run multiple copies of the same game but with DRM physical media controls the same was true then.

The point is that developing and distributing a game used to be very expensive but, it made it easy to use by consumers independently without strings attached. These days development and distribution is cheaper and easier to get into but the consumer have to deal with additional costs, hassle and instant depreciation because of that. That has a significant impact on the product's value, maybe not for the priviledged but, definitely for the lower and middle-classes.

Developing software used to be relatively cheap, but things have changed ALOT over the past 20years. Distribution may be easier, and indy developers may have a plethora of third party engines to build their products on, but the general cost of development has effectively gone up due to other factors. And before you try claiming I must be from a privileged background because I never engaged in used game (or other used product) reselling, you would be wrong and the topic of the past or current fiscal status of myself or my wider family is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The general rising costs of software products may be constraining for some, but that does not reduce the value of said products. It may mean developers in general have to accept lower day one sales but that is another matter entirely - the rise of DLC and reduction in content of released products is one way that developers in general help to keep the price of their products under control and accessible to a wider audience (from a fiscal perspective).

Now there is also a big upside to all this: Because development and distribution of games are much cheaper and easier to get into than before, many indies have sprung up who made truly amazing games with a tiny budget, completely blowing AAA titles out of the water. I myself rarely play AAA games anymore (except for ones like Rome!). Indie games may not look as flashy as their AAA counterparts but, there's just so much more innovation and bright ideas that keeps on drawing you back. And because I can deal with the additional costs and effort, my internet connection and Steam allow me to get hold of these great games.

The fallacy argument is development is somehow cheaper - this is far from true. Distribution might be due to the rise of digital downloads but that is another matter. The main reason for the rise and spread of indies is the increase in accessibility to commercial software distribution facilities. This is both a good thing and a bad thing because it allows for the sale and distribution of relative dross by indie developers who may abandon their products as quickly as they publish them - there are at least a few cases of this, laws regarding the sale of goods really need some revision to protect consumers regardless of where they reside in the world. Fortunately for us, Egosoft do not fall into that category and while we may complain about the quality of their released products they do make a sterling effort to support said products.

This is also why I would continue to throw money at Egosoft and I will eventually buy all of the expansions as well, I love what X4 is shaping up to be and I would gladly rebuy it if it would happen to go retail one day, so that it could sit there right next to X3 in the "greatest games" section of my library. Yes, Egosoft cannot release stable games properly, yes they make mistakes and dodgy decisions sometimes, but I like their work, they always clean up after themselves (Rebirth turned out great IMO) and no one else ever even try to make a singleplayer game like this. Gaming has become an expensive hobby but, I will continue to support the devs that make that hobby fun for me.

You can still store downloadable products in a physical library - off-line backups are part of the best practices element of working with computers in general whether in a domestic, commercial, or industrial environment. I know cloud storage is currently used as an easy access backup option in this day and age BUT it does carry with it the issues with download times. Cloud/On-line backups/storage are nice and convenient tools but it is unwise to depend too much on them.

But the Digital download/Physical distribution aspect is moot overall - the real issue is that some are unhappy with what Egosoft has released as X4 from both a content and mechanics perspective. On the content front, the arguments are severely flawed and the mechanics front seems to be mostly a fait accompli due to the current generation of the underlying X-Series game engine.

Personally, I am very much like yourself and love the format X4 has been delivered in - I am however sceptical about Egosoft's attempts to rebalance weapons/shields as part of V2.0 and hope their efforts to appease the most vocal complainers does not wreck the game for me.

[EmperorDragon]

Production/distribution costs is far, far greater for a retail version than a digitally distributed one, why do you think Egosoft did not release a retail version? Because it would cost them too much, take too much more effort than just going digital, go ahead and ask them if you want to.

I'd like to see some hard proof of your statement...because Steam will take 30% of EVERY sold copy...even the ones' not sold on steam as long as they have an agreement and can be registered as a Steam game. The same goes for any DLC/MTX and Collectors edition upgrade.

Digital, in this case Steam, is chosen because it reaches a lot of people...not because it's a good deal in terms of money per unit. In their heads they just take that much of a cut because they say that you sell enough additional units if sold via steam to make up for the cut. Reality for X might be a bit different for new titles since "we" are very niche...but the OLD titles will still regularly sell, so not sure how it measures up.

I doubt that stores would take anywhere near that amount. And printing disks/cases can be like what...a few cents to 1€ per copy for normal cases?

I think most stores will only take cents/a small amount per sold unit.


If you are self published you can skip that step...but if you have a publisher you not only have to pay a 30% cut to steam...but even more to them.

Now tell me again how printing the games "yourself" and making deals with stores for a few cents per unit is more expensive than digital distribution???

Simply put, stores are not that willing to print and package for you, they want you (or your publisher) to find another local distributor (whom your publisher would agree with) or import from wherever you are in the world yourself (and your publisher still takes a huge chunck of your sales).

Steam obviously take their cut just like any other publisher and distributor but, there's no physical stock, import/export, shipping etc. involved. All is done from the confort of your own home, it saves huge cost, the very reason why so many do it with little startup capital.

If physical retail is so much cheaper and easier than digital, why is everyone going digital then? Why is there no retail copy of X4?

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

If physical retail is so much cheaper and easier than digital, why is everyone going digital then? Why is there no retail copy of X4?

Short answer can be covered by the following bullet points:

• High-street game shops have been in steady decline since the rise of on-line digital distribution meaning physical distribution becomes less practical
• Physical distribution would require some form of DRM in order to protect the developer's IP - most of the economic physical based forms of this have been subject to various issues for end-users
• Digital distribution allows for users to have access to the most recent version of a given product without having to install a fixed baseline and then install the patches for it
• Digital distribution allows for a quicker time to market and offers the potential for world-wide exposure regardless of the state of the high-street stores in any given locale
• The rationale in general has little or nothing to do with relative distribution costs

[Tattoonation]

I think for the customer, it should not matter how much a product costs in production!

The end product is what matters

The basic tone of the start post was: Producers should deliver a finished product for the full price. Buyable DLCs should include additional content and not missing base content - that's the point!
XbtF to X3 AP created a huge backstory and with each part more and more characters and races were added!

X4 should have connected exactly where AP ended to produce the only true X feeling.
This would have needed a logical and comprehensible story, which connects directly and brings back to the player the complete X universe!
But we have got a storyless, uninspired, boring space game for FULL PRIZE, which does not allow the player to dive into the game and forget everything!

Now Egosoft is very smart and wants to sell the player all that by DLC, which would have actually belonged to the base game and now sells the game 2x ....... Gentlemen like!

Story, Borons, Split, Terrans ....... should be a FREE Patch NOT a Buyable DLC !!
Buyable DLC's should contain totaly NEW Content !!

I bought Collector's Edition on the day of the release because I actually thought you had learned about the X: R disaster! The first 2 DLC's are included in the purchase price.
But I'm not interested anymore. Egosoft take my money and be happy with it. You will not see more of me anymore!

Egosoft, I'm really disappointed

[tomtalk24]

I think for the customer, it should not matter how much a product costs in production!

The end product is what matters

The basic tone of the start post was: Producers should deliver a finished product for the full price. Buyable DLCs should include additional content and not missing base content - that's the point!
XbtF to X3 AP created a huge backstory and with each part more and more characters and races were added!

X4 should have connected exactly where AP ended to produce the only true X feeling.
This would have needed a logical and comprehensible story, which connects directly and brings back to the player the complete X universe!
But we have got a storyless, uninspired, boring space game for FULL PRIZE, which does not allow the player to dive into the game and forget everything!

Now Egosoft is very smart and wants to sell the player all that by DLC, which would have actually belonged to the base game and now sells the game 2x ....... Gentlemen like!

Story, Borons, Split, Terrans ....... should be a FREE Patch NOT a Buyable DLC !!
Buyable DLC's should contain totaly NEW Content !!

I bought Collector's Edition on the day of the release because I actually thought you had learned about the X: R disaster! The first 2 DLC's are included in the purchase price.
But I'm not interested anymore. Egosoft take my money and be happy with it. You will not see more of me anymore!

Egosoft, I'm really disappointed

Why would anyone buy the Collectors Edition without knowing what the games like first? Thats like booking tickets to a play for the first night, before the press rate it. Of buying a home before its built.

Depends how you value money, being a made up concept. But if you buy the most expensive offering of a product on pure speculation of how good you think its going to be, you only have yourself to blame, not Ego, not anyone else.
The games not going anywhere, you could have easily waited to see.

Lesson as always is, dont part with you cash however little it is unless you know what youre getting.

EDIT:
Especially nowadays where you can easily watch people play the game, and read reviews in the comfort of your own chair on the same day, if not sooner, of release. Its not like we need to wait for a weekly magazine to see whats what. Its all on tap. No excuses.

[Drake]

Everyone that has played an X series game knows that they do not start out squeaky-spanky bug free, but I am not bothered at all that they are talking about DLC when said DLC is down the development road. Hell it means to me that they are vested financially into working on this title and not giving up and instead putting their noses to the grindstone to deliver a good product. Theses people are professionals and working on a labor of love but that labor also needs to keep the lights on in the building. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but even with the bugs I have had more than my dollars worth to game time and if you read the patch notes they are working their arses off, so how about seeing that and cut them some slack.

Bottom line is yep, title released in a rough manner. VERY rough. Egosoft is obviously putting their backs into it for the patches though and are simply being transparent about where they are going, something a lot of game devs do not do these days. So look at big patches as a chance to start a new game, or come back after a break, chill out and have a cold one, and see hard work and commitment instead of shady drama where there is none.

Cheers Egosoft and keep up the good work and communication with your customers, it is much appreciated and I am looking forward to you marking off more and more bugs as you add more and more content to the game.

[Shehriazad]

Stuff

First of all I didn't mean the retail stores making he copies of course...you take that to the people who actually do that stuff for a living.

As for WHY people would go digital if physical can be much cheaper than steam....I already answered that in the original comment.


Steam has so much reach that they try to justify the insane cut of 30% just because they have a large user base.

They literally take one third of your every sale just for hosting your game and supplying some small cloud save service.

That's the sole reason GOG and the EPIC store even have success even though steam almost has a monopoly...devs are Hella pissed about the terrible terms steam forced them to take.

That's usually the amount a publisher that does tons of PR for you would take...and afaik Steam charges extra for promotions in many cases...

Tldr Physical IS cheaper but you run the risk of sitting on those copies for a while or even worse undersupply the market ...Steam is mostly used for exposure even though it's super expensive for small to medium devstudios

[CBJ]

Sorry to break it to you Shehriazad, but your post is factually incorrect about Steam on almost every count.

That being said, can we get this thread back on the subject of the game itself, not the merits or otherwise of different delivery platforms, a topic which has been done to death and never results in anything but arguments.