Paid DLC in X4

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by Rei Ayanami » Thu, 10. Aug 17, 21:54

Personally, i don't mind DLC.
As long as the game engine doesn't change in huge amounts, so a DLC/"Expansion pack" can be made to deliver new content, i dont see how buying a DLC is any different than buying a new X game without having to start all over again (X3:Reunion/X3:TC/X3:AP).

So in that regard (not having to start all over again) DLCs are actually better than releasing a completely new title, not to mention that it's also probably more easier for Egosoft, less product management stuff and they can adjust and produce DLCs depending on peoples feedback, rather than taking a risk and making a whole new game.

Heck, as long as the price is fair and it's enough content per DLC i wouldn't even mind DLCs for X4 on a regular basis until we have the entire old X-universe back. :) At least with Egosoft i can be assured that they give a damn about their game... at least in the long run (*hint hint, jab jab @ X:R release* j/k) :P and that it's a game in can enjoy for hundreds or thousands of hours.

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by Rei Ayanami » Thu, 10. Aug 17, 22:02

ezra-r wrote:We all want sandbox here, that's clear. When some say they don't want pure sandbox, it means what we also don't want a brainded space game where you can go anywhere and do anything but there is little thing to do and the things that exist make little sense.

The universe must have wonders, things to do, hidden stuff, hidden quests, misterious crap, exploration, economy, etc.. so one does not get bored and lonely.. in the sandbox.
Yea, that's something i'm missing in the current unmodded X:R, everything feels a bit static... (enemy) ships are always spawning at the same locations reagardless whether it makes sense or not, indestructible stations, limited galaxy-wide Ai trading, limited station building locations.... the DLCs added some exploration aspects which i really appreciate (disco-meow mine, anyone?). hope X4 improves in all these points.

Vector_Gorgoth
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat, 23. Mar 13, 01:49
x3ap

Post by Vector_Gorgoth » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 01:51

Nanook wrote:
spankahontis wrote:Why not just return to the classic Expansion Pack model?....
Kindly explain the differences between an "expansion pack" and "paid DLC"? The only difference I see is that one comes in a box and the other gets downloaded from the internet. :wink:
That's actually a good question. Like the question of defining a "heap" there are some obvious corner cases, but, in general, the definitions are fairly simple.

To begin with, medium doesn't matter - whether an expansion or DLC is distributed physically or digitally is irrelevant.

"Expansion" generally refers to what I'd call a "soft sequel" which leverages the assets from the original game (and, optionally, other expansions) in addition to adding its own content. X3:AP is a good example; so is SC:BW. Both AP and BW are installed on top of the base games (TC and SC, respectively); both have their own plot and mission structure; both reuse assets from the base games, but also add new content and/or features in order to expand the game - hence the term "expansion". Either can be played as its own game, without ever needing to touch the base game directly.

"DLC" refers to additional content which is strictly a part of an existing game. For example, adding a new sector (or sectors), items, ships, equipment, etc. - or even new mission trees that fit into an existing game. DLC can range from frivolous (new skins) to substantial (an entire new mini-campaign); the "downloadable" part of "DLC" is incidental of the fact that nowadays it's a lot easier all around for players to download content than it is to deal with physical media and all the logistical nightmares that entails.

In blunt terms, X3:AP or even X3:TC were not worth the cost when they were released, but as they were expanded upon, and new content added, they grew to justify the original price tag - and since that content was free, in the form of patches (free DLC combined with bug fixes, in other words), it never felt like I (or anyone else) was being shortchanged by the rather woeful state of either game upon release. I've never regretted paying for X3:AP (or any prior X game, for that matter), despite the fact that it was just an expansion pack, because it was enough of a self contained game that paying for it seemed justified.

I don't mind paying for significant expansions to a game - if a game is worth $40, then adding the same amount of additional content is probably worth another $20 - not $40, because the original cost also included the price of developing the underlying engine, and that work does not need to be duplicated in order to add more missions, e.g. What I do mind is paying 25% of the base price of a game for, perhaps, 5-10% of that game's worth of additional content. That feels like a blatant rip-off.

td;dr: I don't want to have something that should have been included in the base game costing additional money. If I can't be absolutely assured that the content (eventually) available for X4 is about the same, for the price, as the X3 games, then it's not a risk I'm willing to take. If the amount of content (and, by extension, the number of hours I can waste playing the game) is equal to or greater than the current version of X3:TC, and Egosoft decides at that point to make a big addition and charge whatever that additional content is worth (accounting for the depreciation I mentioned above, unless they decide to make massive additions to the game engine), then I'd have to problem paying for that. Whether it's "DLC" or an "expansion" is less important than whether or not it feels like I'm being squeezed for cash.

Assailer
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun, 25. May 14, 17:45
x4

Post by Assailer » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 06:28

I don't mind DLC content as long as it's not a mandatory purchase to enjoy the base game. So far with X:RB this has been true, so i'm relaxed on this.

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by Rei Ayanami » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 11:47

Vector_Gorgoth wrote: td;dr: I don't want to have something that should have been included in the base game costing additional money.
The question is : What does "should have been included in the first game" really mean? That's a highly subjective topic.

Lets take X:R as an example : Should the Teladi expansion have been put as a free update to the base game, even though development for it started way, way after the base game was finished?

Some will say "new guns and sectors should always be free updates because these are things that should've been in the base game in the first place", others will say "every additional feature that has been developed after the release of the base game is ok as part of a DLC, because it cost additional development cost".

RAVEN.myst
Posts: 2585
Joined: Mon, 20. Jun 11, 13:16
x3tc

Post by RAVEN.myst » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 12:29

ezra-r wrote:We all want sandbox here, that's clear.
Ahem! Not clear at all - a couple of us have *clearly* indicated the contrary, thus "we all" clearly doesn't apply. ;) That being said, I'm not against the sandbox itself, but I AM against it being ALL/ONLY (or even primarily) sandbox... (Oddly enough, I thoroughly enjoy throwing the stuff around and building castles out of it while pursuing plot goals - but once I run out of the latter, the sand on its own and for its own sake gets really really dry, tasteless, and boring.)
-
Boron passenger: "You must hurry - my testicles are drying out!"
-
Born on Lave, raised on Freeport 7...
-
The Write Stuff

Skeeter
Posts: 3665
Joined: Thu, 9. Jan 03, 19:47
x3

Post by Skeeter » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 13:59

What raven said. Sandbox is ok sometimes but can't be the main game without a campaign or story based missions etc as a large focus. At least for me. If I wanted to build empires or what not I'd play a 4x game like gal civ 2, if u wanted fleets of ships then its homeworld. Or building stuff the sim city 4. But for x games I'd like a first person space ship game where I can do a lot of things but it has to be story driven so I actually care about something in the game in order to load up the game so I can progress the plot. I know some others do just want the sandbox but not everyone is purely playing for that. Most players probably don't even view this forum so hard to tell what the players are after except this very quiet forum that doesn't see a lot of traffic for a while now.
[ external image ]
7600x cpu 5.4ghz 32gb DDR5 5600mhz 6700XT 32" 1440p mon

Ezarkal
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed, 22. Apr 15, 02:27
x4

Post by Ezarkal » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 14:28

As for me, I always saw the campaign as a prolonged tutorial through various game mechanics. While not exhaustive nor perfect as a tutorial, it still helps the player to familiarize with many of the most important features of the game, and provides a strong basis to learn the rest by yourself.

That is an essential part in bringing new players to the franchise. The absence of such in-game tutorial was probably the main reason why I never really jumped into X3. I had to find almost everything by reading about it somewhere, instead of being able to learn by playing.

And, as was being mentioned earlier, it's also fun to have the option of partially directed gameplay. So I think the campaign is important in many aspects. Whether it should be restrictive or not is another question. Restrictive being like XR, where some systems, equipment and quests are locked until you reach a certain point in the story, versus X3 where you could go everywhere, do what you want from the start and jump into the campaign only when you felt like it.

On that last point, I would actually like to see some late-game campaign arcs. Non-generic chained missions that you actually need a reasonable amount of resources to succeed. They could be totally unrelated to any main and/or tutorial campaign and allow for more advanced gameplay, open new story arcs, change portions of the universe, etc. (The jump drive and xenon invasion quests in XR are barely scratching the surface of what could be done, and in my opinion they fail to affect the game's universe. They are good entry point to the concept, but should be an inspiration for more complex stuff.)
Humans are deuterostomes, which means that when they develop in the womb the first opening they develop is the anus.
This means that at one point you were nothing but an asshole.

Some people never develop beyond this stage.

RAVEN.myst
Posts: 2585
Joined: Mon, 20. Jun 11, 13:16
x3tc

Post by RAVEN.myst » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 15:28

Ezarkal wrote:On that last point, I would actually like to see some late-game campaign arcs. Non-generic chained missions that you actually need a reasonable amount of resources to succeed. They could be totally unrelated to any main and/or tutorial campaign and allow for more advanced gameplay, open new story arcs, change portions of the universe, etc. (The jump drive and xenon invasion quests in XR are barely scratching the surface of what could be done, and in my opinion they fail to affect the game's universe. They are good entry point to the concept, but should be an inspiration for more complex stuff.)
+1
This is where X3TC got it half-right, and where X3AP fails somewhat - in the latter, it is quite easy to complete all the plots well before climbing high up the available tech and asset options. The same is even more true for Rebirth. It would be really nice to be able to embark upon a (perhaps elective) late-game plot that harnesses fleets and tactics to a greater degree and depth than do any of the ones to date have done. I agree that those jumpdrive and Xenon invasion plotlets, as an example, could be the prerequisites for 'unlocking' a late-game campaign.
-
Boron passenger: "You must hurry - my testicles are drying out!"
-
Born on Lave, raised on Freeport 7...
-
The Write Stuff

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Post by Ketraar » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 16:33

AP being an expansion to TC its kinda assumed you have played TC and it would be rather painful for those that, while forced to start from scratch, want to get in to the "meat" of it quickly. Which is why when new players ask which one to choose as a fist game, I always say start with TC, even if just for the main plot and then switch to AP.

MFG

Ketraar

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 17:01

The problem there is largely economic imo. X games have a limited fanbase as is, and late game content would only even be played by a relatively small fraction of that small fanbase. So when allocating scarce resources its hard to blame Egosoft for not developing endgame too much, especially when the rich modding scene of earlier games contributed greatly to endgame.

Ideally that sort of endgame content can develop naturally from the sandbox, i.e. the player builds an empire then declares war on the Paranid. In x3 there were many problems with this, such as the nature of the jumpgate network. In XR it is much more potentially interesting but still limited in its interactivity by Jobsfile-style spawning.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

Vector_Gorgoth
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat, 23. Mar 13, 01:49
x3ap

Post by Vector_Gorgoth » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 18:51

Rei Ayanami wrote:
Vector_Gorgoth wrote: td;dr: I don't want to have something that should have been included in the base game costing additional money.
The question is : What does "should have been included in the first game" really mean? That's a highly subjective topic.
It's only slightly subjective, and only in certain respects.

The bare, naked minimum is that a game should not have less content or fewer features than its predecessors. Expansions are somewhat exempt from this (assuming they're priced as expansions, and not as full games).
If X3 allows fleet control, logistics, automated trading, station building, complexes, ship equipping and remote control, commodities trade, stock market, piracy, lasers/missiles, semi-dynamic economy, etc. -- then X4 is not "feature complete" unless it has the same features (if a feature is removed, it needs to be replaced with another feature which is at least as desirable as the first). That's the bare "don't insult me, here" minimum - but most of the time, a sequel is expected to have MORE features than its predecessor, and for good reason - the development team (hopefully) learnt how to implement the set of features in the prior game; it should not take more effort for them to reimplement them in a sequel; if they're able to reuse or extend the engine from the predecessor, then there's even less reason for them to remove stuff or skimp on new features.

Likewise, the overall size and variation of campaigns and missions available shouldn't be less; it doesn't have to be more (though that's nice), because that stuff takes the same amount of work every time, but it shouldn't decrease, either.

Then there are other considerations: for a game with no predecessors, it needs to be "feature complete" - ANYTHING advertised in the pre-release hype should be included for only the base cost of the game; no exceptions. In other words, the game should deliver on the "vision" communicated to the players pre-release before the developers even THINK about charging for additional content. Anything required to make the game playable (and not hideously tedious or repetitive) is mandatory. Anything required to make the game actually fun for people who don't have obsessive-compulsive tendencies is mandatory.

After that, it's a bit more subjective. The selection of, e.g., ships and weapons in a space game, should be robust in the base package or in free updates/DLC. If a race has only a few playable ships, and you have to pay to get something approaching the selection in a previous game, that's another insult to the players. Likewise, weapons, missiles, upgrades, etc. However, the specific criteria are harder to nail down - especially when counting or considering redundant or seemingly identical items in a previous game, or stuff nobody used, etc.

Another case where being forced to pay is unacceptable is where an "oh duh!" feature is thought up post-release and implementing it is very technically simple. The turbo booster is a good example of that sort of thing - even though in that case it was a player mod, it could have been hacked together by a good dev in an afternoon, if they'd thought of it (assuming the scripting in this game isn't totally insane - I haven't looked at it much).

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 19:55

A great number of sequels have less content and less features than their predecessors. For example, Dawn of War II had fewer factions and less campaign content than Dawn of War I.

MMOs that have received sequels - or comparing new MMOs to older MMOs - are also a case in point. Newer games typically have way less content than older ones that have received additions.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

User avatar
The Q
Pancake Award Winner 2017
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri, 20. Nov 09, 21:02

Post by The Q » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 20:47

Vector_Gorgoth wrote:
Rei Ayanami wrote:
Vector_Gorgoth wrote: td;dr: I don't want to have something that should have been included in the base game costing additional money.
The question is : What does "should have been included in the first game" really mean? That's a highly subjective topic.
It's only slightly subjective, and only in certain respects.

The bare, naked minimum is that a game should not have less content or fewer features than its predecessors. Expansions are somewhat exempt from this (assuming they're priced as expansions, and not as full games).
If X3 allows fleet control, logistics, automated trading, station building, complexes, ship equipping and remote control, commodities trade, stock market, piracy, lasers/missiles, semi-dynamic economy, etc. -- then X4 is not "feature complete" unless it has the same features (if a feature is removed, it needs to be replaced with another feature which is at least as desirable as the first). That's the bare "don't insult me, here" minimum - but most of the time, a sequel is expected to have MORE features than its predecessor, and for good reason - the development team (hopefully) learnt how to implement the set of features in the prior game; it should not take more effort for them to reimplement them in a sequel; if they're able to reuse or extend the engine from the predecessor, then there's even less reason for them to remove stuff or skimp on new features.
I’m afraid but I severly disagree with this, which brings us back to the initial statement of subjectivity regarding the term “feature complete“. The realisation that a feature is not as fun as thought or doesn’t work as good as intended can always lead to it being removed. Also removing features in order to streamline interaction possibilities, interface and controls can mean a lot of improvement. Thus the number of features and functionalities has no real impact on what constitutes a “feature complete“ game at release. Or in other words quality always trumps quantity.

Meeting expectactions which are created during the pre-release campaign is what I would agree with. Although, this is a tricky thing too, as everyone awaits different levels of feature implementation based on what was promised. If they would avertise an epic story, then I, as someone who has played a couple of X games already, would expect a good plot in the 5 to 7 hours range (without too much ware hauling) at best. Someone who is used to playing Bioware games may expect something completely different though.

As for seemingly simple features being available in paid DLCs, while I can understand the sentiment of wanting to have these for free, the reality of programming and developing games is that even simple features require development time to be made. Of course, when I buy a game I somewhat expect that next to bug fixes also some of these little features will be implemented for free and are part of patches. However, realistically this cannot go on forever. The ongoing argument about modders being able to do things in their sparetime too, doesn’t really strike me as a counter argument. Continuing this thought the whole service industry would have hard time making money. Also you will find that “hacking things together“ is not what developers want to do. This is also why in most case, when a mod idea was implemented into the game, it was really just the idea that was adapted and not the actually code. (I’m not sure whether your Turbo Booster example was an actual reference to X Rebirth, as the Booster was part of X Rebirth from the beginning. Actually, I cannot think of any X game where I had to pay to get a Booster addon of some sort.)
Morkonan, Emperor of the Unaffiliated Territories of the Principality of OFF-TOPIC, wrote:I have come to answer your questions! The answers are "Yes" and "Probably" as well as "No" and "Maybe", but I'm not sure in which order they should be given.
xkcd: Duty calls

RAVEN.myst
Posts: 2585
Joined: Mon, 20. Jun 11, 13:16
x3tc

Post by RAVEN.myst » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 21:31

Sandalpocalypse wrote:A great number of sequels have less content and less features than their predecessors. For example, Dawn of War II had fewer factions and less campaign content than Dawn of War I.

MMOs that have received sequels - or comparing new MMOs to older MMOs - are also a case in point. Newer games typically have way less content than older ones that have received additions.
Sadly, all too true. Working as a gaming journalist for nigh on 2 decades, I saw this happening for quite some time, a gradual but inexorable attrition of content yet accompanied by rising pricing/monetization. Essentially, a consumeristic trend born of gaming's success as an entertainment medium, "maturing" from a niche one to a mainstream one. Unfortunately, this has led to widespread dumbing down of titles more or less across the board, as well as shortening of content duration in order to:
- Create a vacuum to be filled with paid DLC later
- Make the titles more "consumable" - reduce a title's longevity and you end up increasing turn-over for subsequent titles (appealing to what I call "the ADD generation")
All too often, this practice is covered up by the excuse that the story-driven content is "merely a tutorial/springboard" and that the game's focus is intended to be "multiplayer-centric". A particularly disgusting example of this was Modern Warfare 2, whose entire campaign can be finished quite easily in just a few hours - when I tested that on release (yes, a good number of years ago, now), I at that point abandoned that franchise entirely (though, to be fair, I had never been an enthusiast in any case - but this was the final nail in the coffin.) Also, game makers are increasingly relying on bling to dazzle and seduce their attention-deficient audiences into short-lived purchases, and to distract them from whatever game/s they may have been playing at the time (after all, they want to increase turnover - which is understandable to a degree - doesn't mean I have to like it, though, or participate therein. :D heheheh)

Consequently, as a result of this trend, I have found myself falling back more and more on older classics (the X3s and also X2 being significant contributors in this regard, as well as some other highly time-intensive older games), and no longer investing funds in new titles, finding that the return on investment has become dismally poor of late. (In my opinion, btw, the first Dawn of War is far superior to the second.) Luckily, at around the time I made this decision, I also moved out of gaming journalism - or perhaps it wasn't luck but an inevitability, as my views became increasingly incompatible...
-
Boron passenger: "You must hurry - my testicles are drying out!"
-
Born on Lave, raised on Freeport 7...
-
The Write Stuff

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by Rei Ayanami » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 21:55

Vector_Gorgoth wrote:The bare, naked minimum is that a game should not have less content or fewer features than its predecessors.

If X3 allows fleet control, logistics, automated trading, station building, complexes, ship equipping and remote control, commodities trade, stock market, piracy, lasers/missiles, semi-dynamic economy, etc. -- then X4 is not "feature complete" unless it has the same features (if a feature is removed, it needs to be replaced with another feature which is at least as desirable as the first). That's the bare "don't insult me, here" minimum.
What if a game is so overeloaded with features where the sequel having less features but making these kept features so much better actually makes the game better?
What if a feature was implemented in the predecessor but totally unneeded or even unwanted by the player base?

For example i'd totally be fine if for X4 they scrapped the idea of me having to search and hire a competent pilot for each of my small ships and i wouldn't mind if they didn't replace it with anything.
Then there are other considerations: for a game with no predecessors, it needs to be "feature complete" - ANYTHING advertised in the pre-release hype should be included for only the base cost of the game; no exceptions. In other words, the game should deliver on the "vision" communicated to the players pre-release
I disagree.
From experience i can tell you that during game development there are tons of ideas that pop up "wouldn't be that cool?" "yea, we should definitely try that" and which, during interviews about the game, gets mentioned as a planned feature. But then it turns out, after implementing a prototype of that idea, that the feature - when used ingame - isn't really that fun so it gets scrapped. Should game devs still implement these features even though it turns out that they were not fun, just because they said they planned to have that feature ingame?
Another case where being forced to pay is unacceptable is where an "oh duh!" feature is thought up post-release and implementing it is very technically simple.
That i wholeheartedly agree with.

Sparky Sparkycorp
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 8074
Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
x4

Post by Sparky Sparkycorp » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 23:38

X4 isn't out yet so this seems a little premature to me personally. That said, DLCs for X Rebirth were substantive (unique settings with unique mechanics) with the first offered free for a while, and the second tryable pre-purchase via a free demo. Sure, Egosoft could introduce gold ammo (intentional Eve reference) but the signs are not bad in that regard.

Graaf
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri, 9. Jan 04, 16:36
x3tc

Post by Graaf » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 10:28

Lets look at Rebirth then:
Rebirth (30) + TO (10) + HOL (10)
So for 2/3 of the games current price you can double the amount of space you play in? That makes TO extremely expensive for just 1 system.

But if I use HOL price/system, who is willing to pay an additional 450 to get the other missing systems from X3?

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 10:40

RAVEN.myst wrote:
Sandalpocalypse wrote:A great number of sequels have less content and less features than their predecessors. For example, Dawn of War II had fewer factions and less campaign content than Dawn of War I.

MMOs that have received sequels - or comparing new MMOs to older MMOs - are also a case in point. Newer games typically have way less content than older ones that have received additions.
Sadly, all too true. Working as a gaming journalist for nigh on 2 decades, I saw this happening for quite some time, a gradual but inexorable attrition of content yet accompanied by rising pricing/monetization. Essentially, a consumeristic trend born of gaming's success as an entertainment medium, "maturing" from a niche one to a mainstream one. Unfortunately, this has led to widespread dumbing down of titles more or less across the board, as well as shortening of content duration in order to:
- Create a vacuum to be filled with paid DLC later
- Make the titles more "consumable" - reduce a title's longevity and you end up increasing turn-over for subsequent titles (appealing to what I call "the ADD generation")
All too often, this practice is covered up by the excuse that the story-driven content is "merely a tutorial/springboard" and that the game's focus is intended to be "multiplayer-centric". A particularly disgusting example of this was Modern Warfare 2, whose entire campaign can be finished quite easily in just a few hours - when I tested that on release (yes, a good number of years ago, now), I at that point abandoned that franchise entirely (though, to be fair, I had never been an enthusiast in any case - but this was the final nail in the coffin.) Also, game makers are increasingly relying on bling to dazzle and seduce their attention-deficient audiences into short-lived purchases, and to distract them from whatever game/s they may have been playing at the time (after all, they want to increase turnover - which is understandable to a degree - doesn't mean I have to like it, though, or participate therein. :D heheheh)

Consequently, as a result of this trend, I have found myself falling back more and more on older classics (the X3s and also X2 being significant contributors in this regard, as well as some other highly time-intensive older games), and no longer investing funds in new titles, finding that the return on investment has become dismally poor of late. (In my opinion, btw, the first Dawn of War is far superior to the second.) Luckily, at around the time I made this decision, I also moved out of gaming journalism - or perhaps it wasn't luck but an inevitability, as my views became increasingly incompatible...
Games are cheap now though. It is actually remarkable how cheap games continue to be. An AAA game that cost $60USD in 2000 cost is equivalent to $85USD today. And decent computer hardware is cheap to acquire as well. Gaming is cheaper than its ever been, except for subscription models.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

Sparky Sparkycorp
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 8074
Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
x4

Post by Sparky Sparkycorp » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 13:58

Graaf wrote: That makes TO extremely expensive for just 1 system.

But if I use HOL price/system, who is willing to pay an additional 450 to get the other missing systems from X3?
Comparing system counts between Rebirth and earlier games looks even more inappropriate than comparing sector counts.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”