Thanks all for the replys. I think a bit of research is in order next time. If I can be bothered I might fire off a letter, probably a waste of time but you never know! Or else, it's Ebay time ~ I can always sell it as unwanted Xmas gift. Merry Christmas all
X-men Destiny is probably worse than other games - most of which are already short, because it's linear and already short on content. If you're comfortable letting him play online shooters like Modern Warfare or Battlefield, those can potentially last forever.
Hey, linear games are awesome. I say it sucks because it's an X-Men game. Has there ever been a good X-Men game on home consoles?
Yeah, given how fast games drop in price it's just not worth paying full price. The last game I payed full price for was StarCraft II and that's because, well, it's fucking StarCraft. I would have promised my first born for that game. Some shitty X-Men game that's going to end up in the bargain bins in a month or two really isn't worth $60.
This is why I buy most of my games used because if I defeat them in under 7 days I can return them for my full purchase price
I felt that same way up until a few weeks ago. Batman: Arkham City - a great (but short) game, with arguably enough bits and pieces left over after the main story's done. However, I thought I'd be badass and go the used route and considered myself lucky to pick it up for $45... and less than a week after release to boot. Play it I did and realized quickly that Catwoman seems an important part of the game, especially since the game asks you every time you load it "are you sure you want to start without Catwoman?" Now I have to shell out for some microsoft points to collect Catwoman, some Riddler download and whatever else to get everything that should come with the game, all because I was too stingy to shell out an extra ten bucks for a new copy. I'm not so sure about Robin though... challenge mode doesn't thrill me, and he doesn't sandbox for trophies like Catwoman does. Those [insert noun of choice here, plural] that run game publishing companies are finally figuring out how to circumvent piracy and suck us dry!
Well, yeah. The whole DLC concept was created so game companies can just keep nickel-and-diming you. That the game nags you about not having Catwoman until you buy her is pretty fucking crass, though. I don't mind DLC when it's something that adds a new chapter or some fun (but totally optional) equipment. If they take a complete game, cripple it, charge $60 for the game itself, then a few bucks for each DLC (which are required to complete everything in the game), that's bullshit. I find it much more cost effective to wait until there's a full pack with all DLC, heavily discounted on Steam.
Not to mention people like me who are not on X-Box Live and don't have an internet connection to put into their game console. That shouldn't be a requirement.
DLCs are more or less digital expansions. The problem is how developers are using them as excuses for unfinished games. They should only ever be used for extras that are nice to have but aren't required.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but development costs for games are a hell of a lot higher than they used to be a few generations ago. I can understand why developers are trying to get a bit more money on the side even if it seems unfair from our perspective.
"Buy me and play me now. I'm the latest greatest game on the market!" Later in the game: "You want to play the bestest most fantastic quest in the game? Sorrrrrry, no can do! But buy the fancypants DLC and find out what you've been missing!" How's that fair? First time DLCs came to use was around when Oblivion came out and everyone complained about the horse armour being a DLC, but that's nothing compared to what I heard about Dragon Age which tells you about the DLC right in the game's dialogue when you can't access a specific quest line. That's pretty shitty. Either you put it in the game or you take out the content completely if it's not in the actual game.
Why? The store isn't going to care. You bought it (or, rather, your son). Does the story have to stop every customer and say "Oh, by the way, this game is really short. You shouldn't play it." Sure, you might get the occasional fanboy gamer who will get in your face over your game selection, but most are just there to work, do the transaction, and probably pay little attention to the game a customer is buying. As others have pointed out, the store didn't make the game. It is not their fault the game was too short. And what did your son think of the game? Did he like it? If he was the one who bought it, shouldn't he be the one, not his mom, who decides to pitch it or not? Your son apparently bought a bad game. It happens. What if the salesperson actually liked the game and that's why he/she recommended it. Why should the salesperson be given hell over their opinion? Yes, yell at the salesperson because you had a different opinion.
I bought the first Angry Birds on my iPhone and beat it within about a week. Does that mean I misspent my money? Absolutely not. To the OP: If this whole situation bothers you that much, write up a scathing review for Amazon and other online retailer sites and post it at each so that when people do actually do their research, they'll be able to determine whether they want to spend their money on this game for their kid --whether he's got video game kung fu master skills like yours, or not.
Games are also $60 a pop, rather than $40 or $50 they were over the past couple generations. And who is forcing them to spend so much? It's not that I don't think games should have expansions. Expansions are a relatively cheap way to get more revenue out of a game, and players can get some more stuff to do without spending a lot of money. But now we've got DLCs, where they rub it in your face that you don't actually have a complete game, and if you just spend a few bucks here and a few bucks there, maybe you'll eventually have the whole thing. I think at some point this trend might get bad enough to cause a significant player backlash, but it's not there yet.
And once again, the game you held up as an example of this gives you that "required" DLC for free with a new game purchase. All the other DLC that I'm aware of for Arkham City is skins and extra challenge mode maps. Calling zero-day DLC "nickle-and-diming" is only part of the story. This sort of thing is a direct response to the used game market. And by used game market, I don't mean people selling things on eBay, I mean Gamestop buying games from people and selling them with an 80% markup for $5 cheaper then new. This is a huge revenue hole for publishers so of course they're going to try and get something back out of it. This is also why many games are moving more towards games as a service and free to play. As to the cost of "previous generations" being cheaper... well that's not exactly true. An inconvenient truth: game prices have come down with time Mario 64 came out in 1996 with a shelf price of $70. If you adjust for inflation that'd be nearly $100 today! As to who's "forcing" the industry to make big budget games, the answer to that is pretty obvious when you look at the market. The games with the largest budgets (and marketing budgets) are what sell the most. Games that are smaller or look out of date don't sell nearly as well. If gamers want smaller, cheaper games then they need to vote with their wallet. The big publishers are all public corporations and like all public corporations they're required to make more money for their stockholders. They don't exist in a vacuum.
Ehm, games have always cost around 60 dollars/euros... On the SNES, the N64/PS1, the Gamecube/PS2/Xbox and now on the current gen...