crankdawg wrote:I Must ask, what timeframe is that considered to be bothering to you?
Lets say a publisher releases game for 60$ in november of 2012, and over the course of a year, they have realeased 3 sets of DLC costing 10 Dollars each, and in November of 2013, They release a "The game: Super edition".
I can understand being upset about the above, however:
Lets say publisher realeases game for 60$ in November of 2012 and they develop 4 DLC packs over the course of 2 years (2014). They then release a "The Game: Super edition" 6 Years later (2022), with all of the DLC and the game for 60$, since very few people are playing the game now, this is an attempt to sell a viable version for later purchases.
For instance some old games from the 90s have done this, in order to make it a justifiable price for people much further after release.
I probably should have been more clear.
In my example lets say the original game sku is going for $45 at the time that the new "Super" sku comes out for $60.
If the total cost of DLC + the current cost of the original sku is greater than the "Super" version it upsets me. At that point I've paid more for something then it is apparently worth.
Before you counter with "That is just to offset the time the game has been on the market" I will say that I have waited to purchase a game for a good 6 months after it came out. I thought to myself, "This looks like a good game, the price has gone down, and there is a lot of additional content for it. I'll pick it up and the total cost won't be too much more than a new game." Then a couple months later I find that I could have saved $10-15 if I have waited a few more weeks. Not happy about that.
Well, To me that means that you paid more to play it earlier. (Have the game to enjoy sooner.)