With DLC, patches, Demo's that cost money. *there's one so far that I found, $2.50 for downloading the demo in Japan, too lazy to google it* And tons of sequels not including the price of video games today. Do you think video game companies are getting too cheap and lazy before this generation of console? Do you think games are being rushed out because now patches can be made to fix any problems games have instead of taking their time to iron it out before it hits store shelves?
I don't think they're getting lazy or cheap in most cases. The main reason why they do this is because of a marketing practice. Companies want to make more money and to do that, they use eye-candy incentives like pre-order bonuses and day one DLCs. With the next gen consoles coming out, companies are trying to make as much money as they can before they come out. I have no problems with patches. Patches are mainly because they fix problems they find after the game's initial release. Sometimes, they add content, but for the most part, they fix the problems in games (dem Bethesda patches though. Too many to count -_-) DLCs is kinda either a hit or miss. If the DLCs are day one DLCs or is CLEARLY overpriced and not worth the price (CoD DLCs for example), then the DLCs are clearly meant to make consumers spend more money. If the DLCs are either free or add a good chunk to the game, then I don't see a problem. Never heard of pay demos so I can't say much, but it doesn't sound right.
Definitely not in my opinion. There's some games here and there, like for random example Sonic 06, that could have used more time on it to fix things and make the game better but most gaming companies are at least somewhat good about this. I do feel like some games get rushed and a number of them don't turn out as good as they would have had they been given more time. One thing I especially dislike is when a company promises a game of a certain series a year. Having a new game from the series every year isn't necessarily a bad thing but it requires the company to give out these games and can lead to rushing just to get it out this year. It also can lead to the series to get old more quickly. Patches are good in my opinion. If the game has few little bugs that need to be fixed that they didn't know about or didn't find in testing then making a patch to fix that is good. Most companies I've seen don't make tons and tons of patches for one game. For DLCs I'm dependent on what it is. If it's something huge plot related it should defintiely be in the game. If it's a little side story then a DLC is perfect for that imo.
What I don't really like is when a company release a game and at same day (or few months after) they release also a DLC. When a Game is so great that you WANT MORE OF IT SO MUCH, it makes sense for the company to launch some DLCs like Batman (harley queen), or the ones from Skyrim.. but when the game is not even out and there is DLCs already like INjustice... All these micro transactions sucks!
Usually a month before release, video games have gone 'gold' meaning they're all done and finished with and ready to be distributed. During that time, developers usually take a vacation period till the game's release, or more recent and commonly they continue working on DLC, patches or other such things to do with the game. As such, when they complete it before the game's release, it's likely they'll have patches or DLC ready for day one. I don't see it as a problem, the patches mean an improved gaming experience straight away and DLC can mean more content. Arguing whether the DLC was originally planned to as part of the original game or as further add on is impossible to conclude and will be speculation altogether. I see it as beneficial in a enough ways from enough publishers to warrant my support of it.
Cashcom. I mean Capcom. They're infamous for on-disc DLC and milking customers for everything they're worth. Admittedly, most of Capcom's games are pretty good(or amazing in Dragon's Dogma's case) but it's sad to see how greedy they can be. Day One DLC is debatable as to whether or not it's really good or bad. It's a case-by-case basis really. On-disc DLC is almost always a bad thing to put it in because it implies that the game could have shipped with that DLC already unlocked. Making a triple A title means you put in a lot of money for nothing in return until the game's release. This puts a lot of pressure on developers because if that game flops...they're kind of screwed. That's why new IPs are so risky. Making a sequel is cheaper and easier. There's less risk involved. If that's all a company puts out though, yeah they're being cheap and lazy. It can be helpful to them however it it brings in enough profit to allow a new IP to be considered. Of course, that all goes down to "what if" scenarios. Basically, I don't care so much about DLC being around but seeing sequels that add nothing genuinely new does make a company look like they're being cheap and lazy.
