I agree with the idea that dropping the price wouldn't necessarily translate into lots more sales in this instance, but:
"Also, as weird as it is, spending 20$ on a dlc makes it more enjoyable than getting it for 2$. "
I don't understand that comment. Unless you're just talking about the knowledge that you're directly funding the developer and their next iteration of the game, why is it more "enjoyable" to drop 10x the price for something?
"Im not sure what copyright laws were a hundred years ago"
Sadly irrelevant to some degree, since many of the copyright changes have applied retroactively. That's part of the problem - works are created under a specific copyright agreement with the public, and then changed decades later when Disney or the RIAA decide they're not done making money yet, effectively ensuring that nothing new ever enters the public domain automatically.
Also, IIRC, part of the copyright here regards the lyrics, which are a more recent addition than the melody and are therefore less than 100 years old.
"This ain't Destiny, fantasy weapons on fantasy planets."
Hence me point about it being a culture clash between 2 differing mindsets.
"You claim that "We're already being nickel and dimed or forced to buy premium content that 10 years ago would have been included in the standard game." This is the company that's been updating Microsoft's Flight Simulator X. 10 and even 20 years ago, this is exactly what people were doing."
Indeed. But again you miss my point. This mindset might be fine for a niche product that's operating on a different business model. It's less acceptable for "normal" videogames. We've see this behaviour creeping in slowly over that time period, and we don't want people pushing things further over to that model.
"Sure you can get $20 toys, but hobbyists are not buying toys"
No, they're buying manufactured physical goods with relatively high marginal costs due to the demanded quality of the product and small market.
Now, I don't know the actual cost of developing one of these DLC packages (Will above seems to be assuming it's small,l others seem to believe it's much trickier), but the digital download version does not have those marginal manufacturing costs.
"Both Techdirt and Kotaku seem to me to be engaging in what I can only describe as nothing more than nerd-shaming, which is frankly cheap, lazy and unjust."
I disagree. If people are coming to this from the side of being gamers, then everything in the article is a very valid and a just concern. We're already being nickel and dimed or forced to buy premium content that 10 years ago would have been included in the standard game. We certainly don't want this kind of model to become standard.
Having said that, this appear to be a culture clash where the kinds of people who would normally use a physical trainset (the target demographic here) and people who would normally play other videogames have very different mindsets. Gamers will tend to be completest, while those who use model train will tend to pick and choose what's best for them. In this case, they just happen to have passed across each other by virtue of both using Steam, and the completists will naturally be shocked at what they'd assume would be targeted at the kind of person who usually buys from Steam..
It's possible they're wrong here, but don't accuse them of something when there's a much simpler answer.
I agree that the best way to look at this is probably as an equivalent of a physical trainset, where most people are unlikely to even try to buy everything available. It's a different mindset, even if it's represented in digital form here.
But, I also agree that this is DLC taken to its most ridiculous extreme, and it's not something that most gamers would wish to see anywhere near the titles they usually play.
Actually, you seem very confused about the definitions. You're certainly not using them in any way I'm aware of being standard. Here's my understanding:
DLC = downloadable content, usually downloaded separately from the game to add features or cosmetic additions to a game that cannot normally be accessed by other methods.
Microtransactions - usually small payments, often used by freemium games to speed things up, unlock items without waiting or otherwise access things that can be unlocked during normal gameplay with a non-monetary payment such as time or social features.
With what you've described in the crown store (a single motif will cost people $49.99 in real, cold cash if they can't wait to find it in the game) is a microtransaction since it's getting quick access to something that would normally need gameplay time - although I'd take umbrage with the "micro" part of that statement.
With things like the horse armour and the trains, they're DLC, since they're in addition to the normal game and cannot be unlocked during normal gameplay (as is my understanding).
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any reason why the description in the article is not accurate.
"Thanks for proving where the personal attacks come from on this site"
Yep, hypocrites will be called hypocrites and liars will be called liars. The truth is like that. If you would prefer not to be called a hypocrite, then don't be one.
I can't help but notice you used that as an excuse not to address any of my points, especially the ones where my experiences clearly differ from yours.
"and at least I provided a link to back up my view... you, well... not so much"
What would you like a citation for? Bearing in mind that you started by attacking me for giving my personal opinion, and that I've not really claimed any facts that can be verified. I simply presented my personal experiences, which you insist aren't true.
An honest person would be interested in discussing our different experiences. You, on the other hand...
"Hi Paul, glad you can manage to disagree with me across the board with nothing more than personal experience to back it up!"
Whereas you offered nothing but your personal opinion as well. But, yours count and mine doesn't, right? You weren't lying for once, but you're still a hypocrite.
"Bottom up: Harry Potter was actually an EXCEPTION to the rule, not the rule."
Citation, or are you pulling your personal opinion out again as if it counts for something? *Glances at the next few sentences* Oh..
"My time in elementary school and high school I consumed at least one fiction or non-fiction book a week as relax time reading"
Me too. Not so much my peers. There certainly wasn't a Potter-sized mainstream hot that transcended age, peer group and other demographics as far as I recall. Maybe I'm mistaken, but most kids my age weren't avid readers and were actually likely to mock and bully those who read for pleasure than take part themselves. I took part in reading group, and I had friends who also loved reading, but I'd be amazed if many of the class ever voluntarily picked up a book outside of the classroom.
"But hey, don't take my word for it:"
OK, that's a survey of Americans. Not relevant to my personal experience, though maybe yours. I'd like to see historical result, though - especially from 20-30 years ago before things like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games made it a more popular activity among kids again. It would also be nice to see comparative figures between different media and different regions.
"The disposible nature of TV shows should mean that books are easier to find, because they have durability and long term appeal."
That makes no sense, especially with your blathering about dead tree editions elsewhere. Pirated copies of something durable should be easier to find than pirated copies of something disposable? That makes no logical sense. Wouldn't it make more sense that people buy the more valuable thing and don't bother buying the one that's instantly disposable?
"A few will be doing the digital thing, but most of them are still dragging around dead tree editions"
Absolute bullshit in my experience, but whatever. I see lots of electronic devices from Kindles to phones to laptops being used, and I see lots of books being read on them. I also see a lot of paper items. You know what I also see? People using both items (for example, people who pick up a newspaper to read on the plane but have another device to use to watch a movie, play a game or - yes - read a book).
"They always work, you don't have to recharge them and you don't need a web connection to get to the stuff."
They're also bulky, heavy, expensive and a pain in the arse if you happen to finish the one you're reading but don't have a nearby second hand store to dispose of it before you get on your next mode of transport with a new book.
I can see you have your personal biases, but it's laughable that you're trying to pretend that they apply to everyone, and even more laughable that you're trying to tell me what me own personal observances are.
"But hey, disagree with me if you must."
What's the point? You don't bring facts, and you've already decided that my personal experiences are somehow inferior to yours.
"Oh, the sky is blue"
True. I wouldn't believe you if I didn't have independent verification, because you're not interested in honest discussion.
"put down the devices and get back to a nice, tactile, easy to handle book"
The main reason I bought an e reader is because those "easy to handle books" were way to heavy and bulky when I'm travelling (which I do a lot). The second reason was because I often found myself at train stations and airports faced with a crappy selection of overpriced, oversized book and I'd rather pay less to have a library in my pocket up front that I know I'll enjoy.
I appreciate your opinion, but it's not universally true by a long shot.
"But in general terms, it's way easier to find a pirated episonde of your favorite tv show than it is to find an ebook."
Of course it is - not only are TV shows consumed in greater amounts, they're also more disposable (a TV show takes an hour to consume).
That doesn't mean there's no interest, it just means that the general interest in TV is greater than the general interest in books. Something that I've heard bemoaned my entire life.
"I would also suggest that perhaps the younger end of the adult market may not be so inclined to buy a book to start with."
The market that grew up with Harry Potter and is directly responsible for reading all the YA fiction that's so popular at the moment? Unless you have data to back up your assumptions, I'd suggest you may be generally mistaken.
"The public just hasn't been interested in the "innovations" on offer."
Because they're not interested in the innovations? Or because DRM prevents them from moving their content easily between competing platforms, so they stick with the one they can use their purchases on? That's the problem - give people an open choice between platforms, and they'll move to the one that suits their needs. Restrict them to one platform, and they'll stick with the one where they bought the most content.
Every reader listed has the search function you're whining about (including Kobo). Several readers have the continuous scroll feature you're whining about. With hardware devices, there is a wide range of difference depending on the screen type & version, whether or not they're touch screen, etc., but every one I've used has a search function and newer models are significantly faster with refreshing the screen (older models were a bit slower due to limitations of the e-ink technology, not because people weren't bothering to emulate paper).
Perhaps you should research a subject before attacking people far more familiar with it that yourself.
"You're also telling them you want the $9 kindle version over the $45 hardback/$30 soft back."
...and by doing so telling them that you're happy to have DRM remove your rights so you can get a few dollars off. Why would Amazon ever give you a better deal as a consumer, since they're benefiting from your purchase and locking out real competition with the DRM?
By the way, which books are you buying with a $30 paperback price? Mind you, I rarely buy a book that costs more than $5, Kindle or paperback so maybe we have very different reading habits.
"The proper response is to not be so conceited as to tell others what the 'proper' response should be."
Telling you facts is "conceited"? You're probably doing a lot wrong, since you refuse to listen to anyone giving you proper advice.