Does anybody else find it ridiculous that the DLC doesnt reduce in price over time.
I bought ME2 & 3 on PS£ but my PS3 broke and i fancied playing them again so bought them, and as i wanted the full experience bought all the story DLC (kasumi, overlord, shadow broke & Arrival). It cost £22. You can buy ME2 for £5 and ME3 for £15 new on Amazon. Will the developer ever reduce the cost of DLC or are fans who continually come back for more going to have to continually pay over the odds for extra content, even on a game 2 and a half years old
No, you're not alone. I've seen this a couple of times before, but I'm not sure I agree. As far as the game makers are concerned full price DLC is probably subsidising the price reductions we expect on games as they age. They're a business, they're in business to make a profit, and they have a bottom line and shareholders or investors who expect an ROI. Such is life.

If we gamers, or enough of us, decide we're no longer prepared to buy DLC at the release price then I'm they'll eventually cave in and reduce it, but I'll bet my last cent they'll make up for it somewhere else. That's probably going to be higher release prices and so smaller price reductions for old titles, or possibly both. For multiplayer I'm sure they could find other ways such as the infamous EA suggestion of charging you for an ammo clip but I'm not sure we should encourage anyone to think harder about letting that genie out of the bottle. Let's just say cheaper DLC would mean dearer new titles and consequentially dearer old titles.

In my view that's actually worse for us than the current situation. Here ME1 & 2 go for (I think) about $20 Aussie each and all the DLC comes out at $60 or so, so figure on about 100 bucks. If instead the DLC was half the price and old titles went for around $35 each it would still be 100 bucks. So no different providing you enjoy the game. And of course if you enjoy the game but aren't fussed about some or all of the DLC you're getting a bigger bargain by having the base game price as low as it can be rather than the DLC.

But imagine I buy the games and hate them. Right now I'd only be down $40 because I'm not going to buy any DLC at all for games that I'm just not enjoying, am I? But if the games were more expensive so the DLC could be cheaper I'd be out of pocket nearly twice as much, and maybe even tempted to throw good money after bad by buying the relatively cheap DLC in an attempt to find something likeable. And if day 1 release was closer to $150 than $100 (we get gouged to buggery for games here in Oz anyway) it makes being among the first to buy a game an even bigger gamble than it is already.

In the end you're probably either going to end up paying around the same if you enjoy a game enough to get completionist about it, or actually more than you do now if you think a game sucks enough that you don't actually bother to get any extra content. As things are now you can get older titles dirt cheap, practically disposable prices sometimes like Steam sales, and then make a decision about DLC based on how much you like playing them. Better as things are, I reckon.

Edited by PsiFive, 09 November 2012 - 08:32 AM.