Hitman (Multi-Platform) - Selling half a game?

[adzii_nufc]

Square Enix (Not sure if other developers are heading down this route, It's been mentioned that Rainbow Six: Siege will follow this route) Have literally made a plan to sell half a game to people.

http://3ebd2a0c0ea48a333aea-1f531def...op_upscale.jpg
No, That's not a joke, it's real and happening.

Quick walk though there.

Pay $34.99 and get everything on that left side but nothing on the right side.
Pay full price (Not more expensive than any other full game) and get everything on the left and right hand side.

Problem One: Both tiers will contain the same content on day one, anyone that pays full price for the full game will have to wait an extra three months to get their full game, that's silly and just downright daft.

Problem Two: As some of you have already figured out, $34.99 and $29.99 don't appear to make $59.99, So they're literally scamming you out of money if you later decide you want the full game at an upgrade price of $29.99 rather than originally paying the $59.99

This is a blatant and prime example of Developers and Publishers yet again throwing games out before they're finished. They can attempt to disguise it with daft terms like 'Intro Pack' and ''Full Experience'' 'Launch Content' 'Post Content'

Let's translate this. Intro Pack in consumer terms - Half a game
Full Experience - The full game
Launch Content - What we've managed so far
Post Content - The rest of the game you've paid for.

So, now we're passed this totally ridiculous plan they've hatched, the idea of the game sounds absolutely brilliant! 6 location sandbox hitman game!? Like a modern day Assassins Creed!

Despite the criticism they're now receiving for the way they're selling it, I can't help but be excited by the direction the game has gone.

[Stephen]

I personally don't see it like that.

I mean you could just wait till March and buy the complete package, or just not buy it at all if that pricing structure bothers you so much.

There could be very good reasons for splitting it, mainly that their production costs means that they can't fund the FULL title and best they can do is what is in the first half, people buying the full game will more than likely be funding the production of the rest of the game.

Or that they originally planned just the first half then got ambitious and decided instead of charging full prce for the game, change the pricing and give them selves time to make the rest of the game.

Also its not thieving to charge more for the titles individually, its more that you buy the full game and save money. Or are you just a glass have empty kind of guy?

In fact just the other day they announced the game is delayed till March as it was due in December.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/09/2...tails-revealed

On March 11, the initial content will be launched. This will include six campaign missions across three locations: Paris, Sapienza, and Marrakesh. For Contracts mode, there will be around 800 targets for you to craft your Contract from.


Also in March, the live content will begin rolling out. This consists of time-limited targets, weekly Contracts, and promoted created content.

After March, one new sandbox location will be added per month in April (Thailand), May (United States of America), and June (Japan). Along with the new maps, there will be new missions, signature kills, and Contracts targets.


Full access to Hitman will cost $60. But today a Hitman Intro Pack has been announced, which allows you to just purchase the March content, for $35. If you want access to the subsequent updates after that, you can buy an extra pack for $30. Pre-ordering the game grants you access to the beta, but this is only available for PC and PS4.

So it actually sounds like they are giving you early access to part of the game, rather than 'releasing' half a game.

So you are buying the full title to pay their wages to finish the game

Also chances are if you only paid for the first half and later decide to buy the rest of it, it will be in a sale or on offer.

[adzii_nufc]

I mean you could just wait till March and buy the complete package

Then I'd still have to wait 3 months to get something I'd paid for, I assume you mean wait the 3 months then buy the title as you eventually found out about the delay. If it was advertised as a season pass then it'd make sense.

There could be very good reasons for splitting it, mainly that their production costs means that they can't fund the FULL title and best they can do is what is in the first half, people buying the full game will more than likely be funding the production of the rest of the game.

Which would be plausible if the content was coming way later and wasn't already in development and releasing weeks after the first half of the game. As for reasons for splitting it, see below.

So it actually sounds like they are giving you early access to part of the game, rather than 'releasing' half a game.

The full game is advertised as more than what the intro offers. If what's advertised in the 'Full game' is not available on day one then it's half a game on release no matter what spin you try to put on it.

So you are buying the full title to pay their wages to finish the game

Except we're not though are we, simple calculations would tell you we couldn't possibly be funding the rest of the game given it starts releasing 4 weeks after the original launch. Square Enix are hardly bankrupt.

People can say they don't have a clue what Square Enix are doing but let's be real for a minute here. We've just had developers lay into the DLC market and effectively got the ball moving on stopping it. EA being one of those. I know exactly what they're doing and how they're doing it. I've seen this before.

You want to be the first company to stick a middle finger up at the DLC market but unsure how to still turn a profit and release content. Simple really, you take a look at Rockstars GTA V model and make your own version. Rockstar release free DLC to their online gameplay without losing money, simply because it's funded by Shark Cards, in game purchasable currency. Those that buy it are essentially funding DLC for free release.

Square Enix have applied this logic, the intro pack will literally fund DLC for the future for those who purchase the full game. It's no coincidence they've been talking about future updates being free for a while.


So you could say I jumped in head first, thought about it for a few hours then grew a light bulb over my head when I realised what's actually happening here.

I'm not saying that theory is 100% accurate but it's not unrealistic. I don't have an opinion on that, I've played GTA:Online long enough not to care how they released DLC free and still made money.

What's your opinion on that model? I think it perfectly explains the Intro model and the $5 difference in prices.

I realise I do post with some bias and without knowing personally how you game, It's probably down to me being predominantly a PC gamer, for you it's £40 on a disc, no problems no 'explicit'

For me, it's pay £40, get a horribly done unfinished port. DayZ is the exact reason you'd get me saying games are unfinished.

[Stephen]

The $5 difference is nothing. Frequently buying parts of something costs more than buying it together.

Also if it's not out till March but you can buy it in November then surely you'll be helping fund it and gauge interest. Its been delayed from November till March to give them longer to work on it.

I love the Hitman games but will wait till at least June when all content should be out and no doubt it will be on an Xbox deals with gold offer at some point.

You are paying for early access.

Nintendo did that with the Mario Kart DLC. Buy them separately for 9.99 each or buy both for 14.99 early even though the first wasn't out and the second was about 6-8 months away.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Stephen

The $5 difference is nothing. Frequently buying parts of something costs more than buying it together.

Also if it's not out till March but you can buy it in November then surely you'll be helping fund it and gauge interest. Its been delayed from November till March to give them longer to work on it.

I love the Hitman games but will wait till at least June when all content should be out and no doubt it will be on an Xbox deals with gold offer at some point.

You are paying for early access.

Nintendo did that with the Mario Kart DLC. Buy them separately for 9.99 each or buy both for 14.99 early even though the first wasn't out and the second was about 6-8 months away.

You can pre-order any game in advance though, this isn't a kickstarter, it isn't a funding cycle, surely you've read those last paragraphs, admit it, it's a good theory

The $5 difference is everything, they add up and as above, it'll still help the game turn profit whilst releasing free DLC.

I'd completely agree with what you're saying with early access and splitting it if they hadn't made the effort to acknowledge future patches and DLC for the game after those initial releases would be free, with that in mind surely that theory makes sense? There's simply no way to release free DLC without pulling a trick, this has to be that trick.

The only other way would be to literally clone Rockstars technique bit for bit and have in game micro-transactions.

Right, People like me and you will buy the full game at it's retail price. People that are iffy or weren't even considering might just turn their head for a $35 punt. That $35 was money they were never going to get off said person and thus allows free DLC! Anyone that was going to buy the game at full price still will, they've lost nothing but gained a way to make DLC without charging.

It's genius

So you understand where I'm coming from, it looks like early access from a normal perspective but if you take into account the possibility of above, then it's not early access, it's a reason to split the game into two versions. People that buy the full version are happy. People that weren't going to buy the full version may now buy that Intro pack and basically fund free DLC. The only way they could achieve that was to split the game and release it at different times, you couldn't split it and release it on the same date because it wouldn't work and releasing one part gives them an idea of how they're going to fair with a free DLC model.

Crazy? Just wait till I start defending the lack of single player story mode in RB6: Siege.

[Stephen]

Well the fact is the second part of the game will be released over 3-4 months so realistically the could still be working on making it right up till it comes out. So claiming the are tricking or conning folk isn't necessarily true.

They could just have delayed the full game till June when it was totally complete but they are giving it to people in parts so you can play part of it earlier.

Good marketing I'd say. Might make more people buy in to it. As if it was full price with a season pass people wouldn't go for it.

But charging less for the intro and also buy the complete game and save $5 sounds way better and more tempting than say $50 plus $15 for the other content.

[adzii_nufc]

Here’s how the publishers are going to change gaming. Firstly, the game will be released digitally first later this year, and then through retail stores in 2016. Second, No season pass. That’s right, no. Season. Pass. You read that right. Third. No DLCs. Again, that’s No DLCs. Square Enix and Io-Interactive believe that forcing people to pay for more content that should be int eh game anyway is a terrible business practice. Their words were ‘wrong approach’. and as a gamer, that sound exactly right. Everything will be included in the $60 price tag. Finally, someone gets it.


Instead of releasing paid DLCs or having micro-transactions, Square has promised that all of that will come, and be free with game updates. New content, new missions, and new locations will be offered in regular updates. These are huge changes, both in terms of the business practices of game companies and the delivery of their content. Square Enix has put itself ahead of the curve in that regard. Now its only a matter of waiting until December and beyond to see just want sort of impact those moves have made. Will the assassin community really come together as planned? How will the new content delivery work? Just how much will all those choices matter? Is this the first game in a trend moving away from DLCs? only time will tell. Check out the reveal trailer below.

That's from Forbes, that pretty much says I'm not the only one that has the theory they're using a split game as a means to release free DLC, I have no problem with that either.

[Stephen]

That does not mention your theory at all. It simply says that for $60 you get everything and there will be NO dlc.

Aside from the digital version releasing part of the game early. The retail copy will come later and be the full version.

So best just waiting for that. No part game at all.

In the future any extra content will be free once you pay the 60 bucks.

[Kabaal]

Sadly this seems to be the current trend with video games, it seems like everywhere you look games companies are coming up with new ways of getting money from the customers earlier and earlier. Kickstarters, greenlight, paying for alpha and now this half a game up front and half a game later are taking over from just flat out buying a finished product. Combined with the other trend of removing parts of a game and selling them as DLC it's a sad state of affairs.

[Stephen]

Well if you wait for the retail version then you are getting the full game.

[adzii_nufc]

No, but it sums up the DLC path. A company that's apparently pushing early access to fund the last half of a game is pledging to release free DLC... Yeah that doesn't quite add up.

Then again neither does your suggestion of basically kickstarting a game. This isn't some steam greenlight game, it's a massive franchise with a massive company backing it, square Enix are not bankrupt.

[Stephen]

Well Shenmue is a massive franchise and it used kickstarter to help fund its third title. They even have Sony backing them up too. So it doesn't matter how big a company or IP is.

Well having said that $60 will get you the full title, and anything new after that will not cost a penny.

Not sure where the problem is there?

No one is forcing you to pay for the game now, nor are they saying to have to play the half a game. Just wait till its complete and released on disk. The half a game is for digital download only.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Well Shenmue is a massive franchise and it used kickstarter to help fund its third title. They even have Sony backing them up too. So it doesn't matter how big a company or IP is.

Well having said that $60 will get you the full title, and anything new after that will not cost a penny.

Not sure where the problem is there?

No one is forcing you to pay for the game now, nor are they saying to have to play the half a game. Just wait till its complete and released on disk. The half a game is for digital download only.

Sony are distributors, they don't have any financial ties to Shenmue as a series, they will merely finance the PS4 version of the game themselves, You're comparing a Development team that's been out of action for a lot of years to a multi million pound company... that just doesn't work, so yes whilst I see the point you've tried to make, the comparisons are just completely different. Square Enix actively own and develop Hitman via their own team. I'd also like to point out that the 'massive' Shenmue has never ever turned a profit. They were both financial flops. I think the point in bold is a pretty stern reason for no company to be backing them and for them to raise the money required themselves.

There isn't a problem, I said the DLC idea was genius. I then gave two options. DLC isn't just free, it comes at a cost somewhere and for Hitman, splitting the game is that cost. If not then the game would be full of micro transactions.

A member of the team already confirmed this isn't Early Access, so ruling out that and the other possibilities leaves the option above.

The way they're doing it is new but the idea itself is not. Rockstar are doing this as we speak. As long as Rockstar continue to generate revenue from Shark Cards, they'll continue to offer free DLC for their Online platform.

Contribution based DLC.

We're in an era where DLC is thrown down our throats from every angle with different and horrible pricing on each. It's that or this.

I'm happy with this over that.

The end cost is future games will now have some form of in game micro transaction, that's not a bad thing either if done right, Rockstar did this brilliantly.

Square Enix on the other hand have done something new, whilst half of the fanbase are still up in arms screaming early access, a few of us are actually looking at this from another angle.


Square Enix:

Everything we ship on December 8 will be completely finished, it will be a very polished experience. It's also going to be a very big game. There are other products that sell a game for $60 and then try to sell you a Season Pass for another $40 on top, so you spend $100 or $120 for all the stuff that happens later on. We said no, we don't want to do that."

The same article also ruled out micro transactions. So that leaves the split game method.

It's like this: We all buy the game at $60 like we normally would. Others that are on that tipping point now have a chance to essentially get half of the game for half of the cost (nearly) these people are the people that were never going to purchase the game. they'll still make their $60 sales they were expecting and on top of that get $35 for every person they were never going to get with a basic release model. With that $35 and essentially extra $5 if said person also upgrades, you've literally found a way to make the game profit and be able to dish out free DLC to the full paying customer.

It's 100% utterly genius.

[Stephen]

Its not utterly genius at all. Its the way games used to be. You bought a game when it came out and that was it, the full game nothing extra at a later date or buts you couldn't get without buying extra things.

The way nintendo did the MK8 dlc was similar in a way. Announce two DLC packs which you could buy early, one was due out within weeks, the other was 7 months away or something. So in effect paying towards their development costs no doubt.

Square-Enix are developers and publishers, Sony do publish and in effect develop too as they own a number of companies now.

If Shenmue failed to make money it was the huge cost of the game, hence why they probably chose to use crowdfunding to get it made, and to show Sony there was still a market there so they would then drop money on the project.

[adzii_nufc]

Except we now live in an era of gaming that's all about DLC and extra money, when one company finally reverts to a 'Full game no bs' model I think they deserve praise, they've found a way to make a profit whilst giving gamers anything on top for free and the way they've done that is brilliant. Rockstar did it first but to do it without micro transactions, that's genius.

Me and you, we buy the game for $60 and that's it, we play as long as we want and as long as the content keeps coming, those who buy at $35 are basically allowing the rest of us to have free DLC and they have the chance to upgrade at any time for an extra $5 on top of retail, which you pointed out was basically nothing. You simply can't give away 'Free DLC' there's no such thing, they've found a way to provide a no cost DLC solution with minimal cost to the consumer.

There's no loser to be had from this.

Games of old were released then done. the 'DLC Era' didn't take off till a third of the way through the Xbox online takeoff. You had bits of DLC before that.

There's a difference between content that could've been given at the start (Fit on a disc and so forth) and content that couldn't fit on a disc or idea's that didn't exist until after the game released.

The first is generally the garbage that plagues FPS games like CoD.
The latter is something you'd find in World of Warcraft or GTA.

Square Enix are opting for the latter, and are opting for a free approach, it hasn't been done before and the way they've achieved it deserves the genius tag I give it. They're the first to try something different and if certain companies are to believed, EA will be next to fall into this line.