Mortal Kombat 1: Khaos Reigns Announced - Story Expansion, New Fighters And "Big Surprises"

I hope it’s more than the data mines suggested.

After my shame of pre-purchasing digitally the “komplete” edition of 11 on Switch, which was broken and ended up not being komplete anyway (all my fault, I know), I’ve decided I’m waiting until the super komplete XXXL edition of MK1 is 9.99 on Xbox.

I’m no good at online anyway, so I don’t need to stress on missing out on the seasonal reskins I can’t win anyway.

Rooting for the game though!!! Come on, give us a good surprise tomorrow that isn’t just meh movie characters and gender swapped robots (of which I’m fine with, I just want more!)

I haven't touched any of the post-Omni-Man DLC so even if I do end up deciding to get more DLC for the game, I'll probably wait until it's on sale.

I really hope the "big surprises" mean adding more to do in the game than just slog through Invasions and have ugly $10 skins shoved in your face every time you turn it on.

I hope everyone who has this game can enjoy it, but I’m also glad I grew up in another era of gaming where you bought it once and it was complete, worked, you owned it forever, etc. This business model makes me glad I’m not super into fighters ✌️

@Blast16 when was that? Fighting games have been releasing upgraded versions of the same game for ages. You may have forgotten the multiple iterations of Street Fighter II, or Mortal Kombat 3, which was upgraded to UMK3 and then to Trilogy. And back then, you couldn’t even just buy the new content, you had to buy the whole game again. Not saying in supportive, but it’s been this way in fighting games for ages.

@Blast16 Arcade cabinets got revisions all the time and even back in the day there were four separate major versions of Mortal Kombat 3 if you count the N64 and PS1 versions of Trilogy as separate entities.

@OFFICIALMichi I'm very excited for the gender-bent characters if it means female characters that AREN'T wearing heels. Seriously, it looks so bizarre to me! Thankfully, some characters now have alternate skins that sport sneakers instead.

The leaked guest characters are soooo random, haha. As much as I dislike the superhero guest characters in my MK, they should've at least stuck to a theme, IMHO (like how MKX was horror and MK11 was 80s/90s action movies).

@Casco Agreed but the difference was they had to do enough to justify a new game or a warrant it being called an update. Nobody would splash out the price of a full game if it was the exact same thing they already had plus one or two extra fighters.

DLC (for the console market) started as a novel way for companies to expand their game across the core fanbase by offering unplanned add ons without having to develop or pay for a full game.

Now they are just lazy cash grabs and it's a way to dish out a game in tiny chunks. They might work for the mobile market that is largely free to play, but not for consoles. Particularly when the game announced DLC before it is even finished.

Some DLC is even the price of a full game.

@littlegreenbob nah those street fighter 2 different editions came out every year and one less than a year. You got burnt if you bought one only for a much better version to release shortly after. The option was stick with what you had or fork over full price for updates, balances even the ability to both play ss the same characters and sometimes a few extra characters.

It was a much worse situation

@littlegreenbob That's not true at all. Street Fighter 2 had like 4 versions that all came out for the SNES in the span of 2-3 years. They were all basically the same except for a few characters (and one was a faster speed). And they were all $69.99

Except now people are paying for a physical edition that doesn't even have the base game on the cartridge/disc, and DLC costs as much as (often exceeding) the price of a full game, which is instead tied to a single console/account, and comprises even more content that isn't on the supplied media, which may not bother digital customers, but it royally screws over physical gamers.

Smash Ultimate being another classic example. Two paltry DLC packs (the DLC characters combined cost as much as the base game for only a tiny, tiny fraction of the base game's content), and the Mii costumes combined also cost that of yet another full game. On what planet would a re-release (hell, two re-releases) of Smash Ultimate not have been preferable considering how ridiculously overpriced the alternative is?! I could at least gift/sell/keep the existing copy and/or use it across multiple consoles. DLC doesn't afford that convenience.

While I'm not condoning Capcom re-releasing essentially the same game repeatedly, I'd take that over how things are done now any day of the week.

I didn't mind expansions on PC back in the day, as they were supplied on their own disc(s) (alternatively, I don't mind the practice if the DLC is DRM-free), but I absolutely hate how widespread the practice has become on consoles.

@Casco @Blast16

don't forget the arcades, too. Marvel vs Capcom 2 had actual pay-to-unlock characters in the arcade cabinet.

don't let nostalgia obfuscate the fact fighting games were cash grabs before modern DLC.

@SillyG what are you asking for here a smash bros ulimate version 2 physical release a year later with piranha plant to byleth included and a final version Ulimate Ulimate released a year after that with fighter pack 2s characters ending in Sora?

So you could pay full game price three times total?

If anything smash brothers did dlc correctly.
1-it was developed after the initial game, there wasn't Sora sitting on the cart waiting for a code to unlock him etc
2-its entirely optional, no true endings or massive online advantages were locked behind DLC
3-it offered season passes or individual purchases. If you weren't interested in sone characters no need to actually buy them, though obviously pass saved some money.
4-it kept the game relevant and popular.
5- the price isn't as bad as you think it is.
Dlc is always more expensive as has to cover additional ongoing development.
Here it's 6 euro for a challenger pack there's plenty of games looking for that price or more for a handful of cutfits/skins or ingame currency or early unlock of a particular weapon or mode etc.

11 is still better than 1. Let's see how the story expansion will be, to make me come back to 1.

Ooh not "Big Surprises" well if that's the case, count me in.... 😄

@Edu23XWiiU completely agree 1 had alot of promise but was just a bit bland with where the story went .

@stinkyx what super heroes do you think would have fit?

I think Deadpool was a missed opportunity with his zany gore (tbh Havik is not far off from a DP character). Heck, even Wolverine.

As much as some people joke about it I think The Deep would be a good pick too.

Hoping for more women that aren’t in heels too! (Rumor has it Sonya may be on the way)

@RubyCarbuncle They have been updating it so it looks on par with MK11's port. Played it last night and I feel it runs better since the latest patch, but I didn't test it enough. I was playing it a lot a month ago and some of the stages cause the game to run noticeably slower than the other versions to the point it really makes combos hard to perform. Loading times are 30-60 seconds for a match compared to 6-10 seconds on other platforms, which is the biggest downside IMHO. Online was easy to find matches (a month ago, at least), and the community SEEMS friendlier, so if you have no other option, I'd say it's worth looking into on-sale.

@OFFICIALMichi Haha, I think Wolverine and Deadpool are technically Disney characters now, but maybe that would open up the possibility of all those Disney mods for the PC version of MK1 becoming actual guest characters

@Roibeard64 @9CazSonOfCaz It was a different world back then as there was no DLC.

Game studios had to keep their IP relevant, and also it was the only way to implement quality of life mechanics. There may be 4 fighters different between the two but there were still additional moves and different balance.

MK is just a cycle of release core game, add 2 or whatever DLC packs, then announce a new core game. Rinse and repeat.

And what do you get for your DLC? You can't take it to the new game (unlike Pokemon).

It's not that Game Studios today have a problem with pumping out a new game every 6 months. They can't because game development today is much more involved. DLC becomes a way of charging people for phantom editions while they work on the sequel in the background.

@SillyG Agreed 100%

One thing to also remember is that expansion packs (like the Sims) were a way of extending the game. So basically you could take the entirety of what you spent months building into a "new" game. For PC gaming this is important.

With a version 2 or version 3 you have to start over losing everything.

For games like Animal Crossing I'd say an expansion pack would be preferable to a new game. I've started from scratch so many times I'm not even looking forward to the next release.

DLC, especially planned DLC, is in many instances a lazy cash grab. And as you said it has become the norm.

Wake me up when MK1 Ultimate is released.

Ghostface and Animalities coming back Is awesome! Never thought if see those return.

@littlegreenbob : I don't understand why people would want to replay Animal Crossing games from scratch, but with respect to New Horizons' DLC, I agree that it should have been its own game (like the 3DS spin-off that it was based on), as what you do on the new island is virtually inconsequential to the main part of the game, and it could have given players a more open sandbox without the need to invest in the base game (both in real-world money and time).

I would also say the same of Pokémon Sword/Shield and Scarlet/Violet's DLC. I see no reason why these couldn't have been spun off into their own games. Reuse existing assets, whatever, but for the absurd asking price, I would never have bought either had they not been issued revised physical releases.

@Blast16 I was a teenager in the era of SF2 Champion Edition, SF2 Turbo, Super SF2, and Super SF2 Turbo. Things ain't quite as rosy as you're painting, though I acknowledge that modern DLC and GaaS practices suck.

Nice to get Noob Saibot and Animality back but still why is Bi-Han never remain Sub-Zero for long?

How bad will this expansion run on the Nintendo Switch? 🤔

@axelhander I’m quite happy with my complete Genesis copy of SFII Special Champion Edition, my SNES SFII Turbo, and my other ports. I guess what I was trying to express is, as a kid, I only had the Genesis game and was happy with it. When I became aware (much later because the internet wasn’t really a thing) that other expanded versions came out, I never felt ripped off. I’m certainly not saying I had it better, but I am sharing a happy memory from a different time in gaming. I like to have a finished game on a card I can go back to and enjoy, that’s really all I was getting at. It’s harder now in this gen with downloads.

@Blast16

While I get what you're saying and totally respect that opinion, that was also an era when Torna - The Golden Country, Future Connected, and Future redeemed would have each, by necessity, cost $60 and when (as others have pointed out) if you wanted balance updates and new characters for a fighting game, you shelled out full price for a new edition.

I think the two things at play here are a bit of nostalgia for an age that never existed, where we tend to look at the past, especially a past we didn't experience first hand or experienced as children, with rose colored glasses that filter out most of the reality of what it was actually like, and ... if you're forgive me saying so, a bit of a naïve interpretation of the word "complete".

At some point you have to release your game and start making money. You generally know this before you start development; you have a budget, and based on that budget, you can pay your staff until a given day. If the game isn't out by that day, you need to fire everyone, your game never comes out, and everyone is sad. Today, developers often contuse development past that point by using the funds generated by the games initial sales. Which is great! It means a lot of people get paid for a lot longer and the developer has a chance to react to feedback.

But eventually you need to make more money, or you're back to firing everyone (or getting a new budget for a new project) and stopping development. You can extend the time you are working on a project by charging for some of this post game work you've done in the form or DLC.

There is simply no world where Smash Ultimate launches with 89 fighters. There is a world where it is releases with 76 and never updates that roster, and one where it launches with 76 and charges for 12 additional fighters, while giving away 1 for free.

And that second world, the one we live in, is WAY BETTER. The people who only want to pay once get the game that would have existed in a world without DLC, while other people have the OPTION of spending more to add additional content. It literally the best of both worlds. No one is worse off, and we have more options. Heck, even the guy who hates DLC got a free fighter out of the deal because OTHER PEOPLE were willing to pay for the DLC. How awesome is that?

That isn't to say some bad actors don't misuse the system. That absolutely happens. But, back to the "age that never existed" thing, it's always been that way. There is no world where bad actors don't release broken, incomplete games and trick people into paying for them. There is a world where bad actors release broken, incomplete games and never fix them, and one world where they sometimes fix them with DLC. And again ... that second world is (marginally) better. In one, you wasted $60 on something that will always be trash. In the other, someone sold you an unstable product for $60 and then scammed you out of an additional $20 to make it playable. Both worlds suck, but we have to pick one. Even if we could eliminate bad actors, the world where we have nothing but "good" paid DLC and no bad actors is better then the world were we have neither.

And besides, in a world without paid DLC, I don't get to see Ryza in a swimsuit. Who would want to live in that world?

I was looking at review videos of Mortal Kombat 11 yesterday and I got to the Microtransactions and maaannn.... I'm so glad Smash was one of the first games I got on Switch. I've decided I'll just restart Story mode and give it another spin. If I get an itch for Mortal Kombat I'll just play my favorite - Mortal Kombat 3 Ultimate for Sega Mega Drive.

@HeadPirate
I get what you're saying. But its horses for courses.

Back in the days of arcade machines, companies had to stay fresh. Your arcade machine would be played for 2 or 3 months at most then sit in the corner gathering dust. To stay relevant the big competitors had to keep their games fresh. Turbo edition, championship edition, super mega edition. Hey kids get in line for our next brand new game!

Unfortunately for the console market it probably wasn't a concept that translated well, but the editions were still spaced apart nicely and would have warranted stand alone releases. We were willing to buy them too because it was about taking something new and exciting we saw at the arcade and having repeat plays in our own home.

It's not nostalgic fondness. I don't have any kind of buyers remorse.

DLC is different. You look at Mario Kart DLC and you have a community that is still playing a game several years after its release. So why not get a small team of graphic designers to pump in a few more character models, tracks, and reward the rusted on community? And somebody has to pay for it right? It is unplanned, reactive and relevant. It's honest work.

When a company includes DLC fighter packs as part of its development life cycle then that is nothing more than dishing out the game in chunks. It's not that the loyal fan base get more, it's that the unloyal fanbase get less. From a budget point of view the DLC is being built in production with the main game. There is no turning it off either because people from launch day have already pre-purchased it. Just like Pokemon Go, the game is fed to users in small chunks and they pay every metaphoric and literal step along the way.

There is nothing honest about this kind of DLC. Console developers have looked at models that worked in the mobile market and are looking how to apply that business model to their own line of work.

If DLC is announced as part of the games release that is enough for me to not buy it. I have fallen for these kind of gimmicks too many times.

@SillyG so much of XI and 1 require an online connection. I can still play MK2, SSF2, etc. We won't be able to say the same for MK11 onward. WB and NRS frame these games as disposable, they made the games, so I'll take their word for it and just avoid em.

Hope everyone's getting their moneys worth while I am replaying the first three games on retro consoles! <3
(After having spent my entire early teens playing them originally)

@littlegreenbob

I hear this argument a lot and I get how it sounds logical at a point, but this idea that it's include in "part of the development cycle" or not is completely arbitrary, and I think it comes from not fully considering how budgets work.

Your development cycle is determined by your projected revenue. If you are going to sell a game once for $60, your production budget is based on that. Let's say that means your going to have time and money to make 10 fighters.

If you are going to sell your game once for $60, then have a $20 DLC, you now have higher projected revenue. You have more money. With more money, you can increase your production cycle, and now you can include 12 fighters. Add another $10 DLC, your projected revenue goes up again. And so on.

Those are the two worlds you get to choose from. One where the game has a lower budget due to lower projected sales, a shorted development cycle, and less content, or one where it has a higher budget because it's charging for DLC and has higher projected sales, a longer development cycle, and more content. Either way, you know that going into the project. From day one, you have a budget of X based on Y projected sales. If you're going to release paid DLC, that's included in your projected sales and increases your budget.

Ignoring bad actors, you're looking for a world where despite having lower projected sales because there are no plans for DLC, the developer still allocates the increased budget that includes the extra money from the sale of DLC. That obviously can't happen. The money needs to come from somewhere. Even if this was a valid argument, the argument is actually just "developers should spend more money developing their games". It has nothing to do with DLC at this point.

I think the worst part of this argument comes to light if you look at a single developer planning a game and DLC and "judge" them based on this argument.

If you are going to sell a game with no DLC and project that will make you a million dollars, so you plan a million dollars of content, you're "good".

If you are going to sell a game with DLC and project the base game will make a millions dollars, so you spend a million dollars on content for the base game, and you project the DLC will make $200,000 so you spend $200,000 on content for the DLC, you are bad, evil, greedy and bad. Even though you put out the exact same base game at the exact same price.

And if you follow the most common REAL WORLD scenario, which is that you expect to make a million off the base game and $200,000 off the DLC so you spend $1.1 million on content for the base game and $100,000 on content for the DLC ... you are still evil, even though you gave people buying just the base game $100,000 more content then they would have got without DLC.

I think that's ... a bit naïve. So is the argument against "games in chunks". If "The Xenoblades Saga" was a $60 game (Xenoblades 1) with two $60 paid DLC (Xenoblades 2 and 3) ... how is that a worse value for the player then releasing 3 games at $60 each? There is also WAY more game play verity and engine upgrades in something like Xenoblades 2 and Torna the Golden Country, a paid DLC, then their is in something like Mario Kart Wii to 7. Saying one is bad because it's DLC but the other is fine because it's a new game is, again, pretty arbitrary.

@Scollurio I hear that - enjoy your retro games! 👍 That’s what I was going for in my above comments…

@HeadPirate I was referring to my complete in box copy of the game that I get to enjoy to this day. Manual, game, case, box art.

Your opinion is also much respected, but you’re coming from an analytical side where I was expressing joy surrounding a video game. Not sure why a difference in perspective makes me naive for having a different opinion. Oh well.

When I was 12, I wasn’t thinking about budgets and balance updates. I enjoyed the little I had.

Yes, if one wants to think of 76+ characters in a game as beating out a game from 30 years ago, that’s perfectly fine. Smash is a polished game, I own it, but it’s not my favorite kind of fighter.

If I play a game and really enjoyed it but wanted more in the past it was like this oh maybe it will sell enough for a sequel to come out in 3-5 years.

DLC allows us now go great I enjoyed that game and theres now an option to get another slice of that enjoyment without necceseraily waiting years for a sequel if i really want it. It also keeps developers in work and teams intact between the main releases and helps ensure companies greenlight the sequel if demand was there for dlc.

You of course i judge each individual DLC offering on its own merit including value vs cost of course before deciding to buy it or not.

The market simply isn't the same as was in 90s or 2000s. If a company can't use dlc to cover the additional development time and cost they are just going release base game and that's it or they will go to microtransactions.

If you dont like DLC and will never pay for same thats entirely your call but games arent incomplete without the dlc (barring some shady pratices from bad actors eg characters being on the disk from day one needing a code to unlock).

The base game is the main course and dlc is an optional dessert or as splatoon puts it a side order.

@Blast16

"Naïve", like "ignorant", isn't an insult, or even a word with absolute negative connotation. It's just a description of a state. I am ignorant to the rules of completive ski jumping, because I just don't know anything about them. I am naïve about Sanrio's business practices, because I know a lot about them, but tend to ignore the parts I don't like because of how much I love Hello Kitty. I really didn't mean to offend you in any way, or even suggest there is anything wrong with being naïve.

NES games have release versions. They had limited production runs, and if sales warranted a new production run developers often took that opportunity to update the game. You might own the 1.0 release cartridge, which has bugs, spelling or translation errors, or incomplete assists compared to the 1.1 version which you don't own. In extreme cases, bugs in early versions could cut the player off from some content, which would become playable in the later releases. Additional music and sounds were often added.

Manuals often had mistakes that were fixed in later production runs. Sometimes maps and other physical items were added to later production runs based off player feedback. Heck, box art occasionally changed.

If you look at the cartridge based systems, version updates between production runs were the norm, not the exception.

So I'm choosing to describe this idealistic situation you are describing, where you bought a game and that game was the "complete" and fully working version all the time as "naïve". It was never actually like that. It only exist because at the time, or even now, you might not have been aware that a better, more complete version of the game you own was released as a later production run.

If you buy Mortal Kombat One, but then never learn that any updates or DLC exists, you would also think the copy you owned was complete and worked as well as possible from day one. But you would have that opinion only because you didn't know about the exitance of updates, not because Mortal Kombat was produced in some golden ear where updates didn't happen.

Back in the day you bought a game. Sometimes it was so buggy and completely broken out of the box and you had to go back to Toy's R Us to return it. Sometimes it was a compete rip off and incomplete. Sometimes they fixed the bugs in later versions. Sometimes they didn't. It is no different then how it is today. Some games are still 100% working and compete day one. Some are not.

The only difference now is that fixing the broken ones is easier, it's much easier to know when a game is updated, and you don't have to rebuy the game completely to get the updated version. So I would say we're better off today.

It's also important to note that NES games in the 80s cost around $120 in today's dollars. You generally get all the DLC, as well as some pretty awesome physical items, in the $120 version of today's games.

@SillyG The difference between Smash Ultimate and the rest is that Smash Ultimate was released as a full game first and then announced DLCs later. Games like MK1 and Tekken 7 & 8 not only purposely release their game with missing contents but those contents were obviously remove from the base game to capitalize on getting more money. Smash Ultimate release as a full game with all characters from the first four games complete on the cart as well as all the modes and World of Light Mode. All the DLC packs didn't get made until fans request for them in the following years. Not only were all the old characters return but some of the new characters like Simon Belmont, Ridley, King K. Rool, and the Inklings are all on the cartridge. They were not DLC. Only fan requested characters like Terry Bogard, Ken Masters, Incineroar, Sephiroth, Banjo-Kazooie, and Kazuya Mishima were DLCs.

@HeadPirate It still comes back to the game development lifecycle.

The game framework and logic takes the longest to develop. I watched a video the other day where it said they spent an entire year just getting the mechanics of Ultra Hand right in Tears of the Kingdom.

Once the framework has been developed then art assets (which are what extra fighters are) become negligible. The skeleton models, fatality models, fighting models, game logic etc... has already been built. So it basically takes whatever time to design the actual art asset itself, and punch in the variables.

This is why data miners can find evidence of DLC characters at launch date, or even determine how many new fighters there are going to be. You already have everything. The only thing you are missing is the actual fighter asset data.

For DLC in fighting games its basically cost of licensing if they go for somebody like Terminator. And some graphic designer time. Probably a bit of director / producer time to work the character into the storyline.

Having (as an example since we're all on different currencies) $80 for core game, then two sets of $40 for 12 fighters is not proportionate. One took 3 years to make that would have tied up the best part of a development studio. The other was a few people in the garage for a few weeks (not wanting to undersell it but illustrate a point).

This is why unplanned DLC is honest. Its a small number of rusted on gamers that want to see extra life in their game. So they pay a higher margin to justify the development.

But planned DLC really is selling the game to players in chunks. It's a business model. There's no number crunching on trying to balance the costs of the graphic designers for the extra characters against the projected loyal fanbase who might be playing the game 6 months later. Nobody has that data.

That development time for DLC would have already been paid for during the development of the original game. In fact don't be surprised if the DLC characters were already finished before the game was released.

Make no mistake. DLC is a business model.

Games arent developed to break even. They are developed to make a profit. DLC is a more profitable model because you can continue to milk your loyal fanbase (some people call them Whales) for minimum cost. It's how the whole free to play mobile market can actually exist. And now the console market is trying to cash in.

@littlegreenbob

I really don't want to dismiss what you're saying outright, you clearly have a well thought-out opinion, but it all comes down to arbitrarily demonizing something while spinning the development process to support your argument.

I'm just going to say, in a completely non-aggressive way, that your understanding of how games are developed and how budgets are calculated and allocated is not representative of reality, at least no game I've ever worked on either from a development or project management standpoint. I would be carious as to your sources for these assumptions. They are not "stupid" or "illogical" or anything like that, it's just ... not how it actually works. Heck I think had a lot of the same misconceptions at some point, before I got to look behind the curtain.

So before I spend time actually writing a reply that's the question I'll ask you ... are you willing to accept that your core assumptions about game design might be inaccurate and allow me to inform those opinions? Because there is nowhere else for this conversation to go. I can't really address any of your arguments, because they are all based on an invalid premise.

@HeadPirate
Sure why not. If a game has a 2 year planned production and then is pushed into a 3rd year it doesn't jump from $80 to $120 to justify the increased development time. Game studios don't have the same business model as a mums and dads bakery. It is arbitrary.

Some companies even release DLC for free. Some even games for free. There is no right or wrong model.

There is no logic in saying game execs will sit down and say "if we release x number of core units for $80, then x number of DLC for $40, then the time the graphic designer spent on the DLC can be proportionately paid for".

The mobile game market has a model. Release the game for free. Then use paid add ons for the 10% of obsessive gamers to get to profit. Sell them gold versions of what Koroks across the Zelda world were giving Zelda players for free.

DLC for consoles is largely an adaptation of this. Sell the games to people in chunks. Those who dont buy the DLC think they're getting the full game. Those who do think they're getting something extra. For planned DLC the development time is already paid for within the existing game budget. Not based on some projection for something nobody has the data for.

I'm sure those 500 dragon crystals that you can buy through the same premise would have taken the graphic designers proportionate development time.

I don't take people disagreeing with me to be aggressive. I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. I am stating what I believe to be the obvious and you're stating what you believe to be the obvious.

I'm not going to spend hours of my time posting links, videos, journals, blogs, articles to try to convince anybody anything.

The premise of what I am saying is that in most instances, for consoles, DLC is a lazy cash grab to dish out portions of the game in chunks. Distinguishable from updates / side quests. Distinguishable from unplanned DLC (which is a separate resourced project). You can take that how however you like

@Bikadovlt "Previous game and DLC sales" at some point becomes a paradox.

And yes, my point remains consistent. Game studios are cut throat profiteers which is why they wouldn't pre-plan DLC to cover costs without even seeing the size of the game base first. I have remained consistent in saying pre-planned DLC is already paid for as part of the existing game development life cycle.

I have also remained consistent in saying DLC is a cash grab, something cut throat profiteers would look for in favour of a simple x units for x $ model.

The game world is different. Maybe decades ago where the console market was for the console market the kind of honest system being proposed was the norm. But today companies have to compete head to head with the mobile market, the PC market is more serious, and even other forms of entertainment given a kid can get lost for hours on YouTube videos.

There are less $ available so companies have to find creative ways to extort more money. Again, oh wait, have I already made that point....

@littlegreenbob

I'm very confused.

I asked if you wanted me to inform you as to how your assumptions are inaccurate and asked if you had any source or evidence that cased you to believe them and you replied with a bunch of other assumptions. You're also now talking about mobile games and bad actors instead of the topic of our conversation, which is Midway and WB games development practices, or in general, game design at large studios. I'm not sure where I lost you, and I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear.

I understand you're stating what you think is obvious, and actually agree that what you are saying makes logical sense. But a lot of things that are incorrect seem obvious or logical at first, because reality is often counter-intuitive. To be clear, I'm telling you that what you think is obvious is completely inaccurate, and asking if a large post about what development looks like is something you would be interested in, or if it would be a waste of both our time because you're invested in these unfounded views.

No judgement! Just an honest question!

@HeadPirate I read your initial post and I don't agree. I actually think that if you, for my benefit, were to post a long post to "enlighten" me as to why I am wrong, it would come across as condescending.

This is a very complex and diverse subject matter and it feels like you're about to jump in with "the answer is A".

In this very specific instance, yes, this kind of DLC is a lazy cash grab. I would have thought the 500 dragon crystals would have been a give away that it is exactly based on the mobile gaming model.

By all means post your thoughts for the broader forum to enjoy but if you were to do so for my benefit, yes, you would be wasting both of our times.

I hope we can meet again in a different news article.

@littlegreenbob

That's your purgative! But if I can be real for a second, you should be aware your opinions are uninformed right? Like you know that you believe those things not because you've ever been involved with game development, or been educated on project management? I don't know why you have an expectation that they would be accrete, and I don't understand why the idea that someone who has PMP certification and works in the game industry explaining how it actually works would be "condescending".

You're not expressing opinions, for the most part. You are projecting facts about how games are made, like how budgets are calculated or at what point DLC is baked into a games development. I'm not arguing your opinion, I'm saying your facts are wrong.

I'm just some dude on the internet and I have no right or desire to judge you. But I would suggest that while posting opinions is great and talking about them is fun, posting unfounded statements of fact to justify those opinions while also not being interested in learning how things actually work is a pretty negative practice.

@HeadPirate Unless you worked on this particular project as a high up exec then everything you have to contribute to the motivations behind these decisions are as equally speculative as mine.

And if this is your project, then I'll revert what I said initially. Please, enlighten me to how the 500 dragon crystals were budgeted for and resourced as part of development to justify their in store cost.

Whether DLC is lazy and greedy is a valid debate with both sides being equal. No right or wrong. In some instances it is, in some instances it isn't. What we are both putting forward is a balanced view point. Not a finite or absolute one. Our view point is also circumstantial, and in many instances social / cultural.

At what point DLC is baked into a project varies from project to project. it isn't a science. You know this already.

How a budget is calculated, how DLC is factored into that budget and even resourced also varies from project to project. You know this already.

Whether DLC is paid for as part of the initial project. Or committed to and later resourced separately, again varies from project to project. You know this already.

How can I be universally wrong for something that is so varied, everything I have said would have been encapsulated in at least one project at least one time over history.

If you're educated in project management then naturally you already understand the diversity and complexity of it. If you're educated in game development or are part of the industry then obviously you understand commercial decisions or how to extend profit margins. Also differ from project to project.

Your entire premise only works if WB games are an honest studio and followed a conventional business model. You said so yourself. Type "are WB games honest" into Google and enlighten those people.

I don't have to post my credentials to justify having an opinion. We are both putting forth speculative balanced view points.

I'm not interested in learning "how things work" in this instance because we aren't talking about a fridge or a light bulb. We are talking about a diverse complex market with too many individual business practices realistically count. If you think you have THE answer. You are already wrong.

I don't believe I am spreading misinformation or unfounded information. I also don't believe I am awaiting for somebody to enlighten me. Or maybe that's what I can use my 500 dragon crystals to buy.

I'm still just not feeling any excitement for 1. I had assumed that maybe the timeline wars would be revisited somehow. That NS has yet to FULLY scrap the previous timeline and all they accomplished with 10 and 11. That maybe old Takeda, Noob Saibot, and the bots had some involvement in this new timeline being attacked.

...and then they lost me entirely by turning Bi-han into Noob Saibot AGAIN. Who will be Scorpion when Kuia Liang inevitably becomes Sub Zero again? weak.