advertisement

Weekend Confirmed 171 - Xbox One, The Last of Us Spoiler-Cast

by Ozzie Mejia, Jun 28, 2013 11:00am PDT

With Jeff Cannata absent, host Garnett Lee is left to discuss the beginning of the summer doldrums. He welcomes in "Indie" Jeff Mattas and Nikole Zivalich to discuss any final Xbox One thoughts before shifting to Borderlands 2's Assault on Dragon's Keep DLC and discuss the pros and cons of the Season Pass model. Shacknews' Andrew Yoon joins the show for the latter half to help briefly discuss Company of Heroes 2, before ending the normal part of the show a little early with some Finishing Move. That paves the way for a special Spoiler-cast, as the final half-hour of the show is fully dedicated to discussing The Last of Us and its many twists and turns. If you haven't finished the game yet, bookmark it for the future. If you have, enjoy the discussion!

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 171: 6/28/2013

Subscription Links:

Here's a handy pop-up player so you can listen from right here on the page. Let us know how it works for you.

If you're viewing this in the GameFly application, you can play Weekend Confirmed Episode 171 directly.

Weekend Confirmed comes in four segments to make it easy to listen to in segments or all at once. Here's the timing for this week's episode:

    Show Breakdown:

    Round 1 - 00:00:35 - 00:30:14

    Round 2 - 00:31:41 - 00:56:59

    Round 3 - 01:03:58 - 01:31:17

    The Last of Us Spoiler-cast - 01:31:49 - 02:02:07

Follow the Weekend Confirmed crew on Twitter, too!

Weekend Confirmed @WeekendConfirmd

Garnett Lee @GarnettLee

Jeff Cannata @JeffCannata

Andrew Yoon @scxzor

Jeff Mattas @JeffMattas

Nikole Zivalich @NikoleZ

Remember to join the Official Facebook Weekend Confirmed Page and add us to your Facebook routine. We'll be keeping you up with the latest on the show there as well.

Original music in the show by Del Rio. Check out his latest music video, I Brought It Here, featuring cameos from Jeff Cannata and Christian Spicer on YouTube. Get his latest Album, Club Tipsy on iTunes. Check out more, including the Super Mega Worm mix and other mash-ups on his ReverbNation page or Facebook page, and follow him on twitter @delriomusic.





Comments

  • Hey first post and it's long.

    I wanted to address the dlc conversation and the specific question regarding value. This isn't an excuse but rather some explanations for the way it works based on my experience and conversation with others.

    Garnett suggested (paraphrase) "If I spend $40 on dlc I expect to get equivalent value to a $60 game."

    I totally understand this notion but I'd like to extend a metaphor. If buying a $60 game is like buying an entree at a nice restaurant, then dlc is buying the $15 cocktail-- or in Garnett's case, three cocktails. ;)

    I'll elaborate.

    Borderlands 2 was a $60 game with a $60 game budget, ie probably too high. They made a good product and got a little lucky and sold 5 million copies. However, this alone isn't enough to be a successful product, for lack of a better number lets say 4x profit (though given Gearboxes other games it likely needs to pull more weight).

    Gearbox uses the high value in Borderlands 2 to get people in the door. Now they have to sell "cocktails."

    Of that 5 million people somewhere in the 10-20% would buy a single piece of dlc let alone $40 worth. With each subsequent dlc release the potential number dwindles. Now marketing can boost that number, and this takes us to another economic reality; fixed costs.

    Garnett was right saying that the dlc could leverage the engine reducing the overall cost of dlc development. Technology is not the only fixed cost; cert. fees, platform holder fees, the building costs, energy, HR and other support staff. These are fixed costs that apply to both the $60 game and the $40 worth of dlc. However, the $60 game amortizes those costs over the entire $60 game budget and 5 million sales, while the $40 has a much small pool. Basically, as a ratio fixed costs : sale is much more present in the dlc side.

    DLC is intended to be a hyper profitable "cocktail" used to justify the large upfront production costs of a $60 game.

    DLC still has considerable fixed costs. It's likely that DLC person hours are less efficient vs $60 game person hour.

    DLC has potential audience is a fraction of the original $60 product.

    What does this add up to?

    DLC is a premium product, a $15 2 shot cocktail with a dumb name. Most consumers will get more value spending the $40 elsewhere. The select few that REALLY love the game will spend far more then most think is reasonable, and if it's a tasty drink, they'll go home happy.

    p.s

    Season Passes are a Prix Fixe menu. Buyer beware.