I don't blame GOG for this group of worthless content, this is one the problems with dealing with AAA publishers.
I know that CDPR and thus GOG, consider such crappy content as DLC, which to them means free added content.
If GOG has the power to refuse to sell DLC as defined by CDPR, whilst still selling the Core Game and Expansion Pack(s), again, as defined by CDPR, then I urge them to refuse to sell any DLC.
More likely it's a package deal, all or nothing, in these cases, I accept it's a minor sacrifice, to get any AAA games on GOG.
I don't need anyone to tell me, this is worthless crap. I can see that, it's offline micro transaction territory.
How do I define this, and all DLC, as worthless?
As you asked, I'll explain, it involves a lot of guesswork, and basic division, but stick with it and see where it leads.
I was surprised at how my views were changed after doing this.
This system is based on the basic understanding that the Original (Game, means the first full release) Game is actually worth the standard $60 price tag. This is obviously a subjective assessment with unknown variables and is given as guidelines for rating VFM (Value For Money) of all added content.
The first assumption is that the Game meets your own requirements for being a $60 VFM Game.
Next we must assess the number of TDH (Total Development Hours) that the Game required, to reach the level of quality VFM demands.
A harsher but possibly fairer method is to assess all games against the highest standard achieved, on the assumption that Quality and thus VFM is a bar, that is raised higher each time it's surpassed, and never get lowered.
This example will use this Standards Raised Never Drop, methodology, and for me that high point was set by The Witcher 3.
Assumption is that, The Witcher 3 has raised the quality standard, to a new high level.
We have a subjective assessment of the TDH that quality took to achieve.
We also have an Assumption of the Standard $60 price tag.
Given that nothing like exact figures are actually available, this next part is very inaccurate, but appears very precise, it's not as clear cut as it sounds. The method also uses the CDPR standards for defining what is worthless and what has some VFM above zero, this is:
DLC
All DLC has a VFM rating of zero or less, thus is worthless by definition
Expansion
Any Expansion has a VFM rating above zero, thus has a cash value.
We need to asses what the VFM rating actually is, and the fact the standard Price is $60 gives us an exact value for a single cent, that number is 1/6000 TDH.
Now we can use the Games TDH, and simply divide by 6000.
Purely as an easy example we'll say that is 10 hours per cent for the Witcher 3.
Now we can look at the offered additional content, and decide does it contain more than 10 hours of NEW work, of the same quality and thus VFM as the Game.
It's completely subjective unless wee actually know the exact numbers, which is very unlikely.
In contrast, using this method, it's simple to understand the basic principle of TDH against VFM
In the example
If the assessment is less than 10 hours of NEW quality TDH was needed.
The content is DLC and never worth buying.
If the assessment is more than 10 hours of NEW quality TDH was needed.
The content is Expansion and has some VFM, but how much.
This is where this methodology, imprecise as it is, starts to show it's true merits. It makes clear to an ordinary Gamer. just what is required to make the content have any VFM. Up to now the numbers seem reasonable, and a little abstract. Until we consider what it takes for $1 VFM, and then $10 VFM, this was when it pulled out the hidden sawn-off shotgun, and hit me, in the face, with both barrels.
Just how worthless all DLC is, and just how much NEW work is really needed, to make the content even a $1 VFM expansion
Well a price of $1 requires 1/60th of the TDH, for the example that is 1000 TDH
A price tag of $10 requires 1/6th of the TDH, for the example that is 10,000 TDH
The base games price of $60, for the example that is 60,000 TDH
Assuming a 40 hour week, that's 1,500 TDW (Total Development Weeks)
Assuming 50 weeks in a year that's only says 30 devs took a year to produce the game.
That's obviously unrealistic for The Witcher 3, but those numbers were chosen to make the example easier to understand, not be realistic Value. The Witcher 3 has set the standard to a new level.
That's why I call this DLC, and that makes it worthless by definition, the math is simple, the input values are very inaccurate, and yet despite the obvious deficiencies, it's opened my eyes in a way nothing else has done.
The results are a devastating condemnation of the old standards, when you look at where the standard has been raised up to, CDPR has met that standard so far.
My assessment is CDPR stand alone, far above all the rest, no other Publisher/Dev combo comes anywhere near.
DLC is simply worthless trash, and VFM expansions take many TDH to achieve.
This is DLC
Simply Worthless Trash.
Post edited April 21, 2016 by UhuruNUru
