The Jimquisition: Shadow of Warner Bros.

https://www.cancerresearch.org/how-you-can-donate-now
https://donate3.cancer.org
https://www.stbaldricks.org/donate
https://www.youcaring.com/michael-forgey-479259

It was sincere and touching, and that’s all it should’ve been, but the decision to charge for content honoring the late Mike Forgey altered the conversation.

Alright then, let’s get into this mess.

Stef Faulty
Member

First game was mediocre to start with so I was never gonna drop full cash on this but this just cements that reason that when I get this it will be at BundleStars for $5 or less

Richard Fleming
Member

Interesting Development: The official video for the DLC is gone.

Amy
Member

Eurogamer asked WB to clarify and they stated they won’t profit from the DLC… and then didn’t mention anything about what they are doing with the other money. Even before you get into the excluded countries aka the rest of the world, doesn’t the $1.50 potentially mean they will profit if they sell enough units?

InfamousDS
Guest
InfamousDS
Platform holders take 30% of revenue outright (in the public-facing generic agreements), before disbursing the funds to the publisher or developer. 30% of $5 is $1.50 exactly, so at least that portion makes sense. Provided WB didn’t negotiate a better fee from Steam and the others anyway, which they would never admit to since it would make the $1.50 make no sense and might be seen as a breach of contract to disclose those rates. That’s the loophole WB wants. Charity in only one region means profit to everywhere else, justifying the DLC to the rabid stockholders which apparently are… Read more »
Amy
Member

I forgot about the platform holder fee *blush*

Lloyd Arold
Member
As someone who has lost family to cancer, I find this to be utterly disgusting. Even if 100% of the money was going to the family or other charity it still should have been free simply out of reverence and decency. I cannot think of another instance where a tribute put in a game to honor the loss of a colleague or fan was gated off with a price tag attached to it. What new low can you possibly reach at this point? I’d already been leaning against buying SoW due to all the other anti-consumer shit they had been… Read more »
Michael
Guest
Michael

I agree with you on basic principle; that my funniest uncle died of cancer has nothing to do with it.

Michael Wolfe
Guest
Michael Wolfe
I find it very likely Monolith knew this would happen; likely having planned it to play out like this. They have plenty of experience working with “AAA” publishing and the ‘status quo’ standards developed by big publishers over the last decade to know that WB would force them to modularize as much non-essential content into DLC ‘modules’ to be priced at $5 or more and leaving the bare-minimum playable gameplay experience as the $60 product. Monolith may have built up a grudge against WB for whatever enforcement may have happened to make buying microtransactions more incentivizing. It’s also likely Mr.… Read more »
Saulan
Guest
Saulan

Small thing to note, at 12:05 you say “those tax deductible donations could be…” referring to the purchase of the dlc, but at 9:27 the very small disclaimer on the WB page states that “Your purchase is not tax tax deductible.” I blame Chip.

Lloyd Arold
Member

Pretty sure that is about the customer and their purchase, not WB themselves.

Chris Topher
Guest
Chris Topher

Seriously who cares it’s just wrong and sleazy and indefensible what ever the legal wrangling. It’s about greed and habit …habit to,charge just because.

Bashtarle
Member

When Jim is talking about tax deductible donations he is talking about WB. They are going to be the ones getting to claim a tax write off on this. The disclaimer on the site is directed at consumers for whom the purchase of the DLC is not tax deductible.

Saulan
Guest
Saulan

Ah, I misunderstood that. Wow, that makes it worse though in my view from a WB perspective.