I think Ubisoft are really on to something with their smaller than usual games that retail for less than half the price of a big game. Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon was excellent and priced perfectly, I felt I got far more value for money out of that than I did with Far Cry 3 itself. Well, no, I got FC3 for ÂŁ5 (a pricing error), but if I'd paid full price I would have been seriously disappointed. Apparently Call of Juarez: Gunslinger is decent too, also priced at ÂŁ12.
The thing is, a lot of ÂŁ30-35 games are a five hour singleplayer campaign (which is really just a tutorial for the multiplayer) tacked on to yet another multiplayer mode with a co-op horde mode. So if you're the type who feels like there is such a thing as far too many multiplayer games does exist (I've regressed completely and only play Borderlands 2 online now), ÂŁ12 for a five hour singleplayer game is an amazing deal.
Then again Sony I think nailed it when they made Uncharted 3 free to play. In my opinion, free to play is a good way of doing competitive multiplayer as long as it's done right. You can then buy the singleplayer mode at a discount (is it ÂŁ15?), and that's a really nice way of doing it. If, say, Crysis 3 had done the same, they would've had ÂŁ15 from me for that. I guess the problem is they need to be sure that people will spend enough on the free to play section to make it viable. Some multiplayer games are dead almost on arrival because of superior alternatives after all, Sony had the benefit of monitoring how people were playing before it became free to play so they could make predictions, a brand new game doing the same thing might not succeed. For instance, how is Ghost Recon Online doing these days?
DLC in my opinion should be content that the developers decided to put in for the fun of it because they suddenly have a great idea. I hate it when DLC is planned from before the game's release because it means they are over overcharging for something that should have been in the game in the first place.
