John-ShepardWe've often said gamers complain bitterly about things they don't fully understand. Bethesda sort of agrees.
The Fallout and Elder Scrolls publisher has come to the defense of the much-maligned day-one downloadable content. In a new OXM interview , marketing vice president Pete Hines said all the hatred surrounding the concept of day-one DLC comes from a general misunderstanding of the development process, which can be complex.
"I don't think [gamers] quite understand the development process and the point at which you have to stop making the game and you have to finish the game. So, the content people stop making new content a fair amount of time before it ships; it's not like in the old days when it was like the day before or a week before."
Hines added that it's perfectly logical to have developers work on new content during the period of time the game is complete, and when it actually hits store shelves. "Why would you make them wait some period of time, months in some cases, to start making new stuff so you can say it was after DLC?" he asked. That makes plenty of sense to us, although we know the response Hines will get from gamers; it has been the same since the advent of downloadable content:
They'll want to know if the content in question was cut from the final product for the sake of extra money. However, given what Hines said, it seems like this is a non-issue…most of the time.
Agree.
It makes sense to even say annualization is fine… in terms of sequels. When you use the same world, same characters, same voice actors, developers, etc. it makes sense that a turn around of a year is fine. I have never had a problem with day 1 patches or DLC.
I do however think that they decide on the DLC when they first storyboard the game sometimes. Then it becomes the issue of holding back for the sake of making more money, which I disagree with.
The best DLC is always the organic type, where they are almost through development and find that the story can branch in ways they never thought of. Or from the feedback of the fans after the game hits the shelves. And those you can tell. Same with the money grab DLC.
Last edited by wackazoa on 4/10/2013 9:57:41 PM
You could say that DLC is planned to give you an optional story that they thought isn't necessarily part of the main storyline.
Like, "okay so this is the main story, and this doesn't really fit with the story we want to tell, and it's a shame because it was a really cool idea, let's still give people the option to play it if they want".
Sure like the AC3: Tyranny of Washington thing. But so often the DLC is just a means of continuing the story or a new map pack or new characters/weapons. That stuff isnt neccessarily a new or different direction. That is simply not putting it in the game so they can make extra money after release.
DLC is use to be an afterthought. Now is planned day one in development. I have seen it, at a smaller scale project. Its now become a new marketing project to make more money for an industry that is seeing higher costs because they believe gamers are demanding more.
Yes, its annoying if it seems that when you play a game and their are plot holes in the game, and whoa… the dlc that come a month later explains its. Not sure that is really happening much but some believe it has.
Folks its a business, I don;t like it at all. I miss the days when a game was completer story unto itself and the DLC would have been more than likely the sequel. Again, its a business and its the entertainment business.
This is why I like to wait and see if a game in a year or so comes out with a GOTY edition with all the dlc. If not then I make the choice as to whether I pick it up or not.
We can't change the industry unless the vast majority complain about it or stop buying games to make a point. Personally I do not see that EVER happening. I think we are all more addicted and interested in playing the games and complaining about the issues in the gaming industry rather than getting all political and mass into a gamer revolt. Although…. it would be cool to see that…. nah won't happen… might make a good indie game. "Revolution – Gamers End"
Keep Playing!
But if there's no GOTY edition then the original might have dropped to 50%-70% of the original price so you can pick it up and some of the dlc for the cost of the original release. Which is the route I'm planning on taking more and more.
Last edited by Gabriel013 on 4/11/2013 12:57:56 PM
PC_Max:
> I miss the days when a game was completer story unto itself and the DLC would have been more than likely the sequel.
You make it sound like games never sold without plot holes, missing pieces, or unused content. This is completely untrue. The primary difference is, now, developers can choose to fill in holes and let players access previously unused content.
And of course, it's their right to charge you for it. Gamers seem to have this misguided notion that (especially with regards to physical media) that they're entitled to everything included in the program, but not only is this not true, it hasn't been true since the days of at least the Genesis (e.g. Sonic 3 having portions of it not accessible until Sonic and Knuckles add-on cart is introduced).
I'm thinking Bethesda should be focused on getting their DLC out in a way that's… not a year late. Then we'll talk day 1 stuff.
I don't mind waiting a year for dlc if they make it known that they're supporting it for atleast that long. Makes me keep the game rather than trading it in and then I'll replay when I get the dlc for it.
If this were the case I'd be more understanding, but when companies are announcing at the same time the game is announced, I don't find it ok.
They are starting to plan game releases like a fine dinner. The appetizer, your demo, the game is your main course and then there are plenty of deserts to choose from.
Except with a game I want a solid consistent story, not one that was rushed so they could sell me some add-on content every month.
Personally for me if you make a great game, dlc isn't needed. DLC works great for MP FPS players who want to play for years and they need new maps, but SP games with tiny little add-ons at $10-$20 a pop, no thanks.
no, its not that people dont know.
its just that they dont WANT to know!
prefer to be ignorant and stupid, that way they can continue bitching.
as ive always said day 1 DLC is fine because developers have gotta do something the 1+ month gap from a game going gold to release day.
ok theres patches which normally need to be released, but thats not going to take up the whole studios month.
might as well use those 4+ weeks on creating some new content for the game.
Problem is some day one dlc is stuff that clearly was meant for the game but was left out because they could make money selling it separately.
And don't forget those DLCs that were already on the disk!
I much rather wait a bit and get more for my money than shipping something early and pumping out dlc.
ME3s day one DLC is the type of day one DLC I have a problem with. They had the DLC and the dialogue in the script that was leaked over a year before launch. Then they tried to say it was all planned later on in development which was a lie.
Now that DLC wasn't required by any means to play the game. But it was a huge kick to the face for fans of the first two games who really wanted the prothean lore expanded on. In fact most people who got it said it was some of the most interested dialogue in the whole game and one that greatly fleshed things out.
Also most of the code was in the game so you were downloading very little.
My only problem with DLC, and micro transactions are that people are getting really comfortable with them. I just worry that one day games will come in over priced bite sized packages and you will end up paying well over 100 dollars for the full experience.
xenris:
> I just worry that one day games will come in over priced bite sized packages and you will end up paying well over 100 dollars for the full experience.
Would that be preferable to paying $100 up front for the entire thing? Because either way, the real costs of games is such that a higher price point is the only way some games will even make profit. As annoying as it is, breaking the game up into chunks and selling them piecemeal is probably the better alternative to making gamers deal with the sticker shock of what games "should" cost.
That's right Bethesda, why continue working on the game and actually get it to run properly instead of making DLC right?
I would definitely say that day 1 DLC has never been a sore point for me, but what is a sore point for me is content that is on the disc already, and then unlocked as DLC later with those stupid little 106-108kb downloads.
That is what pisses me off.
When day 1 DLC is unrelated and unneccessary to complete and understand the story I have absolutely no issues. However when it is obvious that it was part of the main campaign and it is released day 1 and charged for I will call BS. There have been several games that have brought this controversy to light and the developers/publishers have no one to blame but themselves. Use ethical business practices and you will rarely hear a peep from most consumers, or use unethical practices and prepare for the onslaught of hate mail from the internet.
Don't get me wrong you can be the most ethical company ever and you will still have complaints, that is just human nature that has existed since long before the internet was conceived. People sometimes like to think this is something new but it's not, the internet has just given more people the opportunity to be heard.
If the people who buy your games say no Day One downloads, perhaps listen to them? What happens when people decide not to buy at all in protest? We're doing you a favor won't make things end quickly.