Ben-DutkaI've been thinking about it. There's just no way out for developers…gamers have them painted into a corner concerning downloadable content.
But first, let's be clear- I'm just as annoyed as anyone that publishers can – and do – charge for content we probably should've received on the disc in the first place. The advent of downloadable content aka DLC is just too attractive from a business standpoint, you know? "Sure, we can release the game and then charge more to add onto it; damn good money-making opportunity, boss!" But for the most part, I do not believe developers intentionally leave out content for the sake of raking in more bucks. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon.
Look, examine this from all sides: Firstly, developers – basically all developers – are gamers, too. And in speaking to many of them over the years, there's one trait that ties them all together, and I should think it's painfully obvious. They want to create the best game possible. They really do. Hence, if they want a game to have such-and-such content and they've got the time and resources to put it in, it'll go in. Publishers don't have quite as much pull over this process as some of the more skeptical and cynical gamers seem to think, and I've heard designers verify this in the past.
Secondly, the game makers in this case are in a no-win situation. Even if the DLC is fantastic and free, you will inevitably find people who complain that it should've been in the game in the first place. Then if you charge at all, those complaints increase in number and volume. Then, if you charge even more and the DLC isn't up to snuff, well, prepare for the windfall. And in the latter case, I would agree that we have every right to go, "Hey, this extra content blows and it so not worth $15." And that is a well-documented, ongoing problem this generation. Then you've got the on-disc locked content that has ignited yet another raging controversy .
Thirdly and finally, another part of the aforementioned no-win situation is the position developers often find themselves in: While the publisher can't dictate every step of the design process (as I said before), they can still make requests and even a few demands, and that has to be weighed against what the fans and consumers desire. It's essentially the epitome of the "between a rock and a hard place" saying. I should add, however, that I haven't finished a game this generation and said, "This was missing something and I didn't enjoy it." If it wasn't very good, that was one thing. But incomplete…? I'm sorry, I haven't seen that too often.
In the end, there's just no winning this battle. If there's any extra content at all, developers will inevitably face accusations and skepticism, regardless of the quality of that content or the intention behind it. It seems not a single gamer is willing to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a team made a great game, got everything they wanted in it, got a lot of great responses from fans, and decided to issue more great content. …no, that'd just be too tame and uncontroversial.
Gamers this generation bi*** and moan about everything whether its right or wrong because its the world we live in where a majority of people are not satisfied with anything. Im a gamer who enjoys single player dlc because it enhances and adds longevity to any game. The only I had a problem with dlc is when QD cancelled the dlc for Heavy Rain.
I think what one has to remember is this fact. In real terms games have gotten cheaper if you take account for inflation, right?
Well maybe not so if you are nuts over DLC!
The whole point of DLC, and charging for it, is to essentially increase the cost of the game over time. Whilst DLC maybe produced after the main production period has completed, elements of the DLC are already in place, such as the engine for example, and therefore you have already paid for part of it.
Margins on DLC will be huge compared to the costs of the main game, therefore; it is understandable that the developer can increase overall revenue hugely by getting users to pay for DLC. In other words, the real cost of the game is not $60, but rather $70, %80 or $90, depending of course how many DLC packs are released.
To me it is another way of extracting every ounce of profit one can from the game without essentially increasing its price at "face value".
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 4/17/2012 12:29:35 AM
You make good points the 60 ends up costing much more. I dont mind paying for the extra stuff as long as its good.
Yeah, completely agree.
That is because most kids of this generation (bottom end of gen y, the rest of gen y are still okay) are spoilt brats who have to have their own way. If they don't get what they want, they bi*** and moan about it.
So you are saying developers should give us DLC for free?
I think that it would be really nice if Devs could give us some small additions (new skins in AC:R, or new planes in Ace Combat) for free, but if they are creating new levels, new chapters of story, or whole new stories all together (used to be called expansion packs) then we definitely should pay for it. So long as they created it after the original game went Gold.
At the end of the day, they are still working, spending time that they COULD have been making another game, but instead they are trying to add more to a game.
And hey, every developer out there could have included all of their DLC into the original game, but the release date would have been a year or so later, eventually a game HAS to be released, any good developer could keep adding more and more and more and more to a game. But obviously cutting out content and purposely leaving it out to make it DLC after release is dodgey (Squeenix).
I personally love good DLC, nothing more exciting then finishing a game 100%, then some new DLC drops for it. The upcoming Skyrim DLC for example.
Well I am all for legit DLC. Game sells and gamers like it so they make more of it. And everyone is happy!
But I am against locked on disc content… It's just wrong. Just tells you they already had it planned and decided to hold it for later so they can make extra cash. However I look at it I always feel like I got tricked. Like how a few months later certain companies let you buy extra characters that weight 230kb XD
DLC is a great idea but it also allows some more greedy people to make it look really bad.
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 4/16/2012 10:37:47 PM
A few months? try same day.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 10:45:19 PM
lol It was based on my experience with Ultimate Marvel vs capcom XD Took me a while to buy any extra.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but DLC is usually thought of pretty early in the design process. Its not always a "didn't have time to include before release" or "ok, we're finished, now lets think up some DLC" kind of situation.
Just the sad reality of it all.
Well yeah I am pretty sure DLC is always *planned* based on the reaction of the consumers to the game or just downright at the start when the game is a *sure hit* but it is not necessarily always stuff they hold out of the game in mid-development.
I don't have a problem with them working on DLC when the game has gone *gold* and is heading for mass production and I am pretty sure a couple of companies are like that. (I hope)
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 4/17/2012 9:20:38 AM
It's not a bandwagon, it's just the truth. When you have the idea while the game is being created and somebody goes "Make that for the DLC," then that's exactly what is happening. Just because another team handles it doesn't mean it can't go in the game. Extra stuff is clearly extra stuff and nobody worth listening to complains about it.
Want to know what actual DLC looks like? Check out a Bethesda RPG.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 10:43:48 PM
Right. As if nobody ever complained about Bethesda DLC.
Sorry, no developer is free from this.
Nobody ever said it should have been on the disc or was "left out".
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 11:07:59 PM
I agree, I don't think anyone suspected for example the Fallout DLCs to have been cut out of the original game. Same goes with most of the Borderland DLCs.
But these games are rare exceptions to an overwhelming amount of crappy DLC. What I hate the most are the DLCs that are barely anything but weapon or outfit unlocks. They are the worst of the worst.
@world
There is good reason why many dont complain about DLC like bethesda's stuff, just take a look at it, it's good quality stuff, and it's not D1 DLC on the store, or locked on the disc, it's stuff made after launch in most cases, and this is the kind of dlc that I have no issue with.
But then we fall into the bad kind of DLC, just look at most of the dev teams these days, a game will launch with DLC locked on disc, or day 1 DLC just waiting in store the moment the game comes out, THIS is what I have issue with, and every gamer has a right to bitch about it.
@Ben
Comon, you really dont think dev teams keep content out of the full version to resell as DLC? take RE5 for a perfect example, they locked out some MP part of the game, do u really think they thought MP would be a good idea AFTER they made the game? I dont doubt that some dev teams dont do this, but I'd wager most do.
Never once said they didn't. What I'm saying is that gamers immediately assume this is always the case.
Is Disc locked DLC really that frequent? I hadn't even heard of it happening until the recent one.
Every DLC I have ever bought has been downloadable.
I doubt people sit there during the games creation and say "this is cool, lets leave this for DLC" and if they do then that is just plain cheap, and honestly is not a very good design principle, especially by ethical standards. I would not want to support a company that promotes this kind of development.
I understand that some features of a game will ultimately be 'cut' from the game during the development process, but might be decided to add it when they create DLC. Because lets face it, not ALL games can have every single feature we want by the release date, games work on a release schedule, if they added in everything they wanted they wouldn't meet their target, so things HAVE to be cut to release on time. Then after release they can go back and think of possible DLC and the first thing they would look at, is anything that they cut from the original game because NOW they have the time to implement it, and the idea is already there.
Cut features from any game are a gold mine for DLC.
BUT cutting features from a game, for the specific purpose of releasing it as DLC, or locking features of a game out until we pay an additional fee for it is dirty.
I don't have a problem with DLC…….. As long as it's something like Infamous 2: Blood Festival which was basically it's own game or something that actually is useful and expands/adds on to the initial games story.
However when you've got developers like Team Ninja or Capcom who will deliberately leave content off or either lock content in order to charge more than it becomes a problem.
Another thing I don't like is this things where you only have a few alternate costumes, weapons is stupid, cuz little things like that SHOULD already be on the initial disc.
Last edited by GuyverLT on 4/16/2012 10:41:38 PM
I think costumes are extras and subject to cost. Though I'm not without sympathy. I miss the days when they were on disc and you just worked hard to unlock them.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/16/2012 11:06:35 PM
Agreed things like costumes and extra weapons etc should be unlockables in the game like they used to you shouldn't have to pay extra money for stuff like that.
Extra costumes and weapons should be free DLC, if not an ingame unlockable.
I have never ever had DLC I've thought i worth the price.
After the map mack I bought for the first modern warfare I decided never to buy map packs ever again and I have no regrets.
I did buy uncharted 2's dlc and it was good but I felt like I didn't play multiplayer enough to get my moneys worth.
I don't know must just be me but I'd rather start saving for the next game than buy dlc.
DLC has been happening for years… It was just called an expansion. I used to love expansions. I would play the hell out of a game (Like Diablo 2) and then out of no where, I had 2 new characters, and a few awesome new areas to explore.
The issue I have now, is that many developers are using DLC as blatant ploy to squeeze more money out of us. I no longer feel like I'm getting a complete game. DLC needs to add to the original experience, not fill a purposeful void.
It's simple to me. If they don't want to make it so blatantly obvious, have it released at least a month after release. That way, it'll make it look like there was some post-release effort that went into it. Any DLC released within a week/same day, or content that's already on the disc at release day is clearly cutting content for extra revenue and should never be practiced.
Other than that… complaining about free DLC??? Now that's wrong.
There ARE ways to do DLC right in terms of value and content. Any developers that's smart enough will know how to utilize DLCs the right away and rake in plenty of generous revenue. Instead of downing themselves, developers should think of DLC as a goldmine for $$$. Just don't look like a nuisance doing it.
One game this generation felt incomplete when I finished it: The new Prince of Persia. I loved it. It was a ton of fun. And then it just ended with "to be continued" and I found out shortly after finishing it there was a $15 level of DLC to buy to REALLY finish the game. That annoyed me and I never bothered getting it.
That has left me with a sour taste in my mouth when it comes to DLC. I just haven't gotten any because, like firesoul453 said, it's just never seems worth it. But also like him, I don't really ever play multiplayer, and that's where most the DLC goes anyway.
The only times I dislike DLC is when they blatantly remove it from the game like the random "corrupted" memories in ACII or when it is released to a specific system only. I'm still angry over the PC getting the Dark Souls DLC.
The rest of the time I enjoy how it lets me extend the life of the game, especially in the case of Fallout 3's and Dragon Age: Origin's DLC where they add a tremendous amount of play time.
I refuse to buy the fake BS DLC or disc unlocks just because most of it should've already been in the game.
But I will buy real DLC if it's for a great game & done the right way, more like an expansion.
Take Borderlands for instance, I consider all 4 DLC packs were done right!
I've played 3 out of 4 of the DLC packs so far(and about to play the 4th) & each one is different enough & also long enough to almost be considered their own game.
DLC= Downloadable CONTENT, not "Downloadable Code". That's my only main issue with DLC. Even Uncharted 3 had locked, on-disc content for multiplayer stuffs.
This correlates with the whole online pass BS. Here's a solution: if developers are afraid of losing money or not making enough, they should bundle an online pass with every new copy of the game, which gives free access to online components and future DLC NOT ON THE DISC. This gives incentives for gamers to buy new.
They already bundle online passes to new copies of games. But they don't bundle future DLC.
If they did include future DLC on new copies I would definitely by them, however, I doubt they would ever do that.
You're right Ben, Developers really do face a no-win situation with DLC. Brought upon them by the rediculous amount of whining from gamers that has accompanied this generation. Sorry for my bluntness…I just can't understand their thinking.
Like you, I never have bought a game and thought it was incomplete. And I don't carry the mindset that just because I purchased a product, that the company owes me their first born or something. A sentiment that seems to come across from many gamers these days.
games are no longer a single purchase product anymore, but could be considered a platform through which to provide more content.
And that can be a good thing, really.
I honestly don't even worry about dlc anymore. It used to bug me, but I recently came to a realization. Most of it isn't that great and when I play a game it's for a certain experience and any dlc I've played has always seemed tacked on, kind of adrift, like an afterthought that doesn't really mesh with what I originally bought.
So I decided I would either buy the complete edition of a game when it was released and price dropped, or if no complete edition is to exist, ignore any dlc that's not free.
I just don't see a point any more to play a great game with a wonderful story and have a great experience, just to finish, pay $5-$15 more, and experience a side mission that might give me a new piece of equipment. I'm probably in the minority, but I am just going to pass.
I agree. I ignore superfluous DLC in most cases. In rare cases like in the Fury expansion for Wipeout HD, it really is like getting a new game, so I'll pull the trigger. Sometimes though, especially when I've really enjoyed game purchased used, I'll buy some DLC just to say thanks and I'll give it a go.
Well minority or not, I am the same way these days.
I'm not so sure I agree that DLC is a no win prospect. If it is handled properly then both gamers and publishers are happy. Gamers get new content to extend the life of their favorite games, and publishers have get a new revenue stream.
Having said that..there have been some pretty blatant attempts by publishers of stripping out content from the main game just so they can charge for DLC. AC2 comes to mind.
developers are going about this all wrong.
they release DLC to try stop people from trading in their games, but then only offer 1 hour or so of content.
developers really should be looking at what bethesda do.
its not DLC, its a expansion pack!
and 99% of the complaints of DLC these days is it was cut out of the game, or its not worth it.
no freaking way in hell you could make that complaint about bethesdas DLC!
thats not to say people dont complain about it, they do but thats not to do with the DLC that has to do with the company themselves.
sadly they dont know how to debug their games BEFORE their released!
so bethesda ARE free from this!
I don't know what designers you have talked to but, there are a lot of industry veterans who would tell you that publishers do indeed dictate a lot more than they really should.
You can tell mostly in games where the sequels start diverging from the originals true vision.
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but the Mass Effect series (this has nothing to do with the ending btw) is one that if you followed from the beginning you can see things that were changed for absolutely no other reason except to try and appeal to a broader audience or as I call it the CoD pie. Developers want this sure, but not as bad as the publishers, and certainly the developers don't want this bad enough to ruin the lore they established in previous games. There are changed done to games that no way the developers wanted to do. Dragon Age 2 also was such a ridiculous departure from Dragon Age origins that it makes me think the same thing happened. Also EA bought up Bioware just as they were finishing DA:O so thats probably why its artistic vision and old school design was still in tact.
A lot of developers don't talk bad about their publishers because they are afraid too. I've heard that from Brian Fargo and Derek smart to name a few.
However I will agree with you, that not all publishers do this and maybe its not as bad as I think it is. But EA is guilty of this, they tend to take beloved franchises and run them into the ground for short term profit.
If you look at their public page, for the last three years they have been cutting money out of Research and Development, and putting more money into PR. Thats a little backwards don't you think?
I think DLC can be an amazing thing. I remember how excited I was when Diablo 2s expansion pack was released, and baldurs gate 2. However the quality of those was sooooo much higher than most of the DLC we see today.
I see DLC today in about two forms. DLC that feels like it could have been cut from the game in order to make a few extra bucks, like day one character skins alternate costumes weapons or hidden dungeons. This is the DLC that I have issue with, because its small enough for people to say it wasn't cut from the game, but at the same time its small enough you could cut it from the game or lock it on disc and no one would be the wiser.
The other has I guess two sub categories, but its mainly DLC that is really substantial and meaty. All the GTA4 DLC was like this, and most of the Fallout DLC. These I'm willing to call expansion packs in some cases. I'm willing to buy DLC that feels like an expansion but still I don't usually because I know a game of the year version will come out for cheaper and I just wait for that usually.
Also I really wonder why the need to charge for this. When I see Valve and CDProjekt release a ton of stuff for free some of it quite substantial, and all just for your one purchase price. Well I really start wondering why others claim that they have to charge for all of this stuff. When people like Valve don't need too.
I think it comes down to ethics. I am obviously skeptical about what is and isn't cut from the game for DLC. I think if they want to do DLC fine but make it juicy and worth the price of admission and make it seperate from the original story like a side story sort of thing. Finally if they are going to do DLC through out the year and then release a new game annually…well pick one please don't do both. Otherwise how am I not going to think your trying to nickle and dime the consumer.
Last edited by xenris on 4/17/2012 10:06:14 AM
You think everyone is out to "nickle and dime" you, so I'm not about to lend much credence to what you have to say.
I've paid for DLC for Dungeon Defenders on the PC, as well as other games in my Steam library. I most certainly don't think everyone is out to nickel and dime, I don't know why you're assuming that.
Its mostly been EA and Capcom that I am the biggest skeptic about.
Its fine you don't have to give me any credence, but the truth is the truth regardless of whether you like it or not. You can look up online where EA cut funding, you can find quotes from those two industry veterans talking about publishers being terrible. Lastly you can see the Mass Effect series go from an RPG with shooter elements, to a cover based shooter with very few RPG elements compared to the first game. As well as you can see Dragon Age origin go from an beautiful deep traditional cRPG to a game that was nothing like the original.
There is really no other reason for these drastic changes except to try and reach a larger audience by making it more appealing to people outside of the RPG genre. Big Publishers have more influence than you think and you can see it if you pay any attention.
Why do you think Hironobu Sakaguchi formed mistwalker studios with some other veterans? So they could make the RPGs THEY wanted to for fans that they knew existed, without other people influencing what they made for the sake of more sales.
I really don't care.
Have you noticed that every last one of your arguments can be boiled down to one thing: money?
Ben why are you flaming a member of your own community, just for expressing his/her opinion?
He has been doing this frequently lately. I think this whole DLC fiasco this year has made him grumpy! ;D
@Xenris
Mistwalker was a direct intention of Microsoft to steal away a large portion of the jRPG market SONY had made so much money on.
It wasn't about artistic freedom… It was about money.
@underdog
You are aware that mistwalker has games on the DS, Xbox360, and the Wii right?
Microsoft merely backed Hironobu so that he could start mistwalker. I'm sure they did this so they could get some exclusives to help the Xbox360 sell more units in japan. But Hironobu wasn't stolen by them, from interviews and blogs he wanted freedom to create the games he wanted to, and mistwalker gave him that freedom.
Look at all the games they have made both on the DS, the Wii and 360. They are very traditional games, some with very old and in some cases archaic design choices. But he made the games HE wanted to. Lost oddysey was quite different from Blue Dragon, and The last story is vastly different from those as well.
I understand that there is a business aspect to everything in this industry. I just hate when that business aspect destroys the artists vision, or at the very least manipulates it so that it will appeal to more people and not the fans it was originally directed at.
That just shows that the "ends justifies the means." If Microsoft hadn't made that business move, he'd have never started or gotten Mistwalker off the ground.
It was a money motivated initiation.
But it was not the money that motivated him to leave, he wanted to start the company because he wanted freedom to make the games he wanted to make. The only catch was that he had to make some Xbox exclusives to help xbox sales in japan. But that was only two games out of several mistwalker games. Microsoft also didn't try to change his games to appeal to a wider audience.
The guy behind the Xenosaga and recent Xenoblade games left square for the same reasons. He started monolith so he could make games he wanted.
I don't have a problem with Locked on disc content or even day 1 dlc (which alot of times comes free as a preorder incentive) as long as there is continued support for the game and additional DLC support lasting longer then the first three months.
Arkham City was mostly LDC, the costume pack, Robin DLC, and Catwoman DLC was all available day 1 depending where you preordered. The DLC schedule was released before the game was shipped. By all accounts that's BS. I understand the concept of having preorder incentives, and I think it's fair to eventually make those incentives available to the general public for a fee. But developers have to support a game with genuine additional content in addition to LDC. Which by the way Rocksteady is with this new fairly extensive Harley Quinn DLC.
Capcom fails at this. MvC3 had only two new characters and they where both LDC preorder bonuses. Then instead of releasing a $15 or even $20 DLC pack with 12 new characters they just release the game again with the content all on disc to try and screw the fans out of another $60.
Squirrelicus:
UMvC3 cost $40, not $60.
Capcom -supposedly- intended to dole out UMvC3's additions to MvC3 as regular periodic DLC but they blamed the earthquake in Japan on scuttling those plans. It still sounds like BS to me. Nevertheless, their biggest mistake with UMvC3 was not the fact that they released it, but when – 8 months after their previous edition was begging for them to get raked over the coals and they deserve flak for that.
BTW, SFxT is the answer to the backlash over UMvC3. And now there's even bigger backlash over that. Capcom can't win really. I wouldn't be surprised if their response to SFxT's unwarranted backlash is to simply not make any DLC. Note that doesn't mean they'lt include extra stuff for free – they'll simply not bother making it in the first place.
I think the developers of kingdom of Amalur have found the balance,a very long game with quality dlc,naughty dog are close but their dlc is so far apart it kind of neutralizes things
Im ok with locked disc content if it is needed for a massive DLC… kinda like having a couple of huge areas already designed on the disc if it means that the DLC will be able to utilize it and it hurrys the DLC along. But dont put it on the disc then 8 months later release the DLC… because you already have the hardest part (the map build) on the disc.
Well, if they want to poke people with the DLC issue all the time I think a contentious consumer base is important to keep them in check because this IS the gaming landscape now. They really do rely on the extra money and gamers really do remember when some of this stuff didn't cost extra.
We gotta coexist, and that's often about having a good moan. It feels good, just b*tch about something now and then and you're good. I don't like this "shut up and live with it" idea. No, I'll live with it but I gotta be able to moan. It's extremely underrated.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 4/17/2012 12:32:26 PM